全英語教學對國小六年級學生聽力及口說之影響

全文

(1)國立屏東大學英語學系碩士班碩士論文指導教授：張理宏博士. Implementing English as a Medium of Instruction to Promote English Learning of Sixth Graders 全英語教學對國小六年級學生聽力及口說之影響. 研究生：黃慧倫撰. 中華民國 108 年 7 月.

(2)

(3)

(4) 摘要本行動研究旨在探討實施全英語教學對國小六年級學生聽、說能力及學習態度的影響，並藉由此歷程提供教學者計畫、行動及省思的依據。研究者對 27 位六年級學生進行全英語教學，觀察為期 12 週共 24 堂課的學習歷程，並使用劍橋英檢(YLE)所提供之標準化測驗，進行聽力及口說的前測、後測，將其測驗結果進行相依樣本 t 考驗。另一方面，研究者對學生進行半結構式訪談輔以英語學習態度問卷，配合教師省思札記、同儕觀課及教學錄影進行質性分析研究。研究結果發現全英語教學能夠提升學生的英語聽力及英語口說能力。除此之外，全英語教學有助於提升學生英語學習動機及對教師教學的學習態度；教學過程中遇到的困難亦能透過行動研究的方式改善。最後，全英語任務型教學有助於提升教師專業成長。. 關鍵字：全英語、任務導向教學、英語聽說能力、英語學習態度、英語為外國語言. i.

(5) Abstract. This action research is designed to investigate the effects on 27 sixth graders’ listening ability, speaking ability and learning attitudes by implementing English as a medium of instruction (EMI) for 12 weeks. The study has adopted the Cambridge Young Learner English (YLE) as the pretest and posttest to evaluate the students’ listening and speaking proficiency. Another measuring instrument is the learning attitude survey which includes both the quantitative and qualitative data. Other qualitative data such as class observations, video recordings, teaching journals, and semi-structured interviews, have all served as evidence of the nature of the student’s performance on EMI. The results indicated that both students’ listening and speaking proficiency had increased significantly. The learning attitudes scores had increased significantly in motivation and teaching style. Overall, the students held a positive attitude towards EMI and the task-based teaching approach. Keywords: English as a medium of instruction (EMI), Task-based approach, Listening and speaking proficiency, English learning attitudes, English as a foreign language (EFL). ii.

(6) Table of Contents Chinese Abstract…………………………………………………………………………....i Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….....ii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………....….….iii Lists of Tables………………………………………………………………………...…....vi Lists of Figures………………………………………………………………………….....vii Chapter One Introduction…………………………………………………………...……1 Background…………………………………………………………………………….1 Motivation…………………………………………………………………….………..3 Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………………………...6 Research Questions…………………………………………………………………….6 Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………………….7 Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………...10 Limitations of the Study………………………………………………………….……11 Chapter Two Literature Review………………………………………………………….13 Language Learning in Taiwan………………………………………………………....13 Applying English as a Medium of Instruction………………………………………...16 Theoretical Background of EMI………………………………………………………19 Research Related to EMI……………………………………………………………...34 iii.

(7) Research Related to EMI in Taiwan…………………………………………………..49 Task-Based Language Teaching……………………………………………………….55 Learning Attitude……………………………………………………………………...70 Chapter Three Method……………………………………………………………………75 Research Method………………………………………………………………………75 Participants…………………………………………………………………………….76 The Researcher………………………………………………………………………...78 Research Peers…………………………………………………………………………78 SWOT Analysis………………………………………………………………………..80 Research Procedures…………………………………………………………………...84 Teaching Materials and Instructions…………………………………………………...89 Data Collection and Analysis…………………………………………………………..92 Ethic………………………………………………………………………………..…100 Chapter Four Results and Discussion…………………………………………….….….102 Analysis of Students’ Performance…………………………………………….……. 102 Analysis of Listening and Speaking Proficiency……………………………….…….123 Analysis of Students’ Learning Attitudes……………………………………..……...127 Other Findings…………………………………………………………………..……134 Chapter Five Conclusions and Suggestions…………………………………………….149 iv.

(8) Conclusions………………………………………………………………………......149 Suggestions for Further Studies……………………………………………….…..….156 References…………………………………………………………………………………165 Appendices…………………………………………………………………...……………176 Appendix A Pilot study lesson plan…………………………………………….….....176 Appendix B Lesson plan of Hess Give Me Five Book 8 Unit 1………………….......180 Appendix C Interview questions for homeroom teacher……………………….……..185 Appendix D Interview questions for Students………………………………………...186 Appendix E Learning attitudes toward English learning survey………….…………..187 Appendix F Teaching Journal…………………………………………………………192 Appendix G Research Peer’s Observation Form……………………………………...193 Appendix H Parental consent form……………………………………………………195. v.

(9) Lists of Tables Table 2.1 Comparison of EMI-related research in Taiwan…………………………….……50 Table 2.2 Definitions of ‘task’ as language learning goals………………………….……....57 Table 2.3 Definitions of ‘task’ as an educational activity………………………………...…58 Table 2.4 Comparison of conventional syllabus design and task-based syllabus design……62 Table 2.5 Studies of TBLT done in Taiwan………………………………………….………68 Table 3.1 SWOT analysis of the school’s English teaching and learning environment……..80 Table 3.2 Syllabus of Give Me Five Book 8…………………………………………………90 Table 3.3 Example activities used in the study based on Willis’ six types of tasks………….91 Table 3.4 Qualitative data coding and the meaning of each category…………….……….…94 Table 3.5 Description of the two experienced teachers……………….………………….…..96 Table 3.6 Types of Questions and Testing Focus on Listening and Speaking………………..97 Table 3.7 Rubric of Speaking Test ………………………………………………..…………98 Table 4.1 Listening Paired Samples Statistics……………………………………..………..124 Table 4.2 Listening Paired Samples t Test……………………………………....…………..124 Table 4.3 Speaking Paired Samples Statistics……………………………….………….…..124 Table 4.4 Speaking Paired Samples t Test………………………………………….…….…125 Table 4.5 Learning Attitudes Paired Samples Statistics………………………………….…128 Table 4.6 Learning Attitudes Paired Samples t Test………………………………………...128 vi.

