The Use of Students’ First Language in the EFL Classroom in Korea
Seong Man Park, Korea
Dr. Seong Man Park has been teaching both English and Korean to Korean international students and to Korean immigrant secondary and college students in Montreal, Canada since 2004. He currently teaches at Dankook University in Korea. He is interested in helping Korean students for their effective English learning as a major foreign language in Korea. E-mail: seongman@hotmail.com
Menu
Introduction
The exclusive use of L2
The use of L1 in the L2 classroom
A. General ways of using L1 in the L2 classroom
B. Ways of using L1 in the L2 teaching and learning
Warnings of the overuse of L1 in L2 classroom and pedagogical implications
Conclusion
References
It is clear that students’ first language (L1) has an influential effect on the second or foreign language (L2) development; however, the use of the L1 in the L2 acquisition is still a controversial issue (Pan & Pan, 2010). In spite of the fact that the preferential use of English has much objection in the field of English language teaching (ELT), English is still believed to be the most proper and appropriate language that should be exclusively used in the ESL or EFL classroom (e.g., Auerbach, 1993; Ianziti & Brownlie, 2002). Nowadays, the number of private educational institutions and schools that obligate teachers and students to use only English in the EFL classroom in Korea is gradually growing, without paying careful attention to the effectiveness of the use of L1 and the balanced use of L1 and L2. In this regard, this paper will explore the role of L1 in the L2 classroom and the effective use of L1 for an efficient L2 development in a monolingual context (e.g., Korean EFL context) where teachers and learners share the same L1.
This paper begins with a review of the general opinions for the exclusive use of L2, followed by a review of some representative opinions about the use of L1. Then a review of the several ways of using L1 and warnings against the overuse of L1 will be provided. This paper closes with pedagogical implications.
The attitudes against the use of L1 are apparently the main concerns in the area of L2 learning (Cook, 2001). First, Polio and Duff (1994) see the use of L2 as positive and the use of L1 as negative in the sense that learners should be exposed to L2 as much as possible. Duff and Polio (1990) also claim that the amount of L2 use in the L2 classroom is important for the development of L2 especially when there is little opportunity for learners to be exposed to L2 outside the classroom, since it is the only time and place for the learners to be exposed to L2. In addition, several other scholars (e.g., Auerbach, 1993; Ellis, 1984) also argue that L2 learning requires as much exposure to L2 as possible within a limited time, so that learners can have ample opportunity to communicate in L2 and to start to “think in English” (Auerbach, 1993, p. 15). The second factor supporting the exclusive use of L2 is the enhancement of students’ L2 learning motivation. For instance, Turnbull (2001) claims that instructors should use L2 as much as possible in the L2 class setting so that learners can simulate L2 as their primary language. Third, Asher (1986) argues that an L2 acquisition should be treated the same way as an L1 acquisition so that learners do not rely on other languages as they had previously done in their L1 learning. In a similar vein, Cook (2003) introduces “the separation model” (p. 6) which emphasizes the fact that each language has its own system. This model supports the idea that L2 should be taught only in L2 with no trace of L1 so that the learners can form their new L2 system.
Mutuality (Interdependence): L2 learners can use both languages at the same time depending on the situations they encounter in their classroom, given that both languages are related and intertwined. Cook (2001) defines this criterion as “reciprocality” (2001, p. 411). Cook explains the alternation between two languages as a radical way to use both languages in a school day. With regard to the interdependence of two languages, Cummins (1989) introduces “the Linguistics Interdependence Principle” (p. 44). Through this principle, he mentions that strong knowledge in L1 can make an acquisition of L2 much more efficient and easier due to a positive knowledge transfer from L1 to L2 and vice versa (Cummins, 1989).
Bilingual Method: The “bilingual method” (Cook, 2001, p. 413) is widely practiced in the EFL classroom in Korea. However, this bilingual method practiced in Korea is different from the method presented by Cummins (1989), since both teachers and learners have the same L1 background in Korean school settings compared to multilingual settings in the United States and Canada. In this method, L1 is usually used to help the learners understand the meanings of L2 through teachers’ explanation in L1. The educators usually use both languages together when they are conducting their L2 classes. They read out the sentences in L2 and provide their interpretations in L1; then, students are asked to repeat the sentences together and individually (Dodson, 1967). Such method reduces the time spent on grasping the meaning of the L2 sentences, considering the limited class time allotted. In fact, explaining everything in English may render the inputs incomprehensible especially for beginners (Lee, 2001). Moreover, learners can ask any questions in Korean should they feel unable to do so in English: If they are not allowed to use their L1 in this situation, they are not likely to ask any questions or to participate actively in their L2 classroom.
