perspectives. First, it is to restrict the use of English-only as the academic language policy, as the phrase “English-only” implicates the top-down policies of imperialism, and it somehow depreciated the other languages around the world.
Second, a mother tongue is seen as a facilitator in language learning from the perspectives of students, as Cummins (1979) and Krashen (1999) supported that the
comprehensible input (i+1) is the key issue for language intake (as cited in Duran, Roseth and Hoffman, 2010). The researchers agreed on the idea that academic instruction in a child’s native language will, overtime, support improved academic and literacy outcomes in English.
On the one hand, the Transitional Bilingual Education claimed that bilingual has the potential to maintain the child's native language while building a solid foundation for subsequent learning and growth in English. On the other hand, the forbidden use of the child’s native language will recall an underestimation of the learner’s proficiency level, thus, the disadvantages of the students and staff for whom English is not their first language.
Furthermore, overvaluing the English language could cause oneself to look down on their
40
nationality, and even their social status could be affected.
Third, from the administration perspectives, just as the first movements “The Bologna Process” in Europe motivated the EMI, in that the primary aim, of which was to standardize university degrees across Europe so as to facilitate the student and staff mobility and credit transfer. However, an overemphasis on the university’s commercial reason could lead the community to a negative view on language as lingua franca and multilingualism. Many researchers claimed that the social-culture context should be taken into consideration when adopting EMI. Last but not least, from the teachers’ perspective, that a lack of proficiency may cause problems in the education programs (Duran, Roseth and Hoffman, 2010).
There is a revised EMI adoption in Asia by Kirkpatric (2014), which claimed that schools or government should take two more things into account when adopting EMI. One is the use of English as a Lingua Franca, the other is that universities should encourage
bilingual and multilingualism. The researcher claimed that the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) was going to sacrifice Chinese, the world’s most spoken languages, into an English-only policy for the reason of having a better ranking internationally. Similar trends are seen in East and South Asia, in that universities promote EMI for commercial reasons in different ways. A university sets up campuses in other countries, collaborates with a regional university as a partnership, or becomes an English medium university itself to market
themselves. These programs provide the same course material, lectures, and assessments, as
41
in a standard of English-speaking countries. The questions arose as to what sort of English is referred to here and why English is the only language allowed for the courses. Furthermore, EMI is questioned from the students’ perspective, in that do all of the English learners have to be native-like, and to discourage being multi-linguistic is actually inappropriate. The
researcher noticed that to become a native-like English speaker took at least 5-7 years according to Cummins’s study (as cited in Kirkpatric, 2014). Students and staff may well be discouraged because they will never reach this proficiency level in a foreign language, therefore, leaving the proficiency level underestimated.
In the study of Fredrick and Warriner (2016), their analysis showed how restrictive language ideologies and policies effect the perspectives of learners as well as teachers.
English has been placed at the top of the language ranking, and used as an academic
evaluation tool. Children that are designated as an “English Language Learner” (ELL) have to join the English Language Develop Classroom to learn English as fast as possible, as in Structured Immersion courses that all subjects are taught merely in English. The ELL
programs are taught in decontextualized ways to help students meet the language proficiency standard. Although the focus on forms of learning would help students to overcome language difficulties when they are facing subject-matter (mainstream) learning, however, the
consequences of recognizing languages other than English as a problem, deficit perspectives on multilingualism, and restrictive language education policies may lead to low-levels of
42
academic achievement and negative self-perception. The research finally gave some suggestions on how to change to language-as-a-resource orientations.
Other researchers also found both pros and cons in EMI adoption. Karvonen (2017) reviewed the studies in Ethiopia where EMI was adopted in two international private schools, and he explained the benefits as well as challenges the schools are facing through EMI. The benefits of adopting EMI from the founder’s point of view, including a better accessibility of English materials and better curricular, better job and career opportunity, a positive influence on the community, and wider chances in communication. The challenges that the school were facing are the teachers’ lack of proficiency in teaching English, the lack of parental
involvement, and less government support.