(10) List of Figures Figure 2.1 Summary of elements that constitute a method…………………………………56 Figure 3.1 Modified Hendrick’s Model (2006) of Action Research Process……………….86 Figure 3.2 Timeline of the action research………………………………………………….89. vii.

(11) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The major purpose of the current study was to investigate the nature of sixth graders’ performance as well as their attitudes toward learning English by implementing English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in an elementary school. The secondary purpose of this study was to overcome the problems when implementing EMI through this action research process. Background English is the most commonly used language worldwide for the economy, political, and educational purposes. According to the database, Ethnologue, English is considered as the most popular learned language, with over 1500 million learners of the language and more than 110 countries in which English is spoken. The number of native speakers of English is about 335 million; however, the population of English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) is over 1500 million which is far more than the population of native speakers. The fact that English is a global language was also mentioned in The Curriculum Guidelines of the 12-year Basic Education published by the Ministry of Education (MOE) and is considered important as it is a sociocultural tool to interact with others and the surrounding environment effectively (MOE, 2018). In Taiwan, English is considered as a foreign language, and despite its importance, there are not many opportunities to use it in public schools. Based on the guidelines of the 12-year 1.

(12) basic curriculum that the MOE had announced, the core competencies include autonomous action, interactive communication, and social participation, which explained that we are tightly connected to the global village. Furthermore, the concept of the core competency is that “learning should consider real-life scenarios and emphasize holistic development through action and self-development” (MOE, 2018). Unlike other ESL countries where students are immersed in English, as it is seldom used in real-life scenarios. Should teachers adopt EMI as a way to enhance English learning? The answer is always considered controversial. The majority of teachers/educators might agree on maximizing the usage of a target language (L2) in ESL and EFL countries. Opinions are diverse as to whether the learners should be facilitated with their native language (L1), and to what extent the L1/L2 usage is the best. From the research findings, of Cook (2001) and Turnbull (2001) for example, they both agree on the maximizing use of the L2, however, they hold diverse opinions on the amount of L1 usage. Therefore, there is no conclusion on the amount of L2 that should be used due to different circumstances, for example, different language policies, different participants, different teaching methods, and the different characteristics of the teachers and students. Based on Krashen’s input hypothesis and Long’s interactive hypothesis, L2 plays a central roles of second/ foreign language learning. Wong-Fillmore (1985) stated that the L2 use is essential in second language learning, in contrast to L1 being not as efficient as it once 2.

(13) was claimed. Teachers can overcome obstacles by solely using the L2, and bilingual instruction was not suggested. Researchers Turnbull (2001), Wolf (1977), and Rossell (2004) supported the L2-only instruction. Most of the supporters of task-based language teaching (TBLT) also promote L2 usage, such as Ellis (2003), Willis (1996), and Nunan (2004). Researchers Freeman & Freeman (1996), Cummins, and Cook (2001) on the other hand, perceived L1 in a more positive way instead of interference, as they believed that L1 builds the foundation of language learning. Research findings have consistently revealed that by adopting EMI, both students’ proficiency in language learning and their learning attitudes were positively affected. However, by identifying EMI, there is a large difference on the amount of L2 usage, ranging from 67% to 95%. Therefore, the results in adopting EMI for elementary school students are in need of further investigation. This paper reviews the relevant literature on the usage of the task-based EMI approach, and describes the details of this study. Motivation I have taught English for more than 10 years in a public school, and before I became a qualified teacher, I had taught English in a cram school for three years where English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) is adopted. I discovered, when compared to cram school students, English as a medium of instruction was difficult to apply in the public school. Students in public schools have less motivation to speak in English and attitudes toward 3.

(14) English leaning was seen in a negative way, especially for the students who did not go to an English cram school. I also taught English remedial classes at the public school during the past two years. The remedial class is held by the K-12 Education Administration and it is one of the supplemental policies of the MOE. The purpose of the remedial teaching project is to help the lowproficiency students with a lower social-cultural status to reach a standard level of proficiency in Chinese, math and English. The remedial class emphasized on the degree of individualization in English leaning. There was one fact I discovered, in that once the students were confident in basic English learning, including the knowledge of the English alphabet, and the corresponding letter-sound the students will be willing to learn the theme topic. Although the students in the remedial class showed no preference in EMI, they usually actively asked about the next activity in Chinese, showing their willingness to learn, which significantly impressed me because their attitudes towards learning English were turning positive. I noticed that this attitude is a key issue in English learning and it can be taught as Smith (1971) proclaimed, that learning attitude is a sustained impression towards a subject or a situation, as this impression is learned overtime, and therefore has been taught. Smith (1971) suggested that teachers create a fearless classroom atmosphere because “nothing fosters high motivation and positive attitudes as does success.” He advised that the instructions should be more individualized, teachers should evaluate individual progress in 4.

(15) terms of individual aptitudes and motivations, the group should be arranged as multileveled, teachers can design various activities thereby broadening the curriculum, and the teachers can even assign non-graded curriculum to make it successfully happen naturally, and enhance the students’ positive attitudes (as cited in Oroujlou & Vahedi, 2011). In the first semester of 2018, the data from the remedial instruction-technology based tests indicated that among the low-proficiency students, there was a lack of knowledge of classroom English. This reminded me once again, that the exposure to the English environment of public school students is far too limited, and therefore I decided to apply action research to gather information and to reorganize my classroom instructions that I had previously been doing. I started to look for answers by asking colleagues at school as well as researching from the Internet. I joined an English conversation seminar (which is organized by the Education Bureau of Kaohsiung) for nine weeks, and I also asked the opinions of other English teachers in Kaohsiung, interestingly, most said it is impossible to adopt EMI in elementary schools. Among the fifteen teachers I had asked, only two replied “yes” to the questions, and as they expressed “it is the best way to teach English,” which raised my interest and motivation more deeply. At the same time, I found a journal article entitled “Make it Possible: teaching in English-only SOP,” which was written by Dr. Chi, (2018). Dr. Chi approved that English-only 5.