New Concurrent Method: In Korean school settings, both languages (i.e., L1 and L2) co-exist. Teachers can freely switch their instructional language from L1 to L2 and vice versa depending on the settings (Schweers, 1999) while teaching L2. Therefore a natural situation of the use of L2 where both languages are concurrent can be built up in the L2 classroom. The general role of L1 in this method (i.e., “New Concurrent Method”) is to promote L2 learning through a real use of L2 in a natural situation (Cook, 2001, p. 412). From this point of view, using Korean and English together with a prudent balance between the two languages in Korean EFL classrooms can create positive attitudes toward the development of learning English, since the use of Korean can help reduce a certain level of stress associated with learning of the English language.
To explain grammars and meanings: L1 can be used to explain grammars and to convey the meanings of new words and sentences (Cook, 2001). However, this does not mean that teachers should explain the two aforementioned in L1 all the time, since a quick literal translation of, for example, an expression in one language into another often does not fully represent its authentic meaning or nuance. Moreover, if the learners are unable to recognize the differences, the immediate translation can lead them to making “false analogies and interferences” (Orton, 1975, p. 139) between two languages. In this scenario, the use of L1 in tandem with L2 by the educators can be more efficient than their exclusive use of L2 due to their “keen awareness of the differences between L2 and the learners’ L1” (Maum, 2002, p. 3), which can give them the capacity to address the learners’ problems with grammars and reading comprehension in their L2 learning.
Organization of the class and task: In the EFL classroom, teachers should give precise instructions to their students about each task so that they can understand and carry it out accordingly. As Macaro (1997) mentions, some instructors have tried in vain to organize the task using L2 only to return to L1 in order to instruct them correctly. Once again, the efficient use of L1 should be emphasized on this matter. If teachers provide students with a clear, quick, yet fairly detailed instruction in L1 on the task, students in return will be able to understand what they have to do (Cook, 2001; Orton, 1975).
Scaffolding: Teachers usually encourage their students to use L2 in group or pair work. But learners are likely to use L1 to carry out the task through explaining and negotiating the task with one another because L1 can provide “scaffolding” (Cook, 2001, p. 418) for learners to cooperate with the peers on the task. Learners can use L1 to determine meanings and carry out their task correctly with their group members without committing many mistakes. So long as they are continually encouraged to use L2 exclusively in their task, they have to rely on their limited L2 ability to accomplish their task without scaffolding among themselves.
Testing (Translation): Translation is usually used as a way of testing the ability to use L2. Some researchers (e.g., Atkinson, 1987) claim that translation is the best way to test one’s knowledge about L2 because it can provide reliability in testing his or her command of L2. However, there have been huge debates on this subject: Some people argue that translation cannot evaluate the learners’ ability to use L2 in a real situation, while others believe that it is a good way of testing as the learners have to know grammars, idioms, cultural background, and even nuances of L2 in order to translate perfectly. This implies that effective translation as a good way of testing should not only deal with the mechanical aspects of translation from words to words or from sentences to sentences between two languages, but should also include collaborating with contextual clues for grasping meanings as well as being aware of the differences in their linguistic features between the two (Tang, 1997). If the learners rely too much on quick translation, numerous inappropriate results will be brought up because of “a one-to-one correlation” (Tang, 1997, p. 56) between two languages regardless of the context; thus, the piecemeal translation of grammars or words in the L2 testing should be avoided. Through comprehensive and effective translation that requires good background knowledge in both L1 and L2, students’ comprehensive knowledge of the L2 can be evaluated through a well-developed and organized translation.
As shown above, there is a role for L1 in the L2 development, but this by all means does not suggest that L1 should be the main language in the L2 classrooms (Pan & Pan, 2010). Some researchers (e.g., Atkinson, 1987; Turnbull, 2001) also warn the adverse effects of the excessive reliance on L1 in the L2 classrooms. Atkinson (1987, p. 246) illustrates three problems that may be caused by the overuse of L1 in the L2 classroom: (1) Learners always expect a quick translation; (2) They are not likely to succeed in being aware of the differences and similarities between two languages due to an immediate and inaccurate translation and; (3) They are ignoring the importance of the use of L2 in the L2 classrooms. In light of these problems, Turnbull (2001) stresses the importance of a judicious and balanced use of L1 in L2 classroom.
