The Use of the Students Mother Tongue in Monolingual English "Conversation" Classes at Japanese Universities

Page No.: 
3
Writer(s): 
Peter Burden, Okayama Shoka University

Although I have been teaching for a number of years in Japan, I recently
began to feel remote from the students as individuals, as there was little
natural conversational interaction either in English or the learners Mother
Tongue (MT). Students often seemed to be frantically searching for western
references in class stating, for example, that their favorite music group
was The Beatles or that they loved curry rice. In class, I used an "Only
English" approach, and so maybe students felt that all references to
their own culture were banished along with their language, which in turn
affected their attitude towards me out of class. Perhaps they felt they
were somehow forced into a situation where only English was acceptable.

My own teaching background has encouraged the use of "Only English,"
initially as a necessity when I was employed as an ESL language support
teacher for immigrants in an inner London state school. "Only English,"
as a classroom policy was emphasised further during subsequent teacher training,
when I underwent an experience similar to Mitchell's (1988, p. 28). I came
across die-hard methodologists who induced a "sense of guilt"
about levels of students MT use in classrooms, attributing it to either
"laziness or lack of will power and perseverance," or claiming
that the teacher somehow lacked the skills to circumvent its use.

Later, teaching for a year in Greece, and subsequently in Japan, I came
to believe that as learners only regular exposure to English is in the classroom,
an integral part of language learning is lost when learners' MT is used.
Using monolingual textbooks developed this view further. I tacitly agreed
with Littlewood (1992, p. 45) that learners will not be convinced by efforts
to make them accept the foreign language as an effective means of communication
if the teacher readily abandons it in the belief that needs transcend immediate
classroom use.

Therefore, I wanted to address the problem of my perceived remoteness
from students by getting feedback from them. Was a prescribed "Only
English" approach leading to resentment amongst students that their
own language was not wanted and therefore inferior? In a recent report,
the Education Ministry in Japan highlighted a survey carried out by University
students that criticized teacher performance across all subjects (Monbusho,
1997). Only 24% of students were "satisfied" with class content
and 19% with teachers methods of instruction, and the report concluded that
revision of class content is needed, with teacher self-monitoring and evaluation
being coupled with student views about course development. This prompted
me to conduct some action research to formulate some speculative and tentative
principles in relation to the amount of MT support required in class, based
on learner feedback. The aim was to generate hypotheses about what action
would lead to an improvement in classroom involvement and satisfaction for
students.

The Rationale for the Questionnaire

Auerbach (1994, p. 160) argues that it is the issue of language use that
should be negotiated, to arrive at guidelines that enhance the learning
environment and make instruction ore effective. She argues that the maintenance
of MT use in the classroom can create tension, with some students feeling
that its use actually slows language acquisition, wastes time, and leads
to bad feelings, while others see it as a necessary support.

It was decided to administer a questionnaire, loosely based on Prodromou
(1994), which would utilize a simple "yes" and "no"
closed format. A Likert five-point scale was considered, but not adopted
since Reids (1990) research into learning styles noted that while most students
use the entire range in a consistent manner, Japanese students tend to respond
towards the mean. Also, Ozeki (1995) objected to the wordings often used
in such scales, as they seem "extreme" to Japanese.

Table 1. Classifying the Students According to Their Majors

n=290


"0">
. Pre-intermediate intermediate Advanced postgraduate English 62 19 . . Education 30 10 39 . Engineering . . . 37 Comparative Culture 18 20 . . Communication 6 11 . . Law 30 . . . Japanese Literature 2 2 . . History 2 . . . Art . 1. . . Information Science . 1 . . Total 150 64 39 37

The Students

The questionnaire was administered in the second semester, to a range
of students across all four years and perceived ability levels, at four
universities, (three private and one national), within a city of a population
of 600,000 in Western Japan. There were 290 completed questionnaires from
subjects across a range of majors (see Table 1). First year students are
enrolled in classes called "pre-intermediate" classes, students
who have studied for two years are "intermediate," and those who
have studied for three or four years are "advanced." Some of the
subjects are "postgraduate" students and were classified as such,
because they came from a range of educational backgrounds and ages so their
English level could not easily be generalized.

Four native English speaker teachers and I administered the questionnaire.
After the teachers were instructed on the nature and purpose of the questionnaire,
they distributed and explained copies using their own typical mode of student
address and delivery. They were asked not to express their own opinions
(to avoid any "halo" effect or student expectancy), nor to state
the purpose of the research.