(16) is a way of enhancing students’ listening ability as well as their learning attitudes towards English learning in her action research. In addition to the articles and opinions from teachers, I received a governmental document from the Education Bureau of Kaohsiung that promotes English teachers to instruct their class in English-only, where meaning that above 70% of English usage is encouraged. From my personal experience in English teaching, the journal articles, research findings, and governmental documents, although all English teachers do not agree on the idea, I believed that English as a medium of instruction (EMI) is worth adopting. Purpose of the study The purpose of the current study is as follows: 1. To investigate the nature of the students’ performance after adopting task-based English as a medium of instructional teaching. 2. To investigate how the students build up their listening and speaking competence through TBLT and EMI. 3. To investigate how learning attitudes are influenced after adopting TBLT and EMI. 4. To investigate other obstacles or challenges that occurred after adopting TBLT and EMI on grade six students in elementary school. Research Questions The research questions are as follows: 1. What was the nature of the students’ performance on English as a medium of 6.

(17) instruction (EMI)? 2. How did the students build up their listening and speaking competence through taskbased language teaching (TBLT) and EMI? 3. Which factors of the English learning attitudes were influenced by the teacher’s instructions, and in what ways did those factors influence the academic performance? 4. What are other findings and/or obstacles towards TBLT and the use of EMI? Definition of terms English as a medium of instruction (EMI). According to Dearden’s definition of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in the Oxford University Department of Education is as follows: “The use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English” (Dearden, 2015, p.4). Although EMI was usually adopted in higher education on the academic subjects in Taiwan, I found it as a more neutral term of “English-only” which is consistent in some of the political issues. Another way to define EMI is “teaching English through English” in this current research. Task-based language teaching (TBLT). According to Prabhu (1987), a task is defined as “an activity which required learners to arrive at an outcome from given information through some process of thought and which allowed teachers to control and regulate that 7.

(18) process was regarded as a task” (Brandan, 2006). TBLT in the current research can be defined as a meaningful teaching process with a clear meaningful goal, where teachers provide a contextual environment for students to accomplish a task collaboratively. Teaching materials are from real-life scenarios outside the classroom with a theme that students are interested in. The goal is to acquire a language as well as general knowledge through meaningful communication. Students are assessed through processes and the multi-assessed outcomes. Action research. The aim of action research is to eliminate the gap between the teachers’ instructions and the researchers’ thoughts about that teaching method. In the early 20th century, John Dewey believed that it was important for researchers, practitioners, and others in the educational community, to work collectively in addressing common educational problems (McKay, 2006). Nunan (1992) pointed out that action research usually has three characteristics: “It is carried out by practitioners (i.e. classroom teachers), it is collaborative, and it is aimed at changing things” (as cited in McKay, 2006). Kurt Lewin outlined the method for dealing with social problems in the 1940s, which is considered as the foundation of action research. Lewin’s four stages of an action cycle are planning, acting, observing, and reflecting (McKay, 2006). Listening and speaking proficiency. Listening and speaking proficiency are considered 8.

(19) as the verbal competence of communication. Although this could be underestimated by the reason that in some circumstances, performance does not equal competence as Chomsky (1965) mentioned (as cited in Lin, 2014), the current research uses two sets of examination to find out the students’ English proficiency in listening and speaking to narrow the gap between competence and performance. One is the Cambridge Young Learner English (YLE) practice tests and the other is the examination held at school as the mid-term and final exams for sixth graders. My two colleagues and I will be the examiners of the oral tests, and they will grade the students impartially according to the oral evaluation rubrics provided by me and reviewed by two experienced teachers. Learning attitudes. Allport (1935) defined “attitudes” as “a mental and neural states of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual’s response to all objects and situations with which is related” (as cited in Schwarz & Bohner, 2001). Learning attitudes can be positive or negative. Language learning attitudes consist of two elements as Gardner proposed, one is the attitude towards learning the language (Instrumental orientations) which are related to educational attitudes towards the teacher, the course, and learning the language, and the other are the attitudes towards the language community, which are relevant to social attitudes (Integrated orientation). Learners are affected by these two types of learning attitudes (Brown, 2007b). The current research is considered different on the language usage, and the task-based 9.

(20) curriculum design, therefore, I would like to focus more on the attitudes towards language learning. I designed the survey questions in four categories based on Chen’s (2005) and Pan’s (2002) studies, the categories are attitudes toward self-learning, learning materials, teaching style, and motivation in English language learning. Significance of the study The outcome of the researches in Taiwan were controversial when implementing EMI. Researchers Wu (2018), Kuo (2017), and Chen (2016), concluded that there was a significant difference on students’ English abilities. Other researchers found that even if there was no significant difference found on students’ English performance, they found a positive relationship between EMI and the students’ learning attitudes toward English (Lin, 2017; Li, 2014; and Chen, 2016a). Lin (2007) proclaimed that it can cause problems when adopting EMI, such as communication breakdowns between the teachers and students, as the teachers spend a lot of time on explaining the course content and paid too much attention on the lower achievers, that leads to an increase in anxiety. However, all of the researchers believed the obstacles could be overcome. Comments like “TBLT enhanced English learning” can be found in the related researches in Taiwan (Huang, 2018; Yu, 2018; Li, 2017; Lee, 2017; Chen, 2016b; Wu, 2016; and Peng, 2013). Most of the studies found the results were in support of this teaching method. There was one research done with the communicative approach EMI teaching in 10.

(21) Taiwan, and the researcher, Wu (2018), had stated that there was improvement found in the overall performance of English. Wu suggested that teachers should adopt EMI in English teaching with a communicative language teaching approach to facilitate the students’ learning in Taiwan. These researches were either implementing EMI or TBLT. Therefore, the aim of the current research is consistent in both EMI and TBLT for English teaching in elementary schools in Taiwan. Limitations of the study There are three limitations of the current study. First, this study employed an action research, and the teacher is the researcher. I am responsible for both teaching and observing. The research bias might happen since the teacher/researcher plans, teaches, evaluates and reflects on her point of view. To minimize the gap of the research bias, I adopted triangulation in this study to evaluate the performance of the students, as well as class observation by the research peers to be fair and objective in this study. Second, under the stress of classroom audio and video recording, the students and I might not perform at our genuine levels. Furthermore, when I interview the students who are taught by myself, they might not express their opinions and remain conservative about their thoughts due to the power that I already hold. I am therefore aiming to create a stress-less environment while teaching, oral testing, and interviewing to minimize this constraint. Third, as I try to keep the learning environment 11.

