Sino-US English Teaching, ISSN 1539-8072 December 2012, Vol. 9, No. 12, 1733-1738 D DAVID PUBLISHING The Effect of Using L1 (Arabic Language) in the L2 (English Language) Classroom on the Achievement in General English of Foundation Year Students in King Abdulaziz University Salameh Saleem Mahmoud King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia This study aims at investigating the effect of using L1 (Arabic Language) while teaching a target language (English Language) on the achievement in General English of foundation year students in King Abdulaziz University. To achieve the purpose of the study, the researcher used an experimental design: an experimental group and a control group. The independent variable is using L1 while teaching English in very limited and specified areas. The dependent variable is students achievement in general English. The statistics used is the t-test. The population of the study was all students enrolled in the foundation year 1431/1432 in the ELI (English Language Institute) at King Abdulaziz University. The sample of the study consisted of 50 students taking North Star in the sections A and B as a university requirement in the foundation year 1431/1432 in King Abdulaziz University. The results of the study were in favor of banning Arabic in the English language classroom as shown in the mean scores of the control and experimental groups in the tables. It is recommended that teachers and instructors should be trained to use teaching strategies that help them use English only in the English language classroom. Keywords: L1 (Arabic Language), L2 (English Language), ELI (English Language Institute), foundation year (the first year for students at the university where they take general courses) Introduction The role of the mother tongue (L1 (first language)) in EFL (English as a foreign language) teaching context, as well as the use of translation as a language learning/teaching resource, has long been the subject of much controversy and academic debate in both L2 (second language) acquisition and professional teaching spheres (Juarez & Oxbrow, 2008). L2 teaching, like most teaching fields, is constantly evolving. During the grammar-translation era, using the native speakers L1 was considered a necessity. With the advent of audio-lingual approaches followed by communicative methods, the use of L1 was almost totally eliminated. Now that more experiential approaches are in the forefront, L2 educators are once again wondering if L1 has a place in the second and foreign language learning environments. One area where debate is now raging is over the use of the learner s L1 in the classroom rather than only L2. In the methodology proposed by the core countries the US and Salameh Saleem Mahmoud, assistant professor in curriculum and teaching, English Language Institute, King Abdulaziz University.
1734 USING L1 (ARABIC LANGUAGE) IN THE L2 (ENGLISH LANGUAGE) CLASSROOM Britain the use of L1 was strongly discouraged, but times have changed and there are now two opposing camps. Supporters of only L2 claim that children do not learn with reference to another language. This model has been the basis of all 20th century teaching methodologies. Using L2 meant that learners got lots of practice in speaking and listening to English and had to negotiate meaning if they did not understand. Whereas supporters of L1 said that while communicating abstract ideas, with beginners, with tasks that involve problem solving and while giving instructions especially in teaching grammar L1 is unavoidable. Review of Literature One of the ongoing debates among language teachers is that whether or not to use the students L1 in a foreign language (L2) classroom or learning environment. There seems to be a wide range of opinions on the degree of L1 use. Few researchers and educators (Cole, 1998; Thibault, 2001; La Van, 2001; Deller & Rinvolucri, 2004; Nazary, 2008; Banos, 2009) propose various types of limitations of L1 use and suggested some factors that may affect such decision. Among these factors are: social and cultural norms, students motivation and goals, whether or not English is a primary means of communication in the environment external to the classroom, age and proficiency of the students, and linguistic make-up of the class. A large number responded negatively to any suggestions that allow L1 while teaching a target language. Among those who permit L1 while teaching a target language is (Reineman, 2002; Eleni, 2002; Connick, 2002; Pilch, 2002; Portaluri, 2002; as cited in Stanley, 2002) who limited the use of L1 to communicating ideas that are abstract. Otherwise, drawings, noises, pantomime, and explanation are the best strategies to introduce new vocabulary, they also pointed out that L1 can be used to support L2 acquisition especially in homogenous classes when appropriate, but not in the case where the use of L1 rescued unprepared teachers. They also suggested using L1 with beginners to assess them in feeling comfortable and to encourage them to take risks and recommended the use of L1 while teaching grammar, in order to check how some students understood the instruction. Drukovskis (2002, as cited in Stanley, 2002) conducted an experiment in which she taught a multilingual class of about 34 people. She sorted them into L1 groups so that they can help each other. She did not speak anything other than English in the class. The students who came from countries where they were the only ones of that nationality in the class dropped out quite quickly. The ones with the L1 support groups stayed till the end of the course. Oniz (2002, as cited in Stanley, 2002) said that students used to use L1 in this case Turkish to conduct pair work or group work with tasks that involve problem solving. They discuss the solution using L1 but at the end they present a written task in English. Banos (2009) and Kavaliauskiene (2009) found out that the native language has a facilitating role and is necessary to motivate young children. They said that the use of mother tongue is justified as soon as it is beneficial for students. They also added that using L1 as long as it is justified has a motivating effect especially for beginner levels. Banos limited the justified use of L1 as follows: when you feel that it is more important for students to understand a concept than it is for a concept to be explained, to solve a comprehension difficulty, when explaining instructions of tasks. L1 is also justified to resolve a conflict or to solve a behavioral problem. The opponents of using L1 while teaching L2 seem to be very strict concerning this issue. Weschler (1997) pointed out that whatever justification is claimed for the English only classroom is based on two arguments: first