Across all ability levels, it was felt that the teacher should know the
learners mother tongue. There was a range from 95% for postgraduate to 72%
for advanced students. The responses to the second question indicate that
the ability level differences create marked changes of opinion and seem
to support the truism that the better the student, the less support is needed
from the mother tongue. Again the postgraduates required the most support,
that is 84% of them, dropping dramatically to 41% for the advanced students.
However, 59% of these students felt that the teacher should not use the
mother tongue in class. There was also a significant drop from pre-intermediate
83%, to intermediate 62.5%. This may indicate that the more advanced students
had less need to resort to or fall back on to MT because of a greater persistence
in studying English. This leads to a more active approach in that advanced
students seek out opportunities to utilize L2 knowledge. They may recognize
that practice in the target language is a necessary condition of language
learning, corroborating studies of "good" language learners (Skehan,
1989; Cook, 1991). The students want to express themselves and have greater
resources to express themselves. Intuitively, they may know what helps or
hinders language learning along the lines of the adage that "nothing
succeeds like success."

The overall results of question 2 are mirrored in question 3, with 73%
of all students believing that they should use the mother tongue in class,
this number only dropping slightly to 69% for advanced students. This may
support Oganes (1997) claim that, while many students want to be in the
class, they recognize the social aspect and importance of communication
and so frequently code-switch.

Table 2. Should the Teacher or the Student use the Mother Tonuge
in Class?

(All student responses were changed to a precentage. As whole
numbers were used, the sum may equal more than 100.)

. All students
n =290
Pre-intermediate
n =150
intermediate
n =64
Advanced
n =39
1. Should the teacher know the students' MT?


yes

87

no

13


yes

89

no

11


yes

88

no

13


yes

72

no

28

2. Should the teacher use the students' MT in class?

some-
times

73

never

27

some-
times

83

never

17

some-
times

63

never

38

some-
times

41

never

59

3. Should the students use their MT in class?

some-
times

73

never

27

some-
times

75

never

25

some-
times

72

never

28

some-
times

69

never

31

When should the teacher use Learners MT in class?

Looking back at question 2 in Table 2, in all 211 out of 290 subjects,
or 73%, said that the teacher should use the mother tongue in class, dropping
to 41% for advanced learners. As Cook (1991, p.81) has observed, "good,"
or successful, learners see language as being a combination of grammatical
and pragmatic knowledge. They pay constant attention to expanding and improving
language knowledge without relating everything back to their MT. In contrast,
OMalley and Chamot (1985, p.38) note that the most frequently used strategies
among beginner and intermediate students entail less active manipulation
of the learning task, and greater dependence on the teacher.

However, according to my study, it was felt that the teacher should not
use MT when explaining grammar, giving instructions, explaining class rules
or the reasons why the students are doing a task, testing, or checking for
understanding. Overall, the results in Table 3 show that opinion is split
on whether the teacher should use MT when explaining new words, with only
the intermediate students showing a majority in support. Most of the pre-intermediate
and the advanced learners doubted the value of such an approach, which may
show that many learners prefer to negotiate or use synonyms.

Explanations provide listening practice, yet the postgraduate students
may be more concerned with understanding the contexts in which the target
language is used to communicate. The MT can be used to demonstrate the differences
in the range of contexts and meanings that similar words have in the L1
and L2. They do not relate new vocabulary to the L1, instead developing
their knowledge of the L2 in its own right.

Question 5, on grammar explanations, revealed that, with the surprising
exception of the advanced students, grammar explanations in MT are seen
as undesirable. Such grammar explanations may have echoes of unpleasant
associations with high school, where English lessons comprised, essentially,
grammar, vocabulary, and translation (see LoCastro, 1997). Students do not
want talk about language usage, but practice in its use. However a majority
of advanced students (56%) advocated MT use in grammar explanations. This
may be because the comprehensive grammar explanations covered in high school
reach to the intermediate level, and so students now require more in-depth
explanations of the concepts that should go hand in with a communicative
approach. This means that the teacher should strike a balance between use
and usage.

As for pre-intermediate and intermediate students, their receptive understanding
of grammar is higher than their productive skills. As Nozaki (1993, p. 28)
notes, university freshman-level listening and speaking comprehension is
low as "they have been trained to read and analyze sentences grammatically,
but have had no practice in developing speaking or listening skills."