(22) comfortable, I could not restrict the language usage in class especially between peers. I tell the students to use Chinese vocabulary when they have no idea or clue to express the meaning and then eliminate the sentence used in Chinese. This rule might decrease their willingness to speak in class and lead to a negative impact on the classroom observation that the students either keep quiet during the class or chat in Chinese with friends. With these limitations in mind, I have eliminated the possible factors for any bias outcome, I keep a visual recording and a replicating journal for each lesson, then transcribe and review them carefully.. 12.

(23) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Language Learning in Taiwan In Taiwan, English is considered as a foreign language, as the Ministry of Education (MOE, 2018) outlined, English is said to be “Global Englishes” that is used by people around the world. It is opened to people for communication and therefore allows dissimilarities in the 21st century. Language learning is seen as a functional tool, with the main focus being on communication and knowledge acquisition. Language policy in Taiwan. According to the curriculum guidelines of the 12-year Basic Education by MOE (2018), English learning has the major concept of equipping each student with the core competency which have the following characteristics: 1. Student centered, emphasis on the principle of adaptive learning and affective factors of the learner. 2. Emphasis on the communicative function of the language, highlights its instrumental role in acquiring new knowledge. 3. Develop students' self-learning and lifelong learning habits. 4. Guide students with the ability to think, process, and use information independently. 5. Explore the culture of different countries through language, encourage cross-cultural reflections, enhance social participation, and foster an international outlook. 13.

(24) 6. Cultivate students' ability to think logically as well as inspiring student’s creativity. (MOE, 2018) Based on the aforementioned concepts, the MOE (2018) proposed curriculum goals in English learning are as follows: 1. Developing the ability of listening, speaking, reading, and writing in English and applying English to everyday communication. 2. Improving the interest in English and developing a positive attitude towards English learning. Encourage students actively involved in all areas of knowledge. 3. Constructing an effective English learning method, strengthen self-learning ability, and lay the foundation for lifelong learning. 4. Respecting and accepting of multiculturalism, cultivating an international outlook, and a sustainable worldview. 5. Cultivating logical thinking, analyzing, integrating and creating abilities in English. (MOE, 2018) Following these concepts and goals, the MOE (2018) disclosed that the English learning focus was on students’ “English performance” and “English learning content.” The MOE claimed that these focuses provide a framework for curriculum design, teaching material development, and learning assessment. Among English performance, there are listening, speaking, reading, writing, and multi-skills as language functions. Furthermore, learning 14.

(25) attitudes and interests, learning strategies, understanding of culture issues, and logical thinking when learning English are also emphasized by the government (MOE, 2018). An overview of English learning in primary schools in Taiwan. English is considered as a foreign language in Taiwan, and it is planned to become a second language by 2030, according to the “Bilingual Policy Blueprint” announced by the Executive Yuan (2018). English, due to its economic and political features, is a global language. According to Dai’s research, English was implemented in Kaohsiung as an extra-curricular activity in public schools in 1991, and was officially implemented in Grade 5 in 1997 (as cited in Chern, 2010). The trend that students start to learn English at an early age had indicated the importance of language learning at the primary school stage, our school, for example, implemented English as an elective Grade 1 course in 2018. Except for the extension of English education to the lower grade, the Kaohsiung Education Bureau started the English village program and the coteaching program with the Fulbright scholars for many years, as native speakers are “imported” to teach in the city as well as to exchange languages and cultures. There are two cities, Taipei and Tainan, which further implemented bilingual education and the CLIL curriculum in some of the “English leading schools” in 2017. All the policies adopted by both the central and local government were intended to increase the opportunities for the students to be exposed more to English and to encourage the students to become successful second language learners. However, from a China Times news report (2017.11.08), according to the 15.

(26) Education First’s EPI (English Proficiency Index) finding, within 80 ESL countries, the average results of TOEIC among Taiwanese students were ranked 40th, which is lower than the average of other Asian countries like Singapore, China, and Japan. Students were still unable to communicate outside the classroom in a real-world scenario. Therefore, the question arose as to whether English teaching and learning were on the right track? Compared to the ideal and the reality of English education in Taiwan, with the support of the widespread teaching in English, I, as a teacher/researcher found the reasons as well as the pros and cons of adopting EMI into my classroom. Theoretical background and research findings are further discussed in the following sections. Applying English as a Medium of Instruction According to Dearden’s (2015) definition of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in the Oxford University Department of Education is as follows: “The use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English” (p.4). The reason that EMI, the term used here is because English is one of the academic subjects in Taiwan and the majority of people do not speak English, and it is considered as a foreign language. Although EMI is known as a top-down policy worldwide and hasn’t been introduced as yet, we might be facing the same challenge, in that the Executive Yuan is about to enact the “Bilingual Policy” in the near future (Executive Yuan, 2018). The other consideration of EMI is that it has been 16.

(27) adopted by Universities, or other higher education establishments in recent years, but can it be adapted to the secondary or primary stage? I think the answer is clear that Dearden (2015) actually approved that EMI is used at primary level as she described in the research: “EMI is increasingly being used in Universities, secondary schools, and even primary schools” (Dearden, 2015, p.4). The conceptual idea of EMI is different from content and language integrated learning (CLIL), Immersion Programs, and Whole Language Approach. As Dearden, (2015), firstly stated that CLIL has its nature of plurilingualism for the European citizen, where EMI does not have any contextual origin. Furthermore, the E in EMI is English whereas CLIL can be any language integrated with content, and the objective is to further both content and language, but EMI does not have this type of objective. When talking about language immersion, there are the composition of different languages used in these classrooms. “Immersion programs aim to provide the quantity and quality of involvement in the use of the target language that ensure of the development of a high level of proficiency” (Johnson & Swain, 1997). Types of immersion programs can be one-way or two-way, early or late, and structured or unstructured due to different language instructions, for example, the amount of second language used in the classroom or a set of structured time for language allocation. In the research by Thomas and Collier (1995), they claimed that the two-way bilingual program is the most promising model for academic 17.

