Introduction
The main purposes of the present study are to discuss the amounts and the functions of two Taiwanese English teachers’ TL and L1 use in class as well as the relationship between their beliefs of language use and their actual language teaching behaviors in the classrooms. The followings first discusses the teachers’ actual language use and their beliefs in terms of the amount and the functions of TL and L1 use in the classrooms, followed by discussing how the teachers’ beliefs of language use reflect on their actual language use in class. Finally, pedagogical implications and suggestions for future studies are presented.
Teachers’ Use of Language and Their Beliefs
This section discusses the teachers’ language use in the classrooms and their beliefs within two aspects: (a) the amount of TL and L1 use in the classrooms and (b) TL and L1 use in performing different functions.
The Amount of TL and L1 Use in the Classrooms
The results indicate that differences were found in the amount of the teachers’ TL and L1 use between the two classes and between the teachers’ self-reported amount of language use and their actual language use in the classrooms. The followings first discusses the amount of TL and L1 used in the classes, and then the teachers’
self-reported amount and the actual amount of TL and L1 use, followed by their believed factors influencing their language use in class.
Amount of TL and L1 Use
It is found that Lisa uses a consistent amount of TL and L1 in her two classes;
6% of L1 in the first class and 5% of L1 in the second class, and 90% of TL in the first class and 88% of TL in the second class. However, Julie’s TL and L1 use in the two classes are slightly different; both the ratio of L1 and TL decrease in the second class, from 30% to 23% and from 10% to 5% separately. In contrary, the ratio of L1c and Mix increase in the second class, from 23% to 29% and from 29% to 38%, respectively.
The different ratios of TL and L1 in Julie’s two classes can be contributed to the classroom activities differences and which language is used to conduct these activities.
More administrative announcements are performed in the L1 in the first class and more word teaching activities are conducted in the mix of the TL and the L1 in the second class. In the first class, Julie spends more time on administrative reminding by using the L1, which is the Julie’s preferred language when performing the function of framework goal, that is, the organizational requirements of the class. In the second class, more time is spent on word explanations in which Julie tended to mix the TL and the L1 to explain complicated prefix and suffix of words. Therefore, from the results showed, the factor influencing teachers’ language use may also include the class activity as well; in other words, when the TL and the L1 would be used and for what purposes.
Factors Influencing the Teachers’ Language Use
The results indicate that the amount of the two teachers’ TL and L1 use in the classrooms are contrary; Lisa used a high frequency of the TL, while Julie tended to mix the TL and the L1. The teachers self-reported some factors influencing their language use and these factors are generally in agreement with the previous studies
(Bateman, 2008; Macaro, 2001b; Yeow, 2003). The factors identified influencing the teachers’ TL and L1 use are: 1) students’ TL proficiency, 2) type of the course, 3) goal of the class, 4) difficulty of the content, 5) number of the students, 6) grade of the students, and 7) departmental policy of language teaching.
Students’ TL proficiency
Of the factors affecting teachers’ language use, several indicate that teachers adjust and modify their language use in order to transmit knowledge to their students successfully. Both teachers adjust their TL use according to students’ TL proficiency;
they have consensus that using either TL or L1 to get message across to the students is acceptable if students could learn the content better. In line with Bateman (2008)'s finding, the present study also agree that students’ TL proficiency is an important factor that limit teachers’ TL use in the classrooms. The teachers believe that it is more difficult to use the TL with beginning students than with more advanced students. Indeed, teaching abstract and complicated concepts in the TL may confuse students who are in lower level of TL proficiency and may be time-consuming (Çelik, 2008).
Type of the course
The type of the course is another factor for transmitting knowledge successfully.
The two teachers consistently confirmed that if the course was designed to enhance students' reading skills in the TL, the understanding of the content was the most important; on the contrary, if the course was designed to practice listening or speaking in the TL, then using TL in class was necessary. Existed cognition and knowledge are needed and necessary in the process of reading since it requires more semantic related understanding. Antón & DiCamilla, (1998) and Weschler(1997) pointed out that in the
process of reading and writing, students' L1 was demanded for the purpose of brainstorming and devising ideas because students' L1 is used for thought and cognition which could stimulate memory and semantic process(Çelik, 2008).
Moreover, this factor is also related to the TL input theories; it is believed that students could acquire another language successfully if they received more SL or FL input (Day, 1984). The TL input is needed especially in listening and speaking course.
Chambers (1991) contends that for speaking course, students could acquire a TL successfully only when the TL is the predominant language in the classroom;
demanding students interact in the TL would help develop their speaking abilities, and Nunan (1997) proposed that for listening course, it is critical for students to receive abundant authentic TL input, which should be provided by teacher thorough modeling listening strategies and giving listening practices in the TL.