Table 3. When Should the Teacher use learner's MT in Class?
width="450" border="1" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="0">
. All students

n = 211 Pre-Intermediate

n = 124 Intermediate

n =40 Advanced

n =16 Postgraduate

n =31 . yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no 4. Explaining new worlds 50 50 48 52 55 45 44 56 58 42 5. Explaining grammar 37 63 42 58 28 73 56 44 19 81 6. Giving instructions 30 70 34 66 18 83 19 81 35 65 7. Talking about British culture 25 75 27 73 28 73 25 75 13 87 8. Talking about test 50 50 59 41 45 55 25 75 32 68 9. Explaining class rules 25 75 29 71 15 85 19 81 23 77 10. explaining why the students are doing something 24 76 27 73 30 70 13 87 10 90 11. Explaining differences between MT & English grammar 53 47 56 44 58 43 38 63 39 61 12. Testing the students 18 82 19 81 23 78 19 81 6 94 13. Checking for understanding 43 57 43 57 53 48 38 63 32 68 14. Relaxing the students 61 39 59 41 60 40 56 43 71 29 15. Creating human contact 38 62 41 59 23 78 44 56 42 58

Answers to questions 6 and 7 show students reject the idea of the teacher
using the MT when giving instructions (70%) or talking about British culture
(75%). These are real communicative situations, with a need for mutual understanding,
and "culture" includes the language of English as a cultural artifact.
Students thus do not want to be lectured in MT and recognize the importance
of communication here. In question 8, only the pre-intermediate "freshmen"
wanted the teacher to talk about tests in MT; that result shows their unease
in their introduction to tests devised by native speakers, as well as their
lack of experience of communicative testing.

In questions 9 (75%) and 10 (76%), many students did not want the teacher
to use MT when explaining class rules or the reasons for performing a certain
task. The students may feel that, not only do they not want explanations
in MT about why they are doing a task, but that such explanations are not
required in either language.

In answers to question 11, pre-intermediate and intermediate answers
(both 57%) show a slight majority in favor of the teacher using the mother
tongue in explaining the differences between English grammar and the mother
tongue. Unlike the advanced and postgraduate students, they have not developed
their knowledge of English in its own right, seeing it as a "separate
system" (see Cook, 1991, p. 80), instead relating information to their
first language. Skehan (1989, p. 73) shows that good learners judiciously
make cross-lingual comparisons and do not need the teacher to do so for
them explicitly.

All of the classes suggested that the teacher should use MT to relax
the students. Perhaps this result is linked to question 1, and may support
the hypothesis that, when deemed necessary, students turn to the language
they are most comfortable with, thus serving their basic psychological needs.
For the students, "relaxing" may mean no more than the teachers
use of the occasional phrase to encourage them, or the odd "joke"
or "interesting story" to facilitate a supportive and open environment,
without dismissing the MT. Interestingly, all levels rejected the use of
the MT to create human contact, showing that, along with questions 6 and
7 real communication with a native speaker, to the students means talking
in the target language.

In the light of these findings, I translated the feedback from students
into implications that might be of benefit to the ongoing process of teaching
English in Japan.

Implication 1: The Need for Strategy Training

Less successful learners often assume that little prior knowledge can
be applied to a learning task (Rubin, 1990), and often lack adequate tools
to cope, becoming restless or bored, and feeling inadequate when conversation
breaks down. One of the problems with teaching activities that rely on spontaneous
language use is that their lack of vocabulary forces students to use compensatory
strategies which may be insufficiently used without specific, informed training.
Pre-intermediate students may have experienced a traditional teacher-led
approach that leads to an overly passive, detached attitude to learning.
They cannot organize linguistic input into a coherent system. Good learners
or advanced students are more willing to take risks and use circumlocution,
paraphrase, cognates, or gestures to convey meaning.

Implication 2: Letting the Students into the Picture--Negotiating the
Syllabus

Cummins and Swain (1986) rightly note that acceptance of the home language
is essential in creating an environment conducive to learning, where feelings
of self-worth and confidence are fostered. Even if the teacher does not
speak the language in class, it is helpful if he or she understands what
the learners are saying and responds appropriately and supportively, building
on the students current linguistic repertoire and interests. Since learning
takes place through voluntary interaction, there is a need to impress upon
students the importance of practice for success. The teacher could prepare
a handout for the first class in the native language for the students to
read because they will be more willing to participate if they understand
how classes operate. As Harbord (1992, p. 352) writes, "if students
are unfamiliar with a new approach, the teacher who cannot or will not give
an explanation in the L1 may cause considerable student demotivation."
Similarly, the use of a "graffiti board," such as a white board
in the classroom, will allow students to express opinions anonymously in
their preferred language without the teacher being present. Later the teacher
can take these into account.

Implication 3: The Importance of Cultural Knowledge

A majority of students wanted the teacher to possess knowledge of MT
(question 1) and to use that knowledge in the classroom (question 2). Arguably,
a methodology which allows students to use language actively as a product
of their needs is best, as, often students are able to read and comprehend
advanced texts, yet stumble over what are seen as simple, everyday expressions,
because of lack of equivalence in their culture, or vice versa. The teacher
can anticipate by providing a pair of students a bilingual dialogue each,
one in MT and one in English, and asking the students to translate line
for line. The students can then compare and the students realize that there
is more than one way of saying the same thing. The teacher can also provide
useful idiomatic equivalents.