(28) success, because they strive to reach an above average level of their second language while maintaining their first language, when compared to those who did not have a facilitating L1 (as cited in Sipra, 2013). The core features of an Immersion Program summarized by Johnson and Swain (1997) are as follows: 1. The L2 is a medium of instruction. 2. The immersion curriculum parallels the local L1 curriculum. 3. Overt support exists for the L1. 4. The program aims for additive bilingualism. 5. Exposure to the L2 is largely confined to the classroom. 6. Students enter with similar (and limited) levels of L2 proficiency. 7. The teachers are bilingual. 8. The classroom culture is that of the local L1 community. (Johnson & Swain, 1997, p.6) Due to the context of language learning in Taiwan, it is very different from the bilingual situation mentioned above, and it is also different from the variety of the immersion programs especially with the support of L1, therefore, I would say that the immersion programs are not the main issue adopted in this current research. Whole Language Approach as opposed to EMI was not adopted in the current research. Among the principles of the whole language that Freeman and Freeman (1992) had 18.

(29) mentioned in their book, “Learning should take place in the first language to build concepts and facilitate the acquisition of English” (p.5-7), where once again it supports the bilingual approach, of which is not in a similar context either. It is not saying that the Taiwanese learner cannot reach the level of bilingualism, and it is not concluding that the usage of L1 is insufficient, as this is not the approach that I have applied in the current research. As a teacher/researcher, I would like to clarify that EMI, as well as other approaches, has the same goal to help L2 learners to reach and become a successful L2 learner. I am not claiming that EMI has no relationship to bilingualism, rather, I will discuss closely in the following section about the theory behind, and the debates among, these approaches. Theoretical Background of EMI Every method in English teaching can refer to the theories that support the particular teaching approach, teaching design, and teaching procedures, as Richards and Rodgers (2001) proposed the analyzing model of “method.” Knowing the principles and approaches beyond the methodology will help teachers to design their curriculum more effectively. It is difficult to define as to whether a particular method will work, or not, in a classroom since the teachers, the students, and the learning environment, may vary from place to place. The historical changes in second language acquisition need to be understood from a broader view, followed by the theories and methods related to EMI, further, I would like to discuss in more detail the input and output hypothesis. 19.

(30) Historical change in second language acquisition. Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, learning a second language in western countries was to promote intellectuality through language learning, known as the Classical Method. The aim was to codify a foreign language into rules of morphology and syntax to be memorized (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). In the 19th century, the Classical Method was known as the Grammar Translation Method (Brown, 2007b), which focused on grammatical rules and usage of the students’ native language (L1), to directly translate the target language (L2). However, this method has no relation to any linguistic, psychology, or educational theory (Richards & Rodgers, 2006). In the late 19th century, increasing opportunities for communication among Europeans created a market for oral communication, thereby a reform was developing. After experiencing the failure of foreign language learning, a teacher named Gouin, concluded the view that “language learning is primarily a matter of transforming perceptions into conceptions” (Brown, 2007b). Gouin, the reformer, proposed the Series Method by observing how children naturally learned their mother tongue. The Series Method emphases on meaning and leaning in a context that makes the meaning clear (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p.8). This approach placed more effort on the later Language Reform. In the beginning of 20th century, the Direct Method was widely known and practiced. The Direct Method had lots of oral interaction, no translation between L1 and L2, teachers used L2 to teach with little analysis of grammatical rules (Brown, 2007b). The Direct Method was the first EMI related 20.

(31) method where classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language as Richards and Rodgers (2001) summarized. After the end of World War Two, the languageteaching revolution took place, as the United States was seeking courses that facilitated the army’s oral skills where pronunciation, pattern drills, and conversation was adopted in the Army Method. In the 1950s, the Army Method turned into the Audiolingual Method, which was firmly grounded in linguistic and psychological theory. This was the time that structural linguistics turned language learning into “scientific descriptive analysis” (Brown, 2007b). The behavioristic psychologist, B. F. Skinner (1957), proclaimed that languages are learned through reinforcement known as the “Verbal behavior” (Brown, 2007a). Brooks (1964) further explained when a teacher provides linguistic stimuli in the form of dialogue and drills, reinforces the correct responses, and corrects the students’ errors (“The Audiolingual Method”). This Behavioral Approach is then criticized for its focus on form and external behaviors, as it was unable to explain the complex intrinsic procedures made by the language learner. The Audiolingual Method was replaced by the Chomskyan revolution in linguistics as the Cognitive Approach. As opposed to Behaviorism, the Nativist believed that language acquisition was innately determined. Chomsky (1965) claimed that we were born with a genetic capacity installed in our brain as a language acquisition device (LAD). Researchers of the Nativist further assumed that all human beings are genetically equipped with Universal Grammar (UG) that Brown (2007a) explained as follows: 21.

(32) Universal Grammar (UG) research attempts to discover what it is that all children, regardless of their environmental stimuli (the language[s] they hear around them) bring to the language acquisition process. Such studies have looked at question formation, negation, word order, discontinuity of embedded clauses, subject deletion, and other grammatical phenomena. (Brown, 2007a, p.29) Chomsky mentioned the language performance and language competence, and therefore after the 1960s, the Communicative Approach superseded the Audiolingual Method and the new method era has arrived, where the movement was to a “competency-based instruction that focus on the outcomes of learning rather than methods of teaching” (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p.15). Teaching methodology related to EMI. The teaching method after the 1960s was considered as the Communicative Approach, including the Silent Way, the Natural Approach, and the Total Physical Response. In the 1990s, methods like Content-Based Instruction and Task-Based Language Teaching were developed, and there were also approaches which were developed in the first language, and then extended to second language settings such as Cooperative Learning, Whole Language Approach, and Multiple Intelligences (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p.15). When English is considered the target language in second language learning, English as a medium of instruction (EMI) can be immersed into different methodology. Except for the 22.