USING L1 (ARABIC LANGUAGE) IN THE L2 (ENGLISH LANGUAGE) CLASSROOM 1735 the rejection of the Grammar Translation Method and second the false assumption that an English only requirement is an essential element of modern communicative methodologies. He suggested a mixture of the best in Grammar Translation Method with the best in Communicative method. He called the mixture The Functional Translation Method. He also stated four areas behind the failure of the Grammar Translation Method. First, thinking in the mother tongue inhibits thinking directly in the target language. Mother tongue interposes an intermediate process between the concept and the way it is expressed in the foreign language thus hindering the ability to think in a target language. Such process is called interference. Second, the mother tongue is a crutch: the more quickly it is disposed of the better. Third, too much reliance on L1 will result in the fossilization of an intra-language that is neither L1 nor L2. Fourth, the use of L1 is a waste of time that had better be spent on the target language. Cook (2001) described three main arguments for L1 avoidance. First, he said that L2 learning should model L1 acquisition of unilinguals. Second, successful L2 learning requires the L2 learners to keep the L1 and the L2 as separate entities. Third, students will not be convinced that the L2 is a viable and effective means of communication if the teacher does not promote it. Tillyer (2002, as cited in Stanley, 2002) described it as absurd to talk a language other than the target language for any reason. He said: I think that teachers who speak to students in their L1 to make them feel better in L2 are really misguided. It is a form of sabotage. The more the students speak L1 instead of L2, The longer they will remain in the miserable limbo of being unable to communicate in L2. (p. 4) Taylor (2002, as cited in Stanley, 2002) used a clear analogy to show the importance of using the target language. He said: Learning a language is like learning to swim. You have to get in there, splash around, get wet, and probably swallow a few mouthfuls of water. If you continue to hold on the bar at the side and are not discouraged from doing so, you will never win an Olympic medal. (p. 20) To sum up, the author believes that a well-trained and resourceful L2 teacher can act out, demonstrate, illustrate, or lead students to what is required in class without using L1. Teachers need to be given a variety of techniques to help them operate effectively in L2 with beginners and adults. Any escape to L1 is justified as lack of patience especially while teaching vocabulary, lack of preparation on the part of the teacher or being unable to use the target language. Methodology Subjects The subjects of the study consisted of 50 foundation year students in King Abdulaziz University in the academic year 1431/1432. The students are classified as level 3 and fall in two sections. Instrument A general English pre-test was constructed and used as an equivalency test. The pre-test included 25 multiple choice items covering chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10 from North Star Level 3. The control group and the experimental group were taught by the same teacher. While teaching the control group, the teacher used English language only as a medium for teaching, and while teaching the experimental group, he used Arabic in very
1736 USING L1 (ARABIC LANGUAGE) IN THE L2 (ENGLISH LANGUAGE) CLASSROOM limited and specified situations. The limited use of L1 while teaching L2 covers the areas mentioned in Banos (2009). These are: when you feel that it is more important for students to understand a concept than it is for a concept to be explained, to solve a comprehension difficulty, when explaining instructions of tasks, to resolve a conflict or to solve a behavioral problem, and to provide a quick and accurate translation of an English abstract word that might take several minutes to explain. Testing Procedure One day prior to applying the strategy, all subjects were given the pre-test that consists of 25 Multiple Choice Questions and covers the four English language skills in addition to grammar and vocabulary. The test was validated by a group of specialists and piloted on 10 students outside the sample. Eight weeks later, approaching the end of the semester, all subjects were given the same test. The reason for using exactly the same test for both pre- and post-test was to assure an exactly comparable test. The eight weeks interval between the administration of the pre- and post-test was deemed long enough to control for any short term memory effect, since subjects were not provided with the correct answers after the pre-test even were they to remember how they had answered the questions the first time. They had no way of knowing whether that answer was correct. Results To find out whether there are any statistically significant differences between the means of the control and the experimental groups on the pre- and post-test, a t-test was used and results were as follows (see Table 1). Table 1 Mean Scores of the Control and the Experimental Groups on the Pre-Test Variable 1 Variable 2 Mean 14.12 14.00 Variance 15.28 8.00 Observations 25.00 25.00 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.00 Df 44.00 T stat. 0.12 P (T t) one-tail 0.45 T critical one-tail 1.68 P (T t) two-tail 0.90 T critical two-tail 2.02 Table 1 shows that t statistical (0.12) is too smaller than t critical (2.02) which means that there is no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group on the pretest. This can be seen in the nearly equal mean scores for the control group and the experimental group respectively 14.12 and 14.00. The equal mean scores on the pre-test means that any significant difference in the means on the post-test will be attributed to the treatment that is using or not using L1 in the L2 classroom. Table 2 shows that the mean scores are in favor of the control group (using L2 only) which is 20.48. Whereas the mean score of the experimental group is 18.40. As the table shows, t statistical (2.49) is more than t critical (1.68) which means that the difference in mean scores is statistically effective.