In this regard, several scholars (e.g., Auerbach, 1993; Cook, 2001; Duff & Polio, 1990; Friedlander, 1990; Lee, 2001; Tang, 1997) suggest diverse pedagogical implications in a balanced use of L1 in the L2 classrooms. Here are five implications suggested by these scholars: (1) Use of L1 when it is necessary: It can be helpful to reduce the learners’ anxiety and stress in the L2 classroom. It can give students autonomy in their language use in the L2 classroom so that they can develop their “meta-cognitive awareness” (Auerbach, 1993, p. 24) of L2 learning; (2) Use of L1 in their task: It might be useful for learners to overcome their limitations by carrying out their task implementing collective efforts with their peers in L1 ; (3) Use of L1 supplementary materials (e.g., grammars, difficult expressions, and idioms): These materials can help learners study L2 without the assistance of the teachers outside of the L2 classroom. This might be particularly helpful for those in the beginner’s level in L2 because of their lack of L2 knowledge; (4) Use of bilingual dictionaries under the guidance of the teachers in the L2 classroom. Concerning this issue, Tang (1997) analyzes Chinese students’ use of the pocket bilingual electronic dictionaries in the ESL classroom in Canada. She concludes that there is no correct answer because the use of the bilingual dictionaries has both advantages and shortcomings in the development of L2 learning. As Tang (1997) mentions, an excessive use of dictionaries might deprive the L2 learners of the chances to guess or predict the meanings of the new vocabulary through the context. Thus, she suggests that the use of the bilingual dictionaries in the L2 classrooms must be closely monitored with respect to the purpose of the class. If the learners heavily depend on bilingual dictionaries, they are not likely to seek solutions from their teachers, peers, or other resources in the L2 classroom. However, proper instructions and appropriate use of the bilingual dictionaries can overcome the weaknesses of the use of the devices because a “bilingual dictionary is one of the more potent strategies, especially for ESL students with good background knowledge of their L1” (Tang, 1997, p. 55). She also claims that the main strength of bilingual dictionaries is the possibility to enable the learners to facilitate their individual learning because the bilingual dictionaries “can serve as a bridging purpose” (Tang, 1997, p. 56) between two different languages. If the learners are provided with a proper guidance of using those dictionaries, it can be an efficient way for the L2 learning strategies in the L2 classroom, and; (5) Use of L1 in planning and producing the L2 writing on certain topics (Friedlander, 1990): The L2 learners are usually encouraged to use only L2 when they compose in L2 regardless of the topics based on the notion that the negative transfer from their L1 may influence their L2 writing. With regard to this concern, Friedlander (1990) maintains that “positive transfer of first language-related content will be enhanced when writers write using the language in which the information was acquired” (p. 112). This suggests that certain topics related to their L1 experience can enhance the learners’ writing ability especially in the planning phase (Friedlander, 1990). In this respect, a strict enforcement of the exclusive use of L2 at all times might deprive the L2 learners of their opportunity to use positive transfer from L1 especially in L2 writing tasks.
Through the qualitative analysis of teachers’ language use in foreign language classrooms at an English-speaking university, Polio and Duff (1994) brought up a basic question about the suitable ratio of L1 to L2 usage in the L2 classroom. On this matter, there are several different opinions about the proper ratio. Atkinson (1987, p. 242) maintains that a ratio of about 5% of L1 to about 95% of L2 at early levels may prove to be suitable. Turnbull (2001) also argues that the teachers who are heavily depending on L1 are usually using L2 less than 25% of their class time. This seems to indicate that there is no answer on this matter, since this ratio should be applied differently and judiciously contingent on the situations of each L2 classroom, the different levels of the learners, and the various characters of the L2 classroom.
Overall, this paper confirms that “students’ L1 is an overwhelmingly powerful tool that should neither be denied nor abandoned in foreign language classrooms” (Pan & Pan, 2010, p. 94) by emphasizing the important roles of the balanced and positive use of L1 in the L2 classroom for the effective development of L2 learning.
Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal, 41(4), 241-247.
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. Tesol Querterly, 27, 9-32.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402-423.
Cook, V. (2003). The changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind. In Cook, V (Eds), Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 1-18). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Dodson, C. J. (1967). Language teaching and the bilingual method. London: Pitman.
Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74, 154-164.
Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second languages development. Oxford: Pergamon.
Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed) Second language writing (pp. 109-125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ianziti, J. R., & Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher use of learners’ native language in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3), 402-426.
Lee, E. P. (2001). The positive role of mother tongue as written form in English class. English Language & Literature Teaching, 7(1), 21-34.
Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Maum, R. (2002). Nonnative-English –speaking teachers in the English teaching profession
(Report No. EDO-FL-02-09). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED470982)
Orton, E. (1975). The use of the mother tongue in FL teaching: A reassessment. Modern Languages, 56(3), 138-142.
Pan, Y. C., & Pan, Y. C. (2010). The use of L1 in the foreign language classroom. Colombian applied linguistics journal, 12 (2), 87-96.
Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classroom: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 313-326.
Schweers, C. W., Jr. (1999). Using L1 in the L2 classroom. English Teaching Forum, 37(2),
6. Retrieved August 20, 2011, from http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/usia/E-USIA/forum/acrobat/P6.pdf
Tang, G. M. (1997). Pocket Electronic Dictionaries for second language learning: Helping or hindrance? TESL Canada Journal, 15(1), 39-57.
Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, But....The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 531-540.
Please check the Building Positive Group Dynamics course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the How to be a Teacher Trainer course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Creative Communication Skills for Teachers and Teacher Trainers course at Pilgrims website.
|
