The Language Teacher
06 - 2000
The Use of the Students Mother Tongue in Monolingual English "Conversation" Classes at Japanese Universities
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.
n=290
| . | 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.
(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? |
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| 2. Should the teacher use the students' MT in class? |
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| 3. Should the students use their MT in class? |
|
|
|
|
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."
| . | 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.
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.
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website