(33) Grammar-Translation Method, all the other methods could adopt “English” as the medium of instruction. The rationale behind EMI is about whether the mother tongue (L1) or target language (L2) should be used when teaching a foreign language. In some teaching methods, the use of L1 is restricted and the teachers are asked to use L2 only to teach a foreign language in the Direct Method, the Audiolingual Method, and the Total Physical Response (L1 only introduced in the beginning of class) while in other methods, although maximizing the use of L2 was a common goal, native language was encouraged to be used in the process, they viewed a native language in a positive way, such as the Communicative Language Teaching, Content-Based and Task-Based Approaches (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Within the Whole Language Approach, L1 was encouraged to facilitate the acquisition of English in a bilingual context (Freeman & Freeman, 1992). There is one approach very similar to EMI, known as the immersion program. The rationale behind it is the same as EMI, in that whether L1 or L2 should be used in the specific language learning context. The only difference is that EMI insists on using English-only when instructing students in L2 learning. The immersion program, on the other hand, has a more complex composition of L1 and L2. As opposed to EMI, bilingualism is another issue in that a curriculum is taught bilingually. One thing I have to mention here is that as a teacher/researcher, the aim of the current study is for the second language development, the goal is simply to encourage my 23.

(34) students to reach a level so that they are able to communicate in English. With this goal in mind, the immersion program and bilingualism has the main purpose of subject matter learning, that is, a dual goal on both language learning and subject knowledge. It is not saying that EMI won’t be able to acquire the subject knowledge, however, this is not the main goal in this research. The current research has the same origin of a “second language acquisition” that is to learn a second language successfully with the positive effects of knowledge learning. How language is learned through input and interaction. According to Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, learners must be exposed to the target language data which they can access and comprehended with a low affective filter that makes them open to the input (Ellis, 2003, p.45), known as the comprehensible input. Krashen claimed that acquisition happens unconsciously and the contextual information is helpful for acquiring a language (as cited Ellis, 2003, p.46). Long (1983) further explained that comprehension is crucial for language acquisition, as he proposed in his Interaction Hypothesis that “modifications to the interactional structure of conversation which take place in the process of negotiating solutions to communication problems help to make input comprehensible to the learner” (Ellis, 2003). These modified interactions lead to a greater amount of comprehensible input, and that leads to a greater acquisition (Gass & Varonis, 1985). These two hypothesis contributed to the basic rationale of the EMI adoption as well as the Task-Based Approach which I will discuss later 24.

(35) in the chapter. Krashen’s and Long’s Hypothesis has been criticized in that “how comprehensive,” the degree of comprehension that is necessary for acquisition, however, it was not mentioned (Ellis, 2003, p.46). Especially in EFL countries, students with low or no proficiency in English usually “switched off” when they listen to a foreign language, I personally found the situation in my classroom was that even when I’m talking in both languages, they show their boredom by saying “I don’t understand” to avoid input to be comprehended, and thus, no acquisition has ever occurred. Another criticism found in Sharwood Smith’s argument (as cited in Ellis, 2003) that there are two ways of processing input, one involving comprehension and the other acquisition. From Færch and Kasper’s point of view, this argument can be explained as follows (as cited in Ellis, 2003): “Interactional input modifications will only lead to acquisition if learners recognize that a ‘gap’ in understanding is the result not of the interlocutor’s failure to make herself understood but of the learner’s own lack of linguistic knowledge.” From my own experience when I was teaching the remedial class at school, I found this concept might well explain that students hardly acquire a language by practicing the sentence patterns where acquisition does not happen, and most of the time they plainly imitated what I said and kept asking the same question next time they needed to say it. A further challenge to Krashen’s Input Hypothesis is the role of consciousness and 25.

(36) attention in language acquisition. Schmidt’s argument (as cited in Ellis, 2003) was that attention to input is a conscious process. “The allocation of attention is pivotal when learnerinternal factors (including aptitude, motivation, current L2 knowledge, and processing ability) and learner-external factors (including the complexity and the distributional characteristics of input, discourse and interactional context, instructional treatment, and task characteristics) come together” (as cited in Ellis, 2003). As this reminds me of the complicated process of language learning, this study is therefore focused on each individual, by adopting a task that attracts the students’ attention, as well as an observation journal in qualitative research to overcome their obstacles in their learning of the foreign language. Teacher Talk works as input. This section is based on Wong-Fillmore’s discussion in the article “When does teacher talk work as input” (Wong-Fillmore, 1985), where she would like to search for answers of “How greatly teachers can influence language learning in their classes by the way they use language in instructional events, and by the opportunities they make available to students during these events to practice the new language” (WongFillmore, 1895), which gave me insight about teacher talk in more detail, and thus, supporting the usage of EMI in the current research. The issue mentioned in Wong-Fillmore’s study was that the students with limited English proficiency (LEP) were not learning well enough to achieve the required academic level. Among these majority users of English, they do not have the chance to talk to peers in 26.

(37) English outside the classroom, as the LEP students’ only English Resources were from the teachers in the classroom, she claimed that bilingual instruction did not work well since the students understood they wouldn’t need to use English in the classroom, therefore, the teacher’s language played an essential role. There are two aspects of the teacher's language use: first, it is the means by which they impart to their students the information and skills they are supposed to be learning in school, and second, it also serves as the linguistic input on which these students can base their acquisition of English. Wong-Fillmore (1985) offered some suggestions to help the LEP students in these particular circumstances. She observed the differences between classes, and gave a recommendation that two sets of characteristics determined the success of language learning. The first set related to the way the lessons are structured or area organized for instruction. Structural characteristics of lessons that work for language learnings are: . formal lessons with clear boundaries (non-linguistic features like movement of students’ seats, teacher's voice volume, gestures, teacher's talk signals the class begin);. . routines were well established and lesson scripts (the same lesson format) has high regularity in the lesson routine;. . the use of instructions and signals, and. . the recapitulation phase of the lesson.. Wong-Fillmore further mentioned, turn-allocation in lessons, in that everyone has a chance to 27.

(38) be called is considered important. The second set is the way language is used in the lesson. The statement of how language used in lessons will affect language learning were profoundly discussed by researchers Long (1983), Pica, Young and Doughty (1987), and Ellis (1994). As Long (1990) proposed that the interactionally modified input worked well in second language acquisition. As in his Interaction Hypothesis, “communication breakdowns encourage L2 learners to negotiate solutions to these problem and in the progress internalized the new linguistic knowledge” (as cited in Yousofi & Bahramlou, 2014). Instead of pre-modified input (where teacher talk was modified by reducing the complexity and increasing the quantity and redundancy), the interactionally modifications were made by both teachers and students in negotiation of meanings, and thus, facilitated language acquisition Pica, Young and Doughty (1987) did a research on comparing 16 non-native speakers’ comprehension by using pre-modified input and interactionally modified input. The results showed that comprehension was best assisted with repeated and rephrased content information rather than the simplification of input. Furthermore, the research found that the native speaker’s and non-native speaker’s interactional modifications in the form of a comprehension and confirmation check, and a clarification request, served as a mechanism for the native speaker modification of input played a critical role in comprehension. Ellis (1994) mentioned repetition, confirmations, reformulations, comprehension checks, 28.