In another research by Nae and Kim (2018) in Japan, the participants included both teachers and students from a private University. The result of this research is supportive of a maximum usage of the target language. From the students’ perspective, they found a positive correlation between L2 input in the classroom and the TOEIC scores. They also found there was a high correlation between the TOEIC scores and students’ self-assessment, therefore, motivating students since their perceived confidence in communication skills and L2 comprehension had increased. From the affective perspectives, students also perceived learning through an English-only policy was effective and fun. However, the researcher suggested “a break from L2” should apply when needed, in order to prevent any frustration to
43
happen. The teachers perceived that the students were more anxious than frustrated in an English-only environment and they also supported a limited L1 use in the classroom.
Inclusive use of native language. Support of the use of L1 in second language teaching
is always controversial, as the researchers debated on whether L1 should be used in alanguage classroom and to what extent or how were the two languages combined in language learning. Theoretically, language teachers are encouraged to teach in the target language as Krashen (1985) mentioned, that to maximize L2 input and being exposed to L2 environment was the best answer for L2 to be acquired. However, many researchers turn the advantages of L1 used into L2 teaching and learning. In Tamasello’s study, Vygotskyan-style research mentioned “scaffolding” when learners are doing group work by asking the meaning through the L1 scaffold of one's language learning (as cited in Cook, 2001).
Bilingualism sees L1 as the facilitator of foreign language learning. As for the Whole Language Approach, Freeman and Freeman (1992) explained the reasons to use children’s L1 to teach a target language, and the reasons are as follows:
1. Bilingual students build important background knowledge and concepts when they receive comprehensible input in their first language, and this helps them to succeed academically later in English.
2. When students have a well-developed first language, they can learn a second language more rapidly.
44
3. Bilingual students come to value their own language and culture and maintain important family ties. They can become valuable bilingual members of the larger community.
(Freeman & Freeman, 1992, p.175)
Cummins (1984) argued that the concepts a bilingual person builds from a Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP), which allowed students to learn a second language more efficiently since the learner had already acquired the knowledge in their first language.
Simply stated, if one person insists in instructing English only, the person is believing in the SUP concept, that is the Separate Underlying Proficiency (as cited in Freeman & Freeman, 1992). SUP can be referred to what Weinreich called “language compartmentalization” where L2 learning should be solely through L2, and not linking with L1, however, researchers found that the two languages are interwoven in an L2 learners’ mind in vocabulary, in syntax, in phonology and in pragmatics (as cited in Cook, 2001).
The Whole Language Approach is another supporter of the inclusive use of L1 in second language teaching. Since Krashen explained that the best way to make input comprehensible was to use the student’s first language to scaffold the meanings (as cited in Freeman &
Freeman,1992), as they took the example of the first immersion program named “St. Lambert French Immersion Programs” held in Canada. The success of this program confirmed that the bilingual immersion program in full immersion at the kindergarten stage, then gradually
45
added in the student’s native language rather than the forbidden learners’ L1. At the end of this immersion program, students successfully acquired two languages whereas the English-only students English-only acquired English. However, this type of immersion program was
considered not successful in the United States due to other social and cultural reasons.
There are researchers who see L1 in a positive way, however, the emphasis was on maximizing the use of L2. As Cook (2001) stated that “Overall, accepting that students should meet natural L2 communication in the classroom supports maximizing the L2 rather than avoiding the L1” (Cook,2001). Willis (1996) offered the typical good advice to explain to students that if they want to communicate in the target language they need to practice. The maximal provision of L2 input does not deny L1 a role in learning and teaching. Having a large amount of meaningful L2 use, including samples of language relating to external goals, does not preclude using the L1. Cook concluded the L1 use in language teaching has its role as follows:
1. to provide a short-cut for giving instructions and explanations where the cost of L2 is too great
2. to build up the inter-linked L1 and L2 knowledge in the students’ minds 3. to complete learning tasks through collaborative dialogue with fellow-students 4. to develop L2 activities such as code-switching for later real-life usage.
(Cook, 2001)
46
The arguments of L1 and L2 usage in language learning then arrived at an agreement that a maximal use of L2, without excluding L1, became part of the learners’ and teacher’s repertoire of comprehensive strategies (Grim, 2010). Cook and Turnbull both concluded that maximizing the usage of the target language has a positive effect on the student's proficiency level.