USING L1 (ARABIC LANGUAGE) IN THE L2 (ENGLISH LANGUAGE) CLASSROOM 1737 Table 2 Mean Scores of the Control Group and the Experimental Group on the Post-Test Variable 1 Variable 2 Mean 20.48 18.40 Variance 6.68 10.83 Observations 25.00 25.00 Pooled Variance 8.76 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.00 Df 48.00 T stat. 2.49 P (T t) one-tail 0.01 T critical one-tail 1.68 P (T t) two-tail 0.02 P (T t) two-tail 2.01 This significant difference in the mean scores indicates that using L2 (English language) only in the classroom has a positive effect on students achievement in English. Among the strategies that the teacher used in the control group to avoid using L1 are: getting meaning from contexts, paraphrasing, miming, gestures, and the use of realia and paralinguistic features (Larea, 2002). Discussion The results of the t-test were in favor of not using L1 in a foreign EFL class as indicated in the statistically significant difference in the mean scores of the experimental and control groups. An instructor who is going to avoid using the direct translation will certainly spend more time and effort preparing for his class. While teaching vocabulary, he will prepare clear definitions, examples, and illustrations in order to clarify the meanings of the new vocabulary items. He will think of creative techniques to avoid using L1 in the class. In grammar, he will follow the inductive approach where he starts with the examples and ends with the rule which the students themselves discover and understand. Such approach demands much work on the part of the instructor who has to prepare well in order to help his students arrive to conclusions by themselves. In writing, he will spend much time in the prewriting stage providing students with ideas, vocabulary items, and patterns of structure to enable them to have the necessary input. In reading comprehension, he will use higher order thinking skills and prediction techniques to help his students understand and finally become independent. All these efforts increase the amount of exposure and engagement of students and encourage them to prepare in order to interact and ask questions in the class. In addition, their attention and participation will also increase, because they do not expect translation to their mother tongue. Furthermore, teachers who can do without Arabic language must be better qualified and assume good command of English language especially if they are nonnative and this will positively affect their students competence in English language. In the author s view, the controversy of using or banning L1 in the L2 classroom will continue as long as teaching English or any other target language exists. They exchange dominance depending on the type of what kind of output is required. Teachers the tools of implementation usually fall between theory and practice and between the demands of their superiors and the suffering of their students in classrooms. The Saudi environment
1738 USING L1 (ARABIC LANGUAGE) IN THE L2 (ENGLISH LANGUAGE) CLASSROOM is no exception, deans, and vice deans are willing to see their students competent and outstanding and students wait impatiently for the Arabic translation to feel that they are involved. However, teachers can follow certain techniques like simplifying, miming, drawing, acting, and many other techniques to help their students and to satisfy their superiors. References Banos, M. O. (2009). Mother tongue in the L2 classroom: A positive or Negative tool?. Revista Lindaraja, 21(4). Retrieved from www.realidadyficcion.es http://www.realidadyficcion.es/revista_lindaraja/revistalindaraja.htm Cole, S. (1998). The use of L1 in communicative English classroom. The Language Teacher, 25(10). Retrieved from http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pup/tlt/98/dec/cole.html Cook, V. J. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. CMLR, 57(3), 402-423. Deller, S., & Rinvolucri, M. (2004). Using the mother tongue. English teaching professionals. Surrey: Delta Publishing. Juarez, C. R., & Oxbrow, G. (2008). L1 in the EFL classroom: More help than a hindrance. Rorta Linguarum 9 enero (2008) 93-109. Kavaliauskiene, G. (2009). Role of mother tongue in learning English for specific purposes. ESP World, 22(8). Retrieved from http:// www. esp-world-info La Van, C. (2001). Help! They re using too much English! The problem of L1 vs L2 in the immersion classroom. ACIE. Newsletter, 4(2). Larea, E. (2002). Should we (or should we not) use L1 in the communicative English classroom?. Approach. Cuba: ALC Association do Linguistics de Cuba. Nazary, M. (2008). The role of L1 in L2 acquisition: Attitudes of Iranian University students. Noritas-ROYAL, 2(2), 138-153. Stanley, K. (2002). Using the first language in second language instruction: If, when, why, and how much?. TESL-EJ, 5(4), 1-22. Thibault, N. (2001). Using L1 to support L2 learning: Best practices the OCDSB way. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Second Language Teacher. Weschler, R. (1997, November). Uses of Japanese in the English classroom: Introducing the functional-translation method. The Internet TESL Journal (Online). Retrieved from http://www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/