The Language Teacher
01 - 2003

Attitude Change Towards Mother Tongue Usage in Conversation Class

Peter Burden

Okayama Shoka University, Japan

Parrill Stribling

International Pacific College, New Zealand




Background

Opinions regarding Mother Tongue (MT) usage range from "it wastes time" to "it generates poor reactions" to "it is a necessary support" (see Auerbach, 1993, p. 23). An English Only environment is believed by some observers to deprive the learner of natural communication (Allwright & Bailey, 1994), as MT usage is the "expression of the primary identity" (Pattanayak, 1986, p. 5). Wong-Filmore, however, argues that MT usage leads the learners to "count on getting the information that is being communicated to them in language they already know and they do not find it necessary to pay attention when the language they do not understand is being used" (1985, p. 35). Chaudron (1988) believes a dense target language environment is needed whereby not only the instructions and drills, but also management operations are carried out. Others suggest learners need "incomprehensible input" (Gass, Mackey, & Pica, 1998, p. 301) to recognize their own L2 production inadequacies and Swain (1985) states that students need to be pushed to get their meanings across.

Williams and Burden (1997) believe "the perceived value of the activity" (p. 125) is crucial for nurturing motivation. Related to this is the theory of self-efficacy where once an activity is perceived helpful outside the classroom it obtains a personal significance and "then powerful motivating conditions are likely to be set." (p. 129). Wenden (1991) concurs that acceptability is intrinsic to students' beliefs about their capabilities as learners and predisposes them to assume responsibility for their learning.

Previous attitudinal studies in Japan (Kobayashi, Redekop, & Porter, 1992; Benson, 1991) have reported tertiary students consider English important for international communication and for future employment, but had low self-esteem concerning their language abilities. Kimura, Nakata, and Okumura (2001, p. 64) concluded that Japanese students have "inhibitory factors operating against learning English."

Aims

This study focuses on the extent that student attitudes towards the teaching methodology and their own classroom learning approaches change over a single semester. The two research questions are:

  1. What are the students' initial attitudes towards mother tongue usage in the classroom?
  2. How have students' attitudes changed by the end of the semester course?

Subjects

Four compulsory English conversation classes, consisting of Education and Law majors, taught by one of the authors at a National University in western Japan were surveyed for two consecutive semesters. Responses from only 151 students who had completed both the initial and final administrations were used (see Table 1).

Table 1: Population by Gender


  Semester  
  First Second Total
Female 44 43 87
Male 40 24 64
Total Students 84 67 151

Methods

The instrument

The initial survey was administered at the end of the first lesson. The second survey was given in the final class prior to reviewing for the end of semester test.

The questionnaire had 19 items, and a 5-point Likert scale with values of 1 ("I think never") to 5 ("Yes, always"). The questionnaires were anonymous; data was entered according to student numbers. The teacher did not have access to the numbers. This was to avoid any "halo" effect. Students were also assured that their responses would have no effect on their grades.

Reliability

The reliability of the instrument was examined in two analyses (see Table 2). The Alpha reliability and the split-half reliability analyses have acceptable coefficients.

Table 2: Reliability


ItemsAlphaSplit-half# of Items
q4 - q17.92.8913
q18 - q23.84.856
q26 - q34.85.859
q36 - q45.31.4610
Total.90.6538

Note: N = 151

Validity

A Chi-square test for goodness-of-fit and for independence between variables was performed because the mother tongue questionnaire was only a survey with a small number of cases and there was no assumption about the distribution of the population (Jalsingh, 2000). The results of this analysis found significant differences on all but two items (see Table 3). These results support the survey's validity.