Later, the opinions of Cook and Turnbull were set apart. On the one hand, Cook (2001) suggested there are times when teachers can use L1 to promote learning. Turnbull (2001), on the other hand, criticized the impacts of the use of L1. The first argument was about the time allocated to L1 in the classroom as it will impact on the second language acquisition as L1 and L2 are counterparts of each other. One could argue that grammar points should be taught in students’ L1, however, if the class is lacking in learning time as in an EFL environment, and the only instruction time that students learn L2 is in the class, then it will be a waste of time by using the student's L1. McDonald (1993) suggested that a large amount of L1 use can also demotivate the students (as cited in Bozorgian & Fallahpour, 2015). The second
argument is that if teachers rely too much on L1, negative results may occur. Polio and Duff (1994) studied 13 teachers on the amount of TL used in class, and they concluded it was hard to know how, when, and the extent to which they actually used English in class. Turnbull (2001) did a research to see the amount of TL used in the classroom, if the teacher uses less than 25% of English is considered as relying too much on L1, but is a 50% target language
47
too much or not enough? It is hard to define. The policy of the amount of L2 used has a standard that in some states, 95% is acceptable while in other countries 75% is satisfactory, as the research noted an interesting finding that only 26% of teachers reached the requirement of 75% usage of the TL in teaching French in Canada, therefore, it is insufficient to say
“maximizing the use of TL” and it is vague and dangerous to set a limit. Furthermore, if licensing teachers to use L1 in an L2 classroom, many teachers will overuse L1.
When considering L1 and L2 usage from the teachers’ perspective, one probably knows why teachers would not apply L2-only in their own lessons. There is a research designed to survey the attitude of teacher’s L2 use in the classroom, by Mitchell (1988), as 52% of teachers were stressed by teaching in L2. Teachers think it is inappropriate to use L2 to give classroom organizational instructions, teaching grammar, teaching background to new activities, and discipline is best in L1. Cook (2001) also suggested that L1 can be used to convey checks and meanings, explain grammar, maintain discipline, make contact with individual students, and test. After all, there are relatively few classroom functions left to be conducted in L2 (Turnbull, 2001).
As a teacher/researcher, when I considered whether to adopt both L1 and L2 in the language teaching from the perspectives of the participants, it now seems much clearer. Polio and Duff (1994) argued that L1 helped students to lower their anxiety and a proper use of L1 could create a solidarity and empathy of students and therefore create a comfortable and
48
enjoyable atmosphere (as cited in Park & Manning, 2012). In the later research of Sa’d and Qadermazi in the context of EFL learning, they concluded that the majority of participants prefer judicious, limited, and occasional use of L1 from the teacher. Only a minority of participants would like English-only instruction. Other research also supported the L1 use for cognitive and affective reasons, as Auerbach (1993) proclaimed “We need to recognize that respect for learners’ languages has powerful social implications” (as cited in Park &
Manning, 2012), where he suggested the use of L1 “will reduces anxiety, enhances the affective environment for learning, takes into account of social-cultural factors, facilitates incorporation of learner’s life experiences and allows for learner-centered curriculum development” (as cited in Park & Manning, 2012). While in Levine’s (2003) research, participants commanded that the use of a target language at the university level would not lead to high anxiety (as cited in Park & Manning, 2012). This disagreement of learner’s anxiety possibly takes into account the current research.
Furthermore, what are the opinions about the L1 use in L2 language learning from the teacher’s perspective? One should consider that the teacher’s language ability will affect their teaching correspondently. Findings that support the teachers in L1, as Lasagabaster’s research in a CLIL teaching context, from the results he concluded that teachers’ use of L1 facilitated the L2 learning not only in building the learner’s lexicon, but also fostering their
metalinguistic awareness (as cited in Sa’d & Qudermazi, 2015). The results coincided with
49
Sipra’s findings. Although Sipra (2007) had concluded that bilingual teachers are better equipped with teaching aids when compared with monolingual teachers (as cited in Sa’d &
Qadermazi, 2015).
However, teachers’ limitations should also be taken into account. In the researches of teaching English in Korea, Park and Manning (2012) concluded that there are some factors that affect the teacher’s language choice preferences. These factors can be related to the teachers themselves or about the learning environment, factors like a lack of English proficiency, has lower confidence, and less experience, are about the teacher’s personal limits, indeed, the current school examination orientations and the students’ different levels are considered as factors related to the social context (Park and Manning, 2012), which has many similarities as in Taiwan, and I am going to discuss this in the next section.