(39) recasts, confirmation checks, and clarification request as instances of modification and restructuring of interaction (as cited in Yousofi & Bahramlou, 2014). Ellis, Tanaka and Yamazaki (1994) conducted two studies to investigate the effects of modified interaction on comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. They found that input received through interaction would lead to a higher level of L2 comprehension (as cited in Yousofi & Bahramlou, 2014). Later, researchers Maleki and Pazhakh (2012) further compared premodified input, interactionally modified input, non-modified input, and modified output. They also concluded that interactionally modified input outperformed the others in the comprehension of new words. These are confirmations of the successful language usage in second language learning. In addition to Krashen and Long, the argument that comprehensibility is crucial in determining whether the language spoken to learners works as input, Swain (1985) contends that “comprehensible output” was also needed. Swain (1985) concluded that students taught in the French Immersion courses had not performed as equals in the level of the native speakers in their grammatical communicative competence, however, there was no significant difference in discourse and in sociolinguistic communicative competence. The reason was due to the lack of comprehension output, as he defined the comprehension output as follows: Comprehensible output: output that extends the linguistic repertoire of the learner as he or she attempts to create precisely and appropriately the meaning desired. 29.

(40) Comprehensible output, it was argued, is a necessary mechanism of acquisition independent of the role of comprehensible input. Its role is, at minimum, to provide opportunities for contextualized meaning use, to test out hypotheses about the target language, and to move the learner from a purely semantic analysis of the language to a syntactic analysis of it. (Swain, 1985, p.252) Swain (1985) claimed the reason that the immersion students did not demonstrate native-speaker productive competence was because their comprehensible output was limited in two ways; first, the students were simply not given adequate opportunities to use the target language in the classroom-context. Second, they were not being “pushed” in their output. There is little social or cognitive pressure to produce language more precisely, especially in later grades as they are understood by teachers and peers. Students in the French Immersion program managed to convey meaning adequately in their early age, however, the second language used is not as precise or appropriate as the native speaker. Although grammatical competence can be explained by comprehensible input, the comprehensible output on the other hand ought to achieve a native-like utterance and be affected by the discourse and sociolinguistic competence. As a teacher/researcher, I considered comprehensible output as an important element, which explained my own learning experience, in that the language used was Chinese outside the classroom. As long as my teachers and friends can understand the meaning, they will not 30.

(41) give negative feedback of my speaking, and thus, communication is adequate, however, but not as precise as the native speaker. The current research conducted the Task-Based Approach as the teaching method, which I think will overcome the problem that has been discussed. During the post-task stage, which is designed to disclose the language problems or mistakes that have been observed by the teacher. Back to the classroom scenario of Wong-Fillmore’s study in 1985, where the students ranged from full proficiency in English to none at all. That is a very similar situation faced in Taiwan, a diversity of proficiency level students, students in English proficiency distribution is as bimodal distribution. In this kind of learning environment, language learning occurs in the following conditions: first, when students try to understand what their teachers and classmates are saying; second, when teachers through their efforts to communicate with learners by providing them with enough extralinguistic cues to allow them to comprehend what is being said; and third, when the situation allows the learners to make astute guesses at the meaning of the language being used in the lesson. Teacher talk once again plays an important role as language input. Wong-Fillmore (1985) concluded that characteristics of teacher talk that works as input are as follows: 1. Clear separation of languages: bilingual instructions is not suggested, different language should be used by a different person and time. The negative effects of using LEP students’ native language are: Translation short-circuits the process of 31.

(42) language learning from both sides of communication. Teachers do not modify their language, and English is not used as an input in the situation of translation. On the other hand, the learners ignore the language usage only to ensure the meaning, they no longer need to pay attention to the second language as a result. “Children tend to tune out when the language they do not know is being spoken” (Legarreta, 1979; Wong-Fillmore 1982). 2. Emphasis on communication and comprehension: the use of pictures, demonstration, gestures, enactment, to communicate some of the information to the students. As in an immersion programs, adjustments are made for the goal of communication by putting the new information on what was being presented in the context of work that the students had already completed. The conveyance of meaning is thus successful. 3. Grammaticality and appropriateness of the language used in lessons where language used are appropriate to the activity, teachers are suggested to use the techniques such as simpler structures, avoidance of complex structures, repeated use of the same sentence patterns and/or routines, repetitiveness, and the use of paraphrases for variation, but Foreigner-talk forms were never used in the class. 4. Tailoring of elicitation questions to allow for different levels of participation from students: elicit one-word answers, ask more open-ended questions. teachers should tailor questions to fit the levels of proficiency of individual students, expand one32.

(43) word answers to a full sentence. Teachers made modification by tailoring questions according to the students' proficiency level, thus lessening the anxiety that language learners are likely to feel when more is expected of them than they can give. 5. Richness of language use: teacher talk in successful classes tends to focus on language itself. Although it might neither be the content of the lesson planned, nor the stripped-down language features, the teachers tend to take every opportunity to impart a feel of the language to their students. 6. Playfulness of the curriculum design: the objectives throughout the lesson is “to help students to develop a greater control of the forms, functions and uses of the new language” (Wong-Fillmore, 1985, p.43). Teachers show their creativities in the curriculum design. Furthermore, teachers found in a successful classroom were considered as effective communicators, a more effective factor of determination. (Wong-Fillmore, 1985, p.33-43) From the above findings, acknowledging the theoretical background that comprehensible input, comprehensible output, and the interactive theory are the foundation of EMI usage in a foreign language classroom. In addition to the theory, the practical suggestions by Wong-Fillmore (1985) about the structural characteristics of lessons and the characteristics of teacher talk that works as input, gave me a positive insight into conducting the EMI approach. 33.