Table 3: Chi-Square Results


Item Pre-Survey Post Survey
1. Should a teacher know and understand the student's MT? 100.19*** 120.69***
2. Should the teacher speak the student's MT in class? 113.64*** 103.47***
3. Should the students speak their MT in class? 84.56*** 50.12***
4. Explaining new words? 38.03*** 40.75***
5. Explaining grammar? 55.45*** 38.50***
6. Giving instructions? 28.10*** 41.15***
7. Talking about British or American Culture? 9.62* 44.86***
8. Talking about end of semester tests? 59.09*** 26.45***
9. Explaining class rules? 24.19*** 10.95*
10. Telling students why they are doing something? 49.03*** 69.82***
11. Explaining the differences between MT grammar and English grammar? 42.60*** 39.43***
12. Giving a test? 24.39*** 23.00***
13. Checking for understanding? 30.29*** 37.97***
14. Relaxing with students? 6.6490 14.19*
15. Being friendly with students? 13.66** 29.76***
16. When students do not understand? 76.91*** 38.10***
Should students speak their MT when
17. They want to ask the teacher a question? 16.91** 48.03***
18. They ask "How do you say --- in English?" 11.61* 31.21***
19. Talking to their friends? 13.20* 21.94***
20. Explaining something to a partner? 21.28*** 26.84***
21. They do not want to speak English? 31.28*** 82.74***
22. Talking about why they are doing their pair work? 32.94*** 46.05***
Why do you speak MT?
23. Do you speak Japanese in class? 100.19*** 100.19***
24. To continue the conversation 22.74*** 33.60***
25. Because my partner does not understand 16.78** 8.0397
26. Because I do not understand 39.82*** 14.79**
27. I want to speak in MT 21.15*** 36.78***
28. I don't like speaking English to my friend † 95.78*** 108.30***
29. I am tired of speaking English † 46.18*** 56.45***
30. My partner wants to speak in MT 41.28*** 25.05***
31. MT is easier that English 24.79*** 26.11***
32. I don't like English † 128.70*** 138.76***
In pair work, when you don't understand, What do you do?
33. Give up † 44.20*** 88.17***
34. Talk about something different † 47.17*** 22.67***
35. Translate into MT † 69.49*** 85.52***
36. Try to find a different word 97.31*** 88.63***
37. Guess what your partner is saying 97.84*** 43.83***
38. Use a dictionary 43.13*** 19.89***
39. Use a gesture or a mime 48.23*** 51.48***
40. Ask a friend in MT† 54.92*** 55.52***
41. Ask the teacher in English 62.21*** 78.90***
42. Ask the teacher in MT† 36.58*** 59.49***
If you wanted to speak to the Native-Speaker teacher after class, would you
43. Speak to the teacher in English? 62.34*** 84.19***
44. Want the teacher to speak to you in English? 82.94*** 72.54***
If you met your teacher downtown, would you:
45. Speak to the teacher in English? 58.96*** 39.82***
46. Want the teacher to speak to you in English? 75.98*** 52.07***

Notes:
1. Columns two and three list pre and post chi-square values for each variable.
2. N = 151
3. Marked numerals indicate significance: * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001

Analyses

The t-test, Wilcoxon Ranked Sums, and Binominal test analyses were performed on the initial and final surveys. The t-test analysis was conducted to determine if there were differences between initial and final averages and to determine gender change differences. The Wilcoxon Ranked Sums analysis is a non-parametric tool that detects distribution differences of two related variables. Both binominal and nominal variables were examined with the Wilcoxon Ranked Sums analysis. A Binominal test was also preformed on four items. Significance for all analyses was set at .05, which means that if there were any significant differences on averages there is a 5% chance of this occurring. While a coefficient indicates a value obtained from a particular analysis, the degree of significance indicates the level of probability.

Results

Results indicate that there were significant differences between the initial and final measures. T-test results reported significance on ten items, indicating students were more inclined towards target language usage by the semester's end (see Table 4). The Wilcoxon Ranked Sums results reveal similar significant changes in attitudes.

Table 4: T-test and Wilcoxon Ranked Sums Analyses Initial to Final Administration


Item Initial Mean Final Mean Difference Z
4. Explaining new words? 3.457 3.026 -0.43*** -3.682***
5. Explaining grammar? 3.623 3.265 -0.36*** -3.115**
6. Giving instructions? 3.007 2.636 -0.37*** -3.633***
7. Talking about British or American Culture? 2.662 2.364 -0.30** -2.627**
8. Talking about end of semester tests? 3.828 3.338 -0.49*** -3.940***
9. Explaining class rules? 3.139 2.887 -0.25** -2.006*
10. Telling students why they are doing something? 2.921 2.755 -0.17* -1.390
11. Explaining the differences between MT grammar and English grammar? 3.543 3.272 -0.27** -2.207*
12. Giving a test? 3.265 2.887 -0.38*** -2.985**
13. Checking for understanding? 2.874 2.636 -0.24** -1.869
14. Relaxing with students? 3.219 2.940 -0.28** -2.059*
15. Being friendly with students? 2.967 2.735 -0.23** -2.042*
16. When students do not understand? 3.881 3.616 -0.27** -2.154*
17. They what to ask the teacher a question? 2.589 2.219 -0.37*** -2.988**
18. They as "How do you say --- in English?" 2.801 2.424 -0.38*** -2.685**
19. Talking to their friends? 3.040 2.687 -0.35*** -2.589**
20. Explaining something to a partner? 3.172 2.854 -032** -2.504**
21. They do not want to speak English? 2.424 2.040 -0.38*** -3.299**
22. Talking about why they are doing their pair work? 2.848 2.483 -0.36*** -2.748**
24. To continue the conversation 3.192 3.166 -0.03 -.237
25. Because my partner does not understand 3.199 3.099 -0.10 -.832
26. Because I do not understand 3.536 3.318 -0.22** -1.892
27. I want to speak in MT 2.530 2.457 -0.07 -.470
28. I don't like speaking English to my friend † 1.960 4.146 2.19*** -.990
29. I am tired of speaking English † 2.358 3.854 1.50*** -1.717
30. My partner wants to speak in MT 2.430 2.536 0.11 -.883
31. MT is easier that English 3.477 3.444 -0.03 -4.592***
32. I don't like English † 1.841 4.285 2.44*** -1.478
33. Give up † 1.901 4.066 2.17*** -.444
34. Talk about something different † 3.086 3.033 -0.05 -.988
35. Talk about something different † 3.775 2.172 -1.60*** -.353
36. Translate into MT 3.861 3.728 -0.13** -1.581
37. Guess what your partner is saying 3.974 3.841 -0.13* -1.462
38. Use a dictionary. 3.695 3.192 -0.50*** -4.205***
39. Use a gesture or a mime 3.675 3.490 -0.18* -1.756
40. Ask a friend in MT† 3.682 2.417 -1.26*** -1.002
41. Ask the teacher in English 2.914 2.278 -0.64*** -5.649***
42. Ask the teacher in MT† 2.815 3.675 0.86*** -4.175***
43. Speak to the teacher in English? 3.464 3.391 -0.07 -.856
44. Want the teacher to speak to you in English? 3.477 3.609 0.13 -1.566
45. Speak to the teacher in English? 3.238 3.238 0.00 -.094
46. Want the teacher to speak to you in English? 3.424 3.490 0.07 -.783