I wanted to address the problem of my perceived
remoteness from students by getting feedback from the students.


Similarly, cultures differ to a great degree in the uses of back channeling,
pauses, and other non-verbal behavior. Therefore contrastive analysis would
allow potential problems to be predicted and addressed through the design
of bilingual materials in which functional messages are accessed through
rough idiomatic equivalents. Through doing so, the students become aware
of the unlikelihood of perfect correspondence between languages, weaning
them away from beliefs that literal translation is necessary for complete
textual understanding.

Implication 4: Separate Speaking Time

Responses to questions 6 to 10, 12, 13, and 15 illustrate worries about
teacher overuse of learners MT. There is a need to create a natural learning
environment where language is used for communication with the learner spontaneously
utilizing learning potential in order to communicate successfully. The teacher
is crucial for confirmation of learners hypotheses and the acceptability
and correctness of language choices in the classroom. A separate speaking
time would allow for attention to explicit grammar that is totally separate
from English use during the rest of the lesson so that a sustained listening
environment is created. As Kaviloda (1994) notes, separation is necessary
so as not to create an environment in which TL use is relegated to exercise
practice while MT is used for sustained, real communicative talk. However,
in order to create grammatical or sociolinguistic skills, some students
need explicit reference to accelerate understanding. Therefore as an alternative
to a strict English Only policy, a period of five or ten minutes in the
middle of the lesson should be introduced where problems that have arisen
can be discussed. Cummins and Swain (1986, p. 106) have shown that the teacher
jumping between languages creates inattention; moreover, a separation approach
creates far greater effectiveness in that the teacher and the learner have
to work harder: "students are trying to make sense of what the teachers
message is; and the teachers are trying to present a meaning that makes
sense."


A more humanistic approach is needed that values
the students, their culture, and their language.


Conclusion

I have attempted to illustrate how the students in typical university
classes in Japan see the use of the mother tongue and there seems to be
a clear distinction often across all the ability levels between use and
usage. Students want the teacher to use the target language exclusively
when it is being used in communication, but expect the teacher to have a
knowledge of, and an ability to use MT when it is appropriate to explain
the usage of English. The principal aim of this paper is to invite practicing
teachers to address their own styles and methods of teaching while seeking
students opinions in their own situation. Instead of creating a "little
corner of an English speaking country" (Wingate, 1993, p.22), where
communication is exclusively in the TL, a more humanistic approach is needed
that values the students, their culture and their language.

References

Auerbach, E. (1994). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. ELT
Journal
, 27 (1), 9-32.

Cook, V. J. (1991). Second language teaching and learning. London:
Edward Arnold.

Cummins, J. & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education.
Harlow: Longman.

Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT
Journal,
46 (4), 350-355.

Kalivoda, T. (1994). Teaching grammar in the target language. In A. Swarbrick
(Ed.), Teaching modern languages (pp. 116-121). London: Open University
Press.

Littlewood, W. (1992). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

LoCastro, V. (1997). English language education in Japan. In H. Coleman
(Ed.), Society and the classroom (pp. 40-59). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Mitchell, R. (1988). Communicative language teaching in practice.
London: CILtr.

Monbusho (Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture).
(1995) Remaking Japanese universities: Continuing reform of higher education
[online]. www.monbu.go.jp

Nozaki, K. (1993). The Japanese student and the foreign teacher. In P.
Wadden (Ed.). A handbook for teaching English at Japanese colleges and
universities
(pp. 27-35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nunan, D. (1988). The learner centred curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Ogane, E. (1997). Codeswitching in EFL learner discourse. JALT Journal,
19
(1), 106-123.

OMalley, J. & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second
language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ozeki, N. (1995). Learning styles of Japanese students. Proceedings
of the 1995 JALT Conference
, pp. 120-128.

Prodromou, N. (1994). Mixed ability classes. London: Macmillan.

Reid, J. (1990) The dirty laundry of ESL survey research. TESOL Quarterly,
24, 323-338.

Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning.
London: Edward Arnold.

Swan, M. (1985). A critical look at the communicative approach. ELT
Journal
, 39 (1), 2-11.

Underwood, M. (1987). Effective classroom management. Harlow:

Wingate, J. (1993). Getting beginners to talk. Hemel Hempstead:
Prentice Hall International.



"0" align="left">

Peter Burden is an associate professor at Okayama Shoka University
and is interested in the perceptions students hold about English "conversation"
classes from a client-centered point of view. He has an MA in TESOL, and
has taught in Greece, as well as history at the high school level in his
native Britain.

burden-p@po.osu.ac.jp