Goal of the class
The third factor goal of the class, identified by Lisa, is also to help students obtain content knowledge as well. This factor is actually equal to the factor of
‘activity type’ indicated in the previous studies (Duff & Polio, 1990; Kim & Elder, 2005; Liu, Ahn, Bae, & Han, 2004; Rolin-Ianziti & Brownlie, 2002). Rolin-Ianziti &
Brownlie (2002) found that the amount of L1 was higher in grammar activities than in listening activities. Similarly, in the present study, Lisa would adjust her language use according to the class activities to achieve the goal of the class. If the goal of the class was to make the students fully understand grammar rules, Lisa would use the L1 to transmit those complicated concept of grammars although she consistently used a high ratio of TL in her classes.
Difficulty of the content
The fourth factor difficulty of the content, Julie explained that the textbook used in her class was difficult for those freshmen to understand because the reading articles contained a large number of vocabulary, and in order to help the students ‘get
something’ from the class, she preferred to use the mix of the TL and the L1 to explain. Compare to previous studies, the factor identified here can be referred to the factor of ‘material’ found in Duff and Polio 's (1990) study, in which the different versions of textbooks were identified by teachers to be one of the reasons to adjust their language use in the class. In other words, to facilitate students' comprehension of class content, the level of difficulty of the materials is of its importance in teachers' decision-making of language use in class.
The four mentioned factors are the main concerns when language teachers teach in the classrooms. Under the consideration of getting message across to the students successfully, the use of the L1 is not to be blamed for its occurrence at FL classrooms.
The teachers may conceive themselves as ‘deliverers of content’ (Yeow, 2003, p.6) in that the most important aim is to facilitate students' comprehension even it is at the expense of code-switching to students' mother tongue.
Number of the students
Other factors such as number of the students, grade of the students and
departmental policy of language teaching are only mentioned by one of the teachers.
The factors of ‘number of the students’ and ‘grade of the student’ are much related to student’s affective perspective. For the factor of ‘number of the students’, Julie indicated that a class with a large number of students made it difficult to know whether students realized class content that was taught in the TL; she believed that using the L1 at this circumstance was helpful for her to make sure all students at least
learned something from the class. She identified this as a factor based on her teaching experience in that she found students were willing to raise their hands to ask questions if the class size smaller and they felt more pressure for being on the spotlight when asking questions actively in a large class. Teachers’ use of the L1 can be helpful to alleviate students’ anxiety by lowering their affective filter (Krashen, 1985). In other words, teacher’s use of the L1 may encourage greater student involvement and therefore create a warm and closer relationship with students (Ferguson, 2003).
Grade of the students
As for the factor of grade of the students, it is much related to the students’
motivation in learning the TL. The teacher clarified that if the class was opened for seniors in the college and was optional, then the students assigned in the class must at some degree motivated in learning. With higher motivation to attend the class, the teacher believed that although the students may not fully understand her TL use in class, they themselves would strive to figure out her explanation in the TL. Hence the TL was supposed to be used more frequently in the class under such consideration. As found in Bateman's (2008) study, a lack of student motivation was identified as a factor limiting teachers’ use of the TL; students were not fond of teachers’ efforts to conduct the class in the TL when they had lower motivation (Bateman, 2008).
Departmental policy
The last factor, departmental policy, according to Julie, is the most important factor for her to make language use decision in the class. If the school had prescribed teachers to use the TL to conduct classes, she wouldn’t consider adjusting and limiting her TL use for those low levels of TL proficiency students although she had her own beliefs of language use. In accordance with Duff and Polio (1990), the factor of
departmental policy was identified by teachers to be prominently in their decision to use the TL. In addition, similar to the findings in Macaro's (2001) study, a teacher was highly influenced by the official government statements and this factor was even more powerful than her own beliefs of language use.
In conclusion, both of the two teachers determine their language uses
predominantly based on their ideas of how the students could receive class content through their teaching in either the TL or the L1 without obstruction, whilst the factors identified between the two teachers are slightly different. Lisa’s consideration of language use are basically related to the students’ TL proficiency, goal of the class, and type of the course; students' current levels and the type and the goal of the course are the most influential reasons for her to make decisions of language use. On the other hand, Julie’s decision-making of TL and L1 use in the class is not only determined by those factors identified by Lisa, but also determined by students’
affective perspective and school policy of language use. More importantly, the school policy is her top reason for choosing the language used in class. Only without the concern of school policy could she take other factors into consideration of language use.
TL and L1 Use in Performing Different Functions
As showed in the results, the two teachers’ TL and L1 use in performing different functions in the classes are significantly different; however, both teachers’ actual language use in performing different functions are consistent with their beliefs of language use. The following discusses their beliefs of TL and L1 use and the actual language use in performing the functions within goal orientation and within teaching acts in the classes.
Core Goal and Model/Correct/Scaffold (MCS)
The results show that two teachers’ language uses in performing core goal and
‘MCS’ are differed markedly; Lisa uses the TL and Julie uses mix of the TL and the L1 most frequently to perform core goal and ‘MCS’.As Lisa mentions in the teacher interview that she uses high frequent of TL in teaching class content and the L1 is also used occasionally when explaining difficult words, consistent teaching behaviors are found in her classes; Lisa is found switching to the L1 occasionally when the
meanings of words are hard to be transmitted for there is no equivalent meanings in the TL and when grammar rules such as tense are more complicated concepts for students to comprehend in the TL. An interesting language change behavior is found in her teaching of grammar rules; it is found that Lisa’s attempt of using the TL to explain a grammar rule, the perfect tense, is failed when the student response to her that they are confused by the grammar explanation in the TL, which makes Lisa change her language choice hereafter when teaching complicated class concepts.