Notes:
1. † = an inverse value order, MT = Mother Tongue in the first column
2. The fourth column lists the t-test results and the degree of significance.
3. The fifth column lists Wilcoxon Ranked Sums analysis results and the degree
of significance. Z refers to placing the less frequent sign of a pair in standardized scores for this particular analysis.
4. N = 151
5. Marked numerals indicate significance: * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001

Binominal test results indicated significant differences on each administration (see Table 5). Analysis showed significant attitude change between the pre- and post-survey administration for item 3 (see Table 6). Females had significantly more positive attitudes toward their English studies (item 32) than males. Females (item 42) were also significantly more prepared than males to speak to their teacher in the mother tongue (see Table 7).

Table 5: Binominal Test Results


Response N Observed Prop. Test Prop. Sig. (2-tailed)
q1a. Should the teacher know MT? Yes 137 .91 .50 .000
No 14 .09
151 1.00
q1b. Should the teacher know MT? Yes 143 .95 .50 .000
No 8 .05
151 1.00
q2a. Should the teacher speak MT in Class? Sometimes 141 .93 .50 .000
Never 10 .07
151 1.00
q2b. Should the teacher speak MT in Class? Sometimes 138 .91 .50 .000
Never 13 .09
151 1.00
q3a. Should students speak MT in class? Never 19 .13 .50 .000
Sometimes 132 .87
151 1.00
q3b. Should students speak MT in class? Sometimes 119 .79 .50 .000
Never 32 .21
151 1.00
q23a. Do you speak Japanese in class? Sometimes 137 .91 .50 .000
Never 14 .09
151 1.00
q23b. Do you speak Japanese in class? Sometimes 137 .91 .50 .000
Never 14 .09
151 1.00

Note:
1. The different administrations of the items are noted by the letters "a" for the first semester administration and "b" for the second administration.
2. N = 151

Table 6: Binomial Items Examined by Wilcoxon Ranked Sums Analyses


Item Z
1. Should Teacher know MT? -1.500
2. Should teacher speak MT in class? -.655
3. Should students speak MT in class? -2.263*
23. Do you speak MT in class? .000

Notes:
1. The second column indicates the sum of the ranks, for the less frequent sign is standardized.
2. N = 151
3. Marked numerals indicate significance: * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001