(44) Research related to EMI The language used in second language teaching is always controversial. On the one hand, there are teachers and educators that support the exclusive use of native language by conducting EMI. In point of fact, EMI is conducted in order to improve communication, to exchange ideas, to create relations between countries, as it is also considered as a key to success, to open the doors for their students, or a way to meet personal challenge, and a way to improve the teachers both personally and professionally, EMI benefits the teachers and students alike. The government should propose EMI policies for promotion, globalization and financial survival, internationalizing the country or for other colonial reasons (Dearden, 2015). EMI adoption, instead, could be seen as controversial and sensitive, in a negative way that teachers and educators, as well as administrators and the government, might work against it for its academic or political reasons as follows: . to protect a national identity instead of bringing in a Western viewpoint;. . to protect a native language or the freedom to study in a native language instead of a unified language. For example, EMI might endanger Indonesians' national identity, with the risk of the national unifying language, Bahasa Indonesia, becoming the language of the poor and English becoming the language of the elite classes;. . to avoid linguistic imperialism. For example, the academic concern of EMI that has a negative result occurred in a Turkish University. That is, EMI reduced a student’s ability 34.

(45) to understand concepts that leads to low levels of knowledge of the subjects studied. It takes too much time to teach the curriculum through EMI. That EMI causes feeling of alienation due to students' low level proficiency (Dearden, 2015). The language used in second language teaching provoked more discussion in the following sections. Exclusive use of native language. The adoption of EMI is known as the exclusive use of a native language where second or foreign languages are taught through English. At the time there was the Great Reform of language teaching and most of the teaching methods did not allow the use of L1 due to the reasons that spoken language is more basic when compared to written language, grammar should not be directly translated, and language should be practiced as a whole according to Hawkins (as cited in Cook, 2001). Teaching methods like the Direct Method and the Audiolingual Method have restricted the L1 usage, whereas the Communicative Language Teaching and the Task-based approach have encouraged a maximizing use of L2. Weschler (1997) claimed that most teachers would like to avoid L1 usage for the reasons that they have diverse nationality students, or for the commercial expediency of the teachers, since they do not have the competence in using the students' native language to do with ideal pedagogy (as cited in Tai, 2003). There are researchers who support the exclusive native language teaching, and have come to the conclusion that teaching a foreign language through target language results in a higher proficiency of the 35.

(46) target language. Turnbull is a French language teacher, but he is a non-native speaker who uses French to teach his students when analyzing a grammar point, debating controversy or even talking about social activities outside the classroom. In the beginning, his students did not accept learning the target language, however, as time went by, the students became used to it and thanked the teacher, as they considered exclusive usage of a foreign language in teaching motivated their learning and they felt the need to communicate in real-life circumstances (Turnbull, 2001). Turnbull has completed researches to see whether the varying amount of target language usage leads to different outcomes of the students' learning proficiency. The results showed that the higher the amount of target language used the higher the grades on the French proficiency and the achievement test. There is a positive relationship between the teacher’s language use and the test scores. In contrast, the exceeding usage of the mother tongue may lead to failure in language learning as Polio and Duff (1994) pointed out, as problems will arise when teachers are not aware of their L1 use in the classroom. Polio and Duff (1994) researched the teachers’ language use in class and found the L1 usage varied from 10% to 100%, and they wanted to find out when the teachers used L1, for what functions, and to what extent. They finally concluded several reasons for avoiding L1 use, as well as the solutions for the areas that teachers found it difficult to use L2 as follows: 36.

(47) 1. When the students do not hear the word in L2, they first lose their opportunity to infer the meaning of the word from the context and to process this information in L2. Furthermore, when students know that the word in L2 is important, it will reinforce them to clarify the meaning, and then genuine communication will result as opposed to that of the use of L1 was simply to save time for difficult vocabulary. 2. Teachers perceive difficult grammatical rules which are hard to explain in the target language as it is usually written in L2 in the text book. Although the grammatical terms were confusing, they cover more useful materials through L2 and thereby give the students the opportunity to process the communicative input to practice the new structures thoroughly in non-mechanical ways, and also to express and resolve comprehension problems in TL. Solutions to this problem is to start to teach grammatical terms at the beginning of the course, provide supplementary grammatical explanations, and leave time to clarify the grammatical point in L1. 3. Classroom management languages should be easy to teach and used frequently, therefore teachers do not need to use L1. These instructions represent the most authentic and natural communication in the classroom. 4. In the case of a comfortable environment being built through L1, the teacher could ask the students to explain the term in L1 thereby helping to develop the rapport between the teachers and students, but losing the chance to receive L2 input in a real-life situation. 37.

(48) 5. Communication breakdowns might occur when teachers ask a question in L2 and students cannot discern whether it is a display question or a real-life (referential) question. Two of the research participants (teachers) say it is part of their intentional strategies to use L1 to save class time and to reduce the frustration level of the students. The authors considered this as shortsighted. One solution to this is to tell the students that they don’t have to understand every single word to be able to know the meaning. If the teacher tries to paraphrase and to repeat in L2, the students have a better chance to learn the L2. Polio and Duff (1994) inferred one possible reason that the teachers’ lack of ability to rephrase and modify their speech as their learning experiences were similar. They further suggested that by raising the conscious awareness of teachers L1 usage could help to overcome the above problems, as they could video-tape themselves or ask for help since they know L2 should be used in a genuine communication. Students on the other hand, may not know the advantages of the exposure to the target language. The outcomes of teachers’ instruction in L2 were beneficial to second language learning at that time. In Carroll’s research, the amount of time distributed to a foreign language, teacher’s proficiency in L2, and the amount of L2 used by teachers in the class, was a determining factor which influenced the students’ L2 proficiency. She claimed that the amount of time distributed to a foreign langue is the principle factor. Furthermore, in Rossell’s (2004) research “Teaching English through English,” a 38.

(49) structured immersion approach, which provides instruction almost entirely in English, but in a self-contained classroom consisting only of English language learners, outperformed bilingual instruction in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts. Rossell (2004) also claimed that the school actually never had a bilingual class that fit the theoretical model. Debates on EMI. The main debates on EMI can be categorized into the following 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 39.