The Appropriate Ways to Teach English as a Second Language - Research Proposal Example

Chapter Two Literature Review 2 The most appropriate ways to teach English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as a Foreign Language (EFL). 2.1.1. Alternative ways of learning EFL. Teaching EFL can be done in a myriad of ways. This section will discuss each of the major ones in turn, explaining the benefits to be gained from it and the negative side of it. This will provide a background to the debate over whether the presence of the mother tongue in the classroom is positive or negative. Hinkel (2004) provides an excellent overview to the various methods currently employed in the EFL class room. The first which she focuses on is the Communication Method. This is currently the most popular way of teaching EFL, whereby students are taught exclusively in the target language and in this way naturally develop the ability to communicate. This method is particularly effective at improving students’ speaking and listening skills, since the students are forced to constantly interact with the instructor in TL. However, there is no fixed methodology in teaching this type of approach and so teachers do not have prescribed techniques to employ in the classroom. Students are also likely to have much under developed written skills as compared to their speaking and listening skills. Grammar may also suffer when using this approach since grammar structures are not formally taught, but are naturally picked up by the student through use of the language. The MT has traditionally been completely excluded from this teaching approach The main alternative to this approach is the Traditional or Grammar Translation method. This is based much more on reading and writing, with students working from passages of texts. They are often expected to read the text aloud whilst the teacher corrects errors in pronunciation. There are often questions which the students have to respond to in the target language which text both general and more specific understanding of the text and very often the student will be required to translate from the TL to the MT and vice versa. Grammar is also formally taught through written examples and exercises. The advantages of this method are that students gain a deep insight into the differences between the MT and the TL and tend to develop good written and reading skills. The disadvantages include limited speaking or listening ability. The disadvantages of this method are discussed in more details in section 2.4.1. Suggestopedia is a much updated version of the Grammar Translation method. In this method, students follow the teacher but do not speak. They read along with texts from the teacher or just listen. The teacher presents the grammar rules and the class ends with games or activities. Eventually the students spontaneously contribute to the lesson the English without correction. The use of the MT is not excluded in this method, but the formula is much less rigid and designed to be more relaxing than the Grammar Translation Method. Students rely on subconsciously learning the language rather than actively learning rules. It has the advantage of being less stressful than other methods and allowing students to go at their own pace. However, the lack of structure can leave some students struggling. Finally, Community Language Learning is an approach whereby the class is not teacher led, but student led, with students guiding the course, planning their activities and only asking the teacher for help when required. Students also correct each other. The idea is a collaborative approach in language learning and removes the traditional student-teacher roles. However, lessons can be directionless and unstructured which is not always effective for some learners. 2.1.2 Teaching students with limited English proficiency (LEP). Teaching students with limited English proficiency is an issue which can be exacerbated according to the student’s particular background. For example, students who have limited literacy in their MT may struggle because they may have limited experience of reading and writing. Students from countries where the Roman alphabet is not used may also need particular help. Much research has been dedicated to explore this particularly complex area of English language teaching. Bilingual education for LEP school students has been favored in the United States where it has been considered expedient to allow students in this category to learn English in their MT. However issues such as small numbers of students who speak the same language has often meant that those students have been taught in English, whereas bilingual classes have been reserved for example for Spanish speakers who often represent a larger group, making it more cost effective to instruct them in their MT. Lucas and Katz (1994) carried out research into lessons for LEP students in High Schools across America where the lessons were theoretically supposed to be in English. What they in fact discovered was that ‘the classrooms were multilingual environments in which students native languages served a multitude of purposes and functions.’ (p.543) Lucas and Katz found that using the native language in the class room gave students a way to communicate with each other and a point of reference to learn from, increased the pride they had in their MT and allowed the teacher to show respect for the various MTs in the class. In Lucas and Katz’s research it is clear that the use of the MT in the classroom was harnessed by the teacher as a tool to aid learning, rather than being regarded as a block to language acquisition. It is clear therefore that, where bilingual class cannot exist to teach LEP students (still the preferred method) so-called ‘English only’ classes in fact make very positive use of MT in order to help LEP students to learn. Garcia (2000) has also conducted government funded research into which language is better to teach LEP students. Their main concern was at the lack of consistency between schools. They found that some LEP students taught exclusively in English made very quick progress compared to those taught in the MT. However, the high level of English used in the class room often made it difficult for LEP students to progress and so it is often preferable teach in the MT. 2.2 . The Use of Students Mother Tongue in EFL Classes in Some Arab Gulf Countries 2.2.1. Views against Using Students’ MT in EFL Classes Recent research in EFL teaching has begun to shift in support of the use of the mother tongue in the classroom. However, resistance to this idea remains embedded in teaching methods, since the tradition of an English only approach is so strong. Arguments against the use of MT in EFL classes, put forward by such researchers as Met and Lorenz (1997) and Ramirez (1994) include the slowing down of students’ beginning to think in English, confusion between the MT and TL when it comes to grammar structures and a longer length of time for students to learn and retain new structures and vocabulary. It is maintained that the quickest way to learn a new language is to use it exclusively when learning. 2.2.2.. Using the TL Only Approach in EFL Classes Using the TL in the language classroom is currently considered the most natural way to learn the TL. Students are subjected to total immersion in the TL, just as native speakers are when they grow up. One of the most active proponents of the usage of the TL only in the EFL class room is the Centre for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) which actively promotes the immersion approach. They provide a vast amount of research which supports this approach, including the following articles. Met and Lorenz (1997) examine immersion programs run in the U.S. for language acquisition, both for English and other languages, and demonstrate that students on these programs gained a higher level of spoken English acquisition than would have been expected over the same time period if taught in the MT. They argue that the immersion in the TL facilitates learning because students do not have to option of falling back on the TL and so rapidly learn to communicate in the new language. They noted that this was particularly effective if a group was composed of people whose MTs were different. That way student-teacher and student-student interaction was all conducted in the TL. The results discuss mainly spoken language acquisition and do not deal with written acquisition or accuracy of grammar. Literacy is, however, discussed in Ramirez’s (1994) research into students studying in classes which use only the TL approach