Table 7: T-test Gender Means to Initial and Final Means


Item Initial Mean Male Female Final Mean Male Female
4. Explaining new words? 3.457 -.04 .03 3.026 -.03 .02
5. Explaining Grammar? 3.623 -.09 .07 3.265 -.16 .11
6. Giving instructions? 3.007 .07 -.05 2.636 .18 -.13
7. Talking about British or American Culture? 2.662 .26 -.15 2.364 .15 -.11
8. Talking about end of semester tests? 3.828 -.11 .08 3.338 -.03 .02
9. Explaining class rules? 3.139 .10 -.07 2.887 .10 -.07
10. Telling students Why they are doing something? 2.921 .03 -.02 2.755 .03 -.02
11. Explaining the differences between MT grammar and English grammar? 3.543 -.01 .01 3.272 -.05 .04
12. Giving a test? 3.265 .03 -.02 2.887 .03 -.02
13. Checking for understanding? 2.874 .14 -.10 2.636 .21 -.15
14. Relaxing with students? 3.219 .14 -.10 2.940 .01 -.01
15. Being friendly with students? 2.967 .20 -.15 2.735 .19 -.14
16. When students do not understand? 3.881 .04 -.03 3.616 -.27 .20
17. They want to ask the teacher a question? 2.589 .15 -.11 2.219 .19 -.14
18. They ask "How do you say --- in English?" 2.801 .06 -.04 2.424 .03 -.02
19. Talking to their friends? 3.040 .26 -.19 2.687 .09 -.07
20. Explaining something to a partner? 3.172 .20 -.15 2.854 .16 -.12
21. They do not want to speak English? 2.424 .00 .00 2.040 .04 -.03
22. Talking about why they are doing their pair work? 2.848 -.10 .07 2.483 .06 -.05
24. To continue the conversation 3.192 .20 -.15 3.166 .19 -.14
25. Because my partner does not understand 3.199 .11 -.08 3.099 .15 -.11
26. Because I do not understand 3.536 .00 .00 3.318 -.05 .04
27. I want to speak in MT 2.530 .06 -.05 2.457 .06 -.04
28. I don't like speaking English to my friend † 1.960 .27 -.20 4.146 -.04 .03
29. I am tired of speaking English † 2.358 .19 -.14 3.854 .01 .00
30. My partner wants to speak in MT 2.430 .10 -.07 2.536 -.02 .02
31. MT is easier that English 3.477 .01 -.01 3.444 .18 -.13
32. I don't like English † 1.841 .27 -.20* 4.285 .01 -.01
33. Give up † 1.901 .18 -.13 4.066 -.08 .06
34. Talk about something different † 3.086 -.05 .04 3.033 .11 -.08
35. Talk about something different † 3.775 .13 -.10 2.172 -.09 .07
36. Translate into MT 3.861 -.11 .08 3.728 .01 .00
37. Guess what your partner is saying 3.974 -.16 .12 3.841 -.15 .11
38. Use a dictionary. 3.695 -.27* .20 3.192 -.05 .04
39. Use a gesture or a mime 3.675 .01 -.01 3.490 -.07 .05
40. Ask a friend in MT† 3.682 .18 -.13 2.417 -.09 .07
41. Ask the teacher in English 2.914 .01 -.01 2.278 .00 .00
42. Ask the teacher in MT† 2.815 .29* -.22* 3.675 .00 .00
43. Speak to the teacher in English? 3.464 -.21 .16 3.391 -.08 .06
44. Want the teacher to speak to you in English? 3.477 -.21 .16 3.609 -.17 .13
45. Speak to the teacher in English? 3.238 -.07 .05 3.238 -.03 .03
46. Want the teacher to speak to you in English? 3.424 -.14 .10 3.490 -.07 .05

Notes:
1. † = an inverse value order in the first column
2. N = 151 in the second and fifth columns
3. N = 64 in third and sixth columns labeled Males; N = 87 in the fourth and seventh columns labeled Females
4. Marked numerals indicate significance: * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001

Discussion

Results indicate the target language had begun to be perceived as a valuable means of communication over one semester. Significant attitude change occurred on eight items regarding students requesting comprehensible input in the MT (Item 4, Item 5, Item 6, Item 7, Item 8, Item 9, Item 12, and Item 15). Seven other items show significant decline regarding MT banished from the classroom (Item 31, Item 14, Item 19, Item 20, Item 38, Item 41 and Item 42). Significant decline on three other items (Item 11, Item 18, and Item 22) indicated students were beginning to feel more confident in the target language.

Conclusion

Students had become attuned to an English-only methodology over one semester. It should be emphasized, however these attitude changes occurred after just fourteen, ninety-minute classes. Students adjusted more towards an instructor's methodology with more English classes and thus were more prepared to use effective communicative strategies to overcome language deficiencies. Encouragingly, there is an overall tendency of students to become more accepting of an English-only methodology.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous readers for their insightful comments. Suggestions by Robert Long and Steve Cornwell were also encouraging.

References

Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. (1994). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Auerbach, E. (1994). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. ELT Journal, 27(1), 9-32.
Benson, J. (1991). Attitudes and motivation towards English: A survey of Japanese freshmen. RELC Journal, 22(1), 34-48.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 299-305.
Jalsingh, L. (2000). Statistics for the utterly confused. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kimura, Y., Nakata, Y., & Okumura. T. (2001). Language learning motivation of EFL learners in Japan: A cross-sectional analysis of various learning milieus. JALT Journal, 23(1), 48-67.
Kobayashi, S., Redekop, B., & Porter R. (1992). Motivation of college English students. The Language Teacher, 16(1), 7-15.
Pattanayak, E. (1986). Educational use of the mother tongue. In B. Spolsky (Ed), Language and education in multilingual settings (pp. 5-15). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-257). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Cambridge: Prentice Hall International.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wong-Filmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 17-51). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.



All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website