On the other hand, Julie’s actual language use in performing core goals is also consistent with her beliefs of language use. She mentions that both the L1 and the TL are used to teach class content such as explain word and sentence meanings, which is reflected in her teaching behaviors in that switching between the TL and the L1 is highly occurred in the instruction of vocabulary. However, the frequency of using the L1 is higher than the TL since definitions and sample sentences of new words are more frequently given in the L1 though the concepts may be easy to understand in the TL.
Both Lisa and Julie are found using the L1 to translate more difficult words and concepts in the class as well as complicated grammar rules. The use of student’s mother tongue in conducting the teaching of language is not exceptional in previous studies; several studies (Bateman, 2008; Ferguson, 2003; Liu, Ahn, Baek, & Han,
2004; Polio a& Duff, 1994; Rolin-Ianziti & Brownlie, 2002) indicated that teachers tended to switch to students’ L1 in teaching behaviors such as instruct grammar rules, translate unknown vocabularies, and facilitate students’ comprehension for several reasons. It was indicated that subject matter was one of the factors that affect teachers’
language choice, especially the subject of grammar that is difficult to be instructed in the TL (Bateman, 2008). In addition, teacher resorting to the L1 is suggested when using the TL would be inefficient and problematic for learners to comprehend such as the explanation of grammar (Cook, 2001; Turnbull, 2001b). Lisa’s case provides evidence that students do feel complicated when abstract concepts are explained in the language that they are still learning. Moreover, a survey ( Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008) that investigated students’ views regarding the use of the L1 showed that a majority of students agree the use of the L1 to understand and memorize vocabulary and to comprehend grammatical explanations; students believed that the use of L1 helps them access the meaning of words, as well as facilitates memorization if they know equivalent meanings in their mother tongue.
Truly, abstract word or expressions difficult to explain in the TL may be better translated in the L1 (Weschler, 1997), and it was also advocated using the L1 to discuss points the students haven’t understood (Atkinson, 1993; Cole, 1998).
However, a problem that teacher rely too extensively on the L1 was indicated in previous study (Turnbull, 2001) as well. Turnbull (2001) believed that if a FL
teacher’s TL use did not over 25% of class time, the teacher relied far too much on the L1 and which deprived students of valuable TL input. Also, Kim and Elder (2008) found one teacher using only 23% of TL in FL class, in which the researchers
believed that “the teacher’s habit of inserting L1 translations or explanations before or after TL units may have had the effect of diverting students’ attention constantly to the L1 for the retrieval of message” (p.181). Furthermore, taking time to define and to
explain word is worthy if it is simple enough (Cole, 1998). Julie self-reported that she noticed that the students only took notes when she translated word meanings into their L1, and therefore she gave L1 meanings of words before or after TL explanations since she believed that the students learned the class content by writing down the L1 meanings; however, this may lead students to ignore what they do not understand (Kim & Elder, 2008; Wong-Fillmore, 1982) in the TL since they already get used to pay attention to those L1 meanings that can be written down.
Framework Goal and Starter (Sta)
The definition of framework goal used here can be referred to the category of classroom management discourse proposed by Ferguson (2003). Both framework goal and classroom management discourse refer to teachers’ switching to the L1 to
negotiate task instruction, inviting student contributions, disciplining students,
reminding assignments, and so on. However, in the present study, it can be found that the assigned utterances in the category of Starter (Sta) are similar to those in the category of ‘framework goal’. ‘Sta’ is a statement for eliciting following activity or class content, and therefore it sometimes overlaps with the utterance categorized into framework goal. Hence the two categories are both discussed in this section.
First of all, the results indicate that the two teachers have different frequency of performing the functions of framework goal and ‘Sta’. Lisa performs framework goal and ‘Sta’ more frequently than Julie in the class. The different frequency can be contributed to the class structures and class activity difference; in Lisa’s classes, many group activities are required and needed to be instructed and explained, whilst there is no group activity at all in Julie’s classes. Students in Lisa’s class at least have one group activity in a class, and Lisa frequently gives instructions of group activity and repeats the activity rules during students’ preparation of activity. However, in Julie’s
class, Julie spends more time on word and reading article explanations, and
occasionally instructs students to do some exercise on the textbook. Therefore, it is the class activity difference that leads to the different frequency of framework goal and ‘Sta’ between the two teachers.
Secondly, the two teachers differ markedly in their language use in performing the functions as well. Lisa consistently uses the TL to instruct group activity and assign homework, while Julie frequently uses the L1 to give instructions of textbook
Secondly, the two teachers differ markedly in their language use in performing the functions as well. Lisa consistently uses the TL to instruct group activity and assign homework, while Julie frequently uses the L1 to give instructions of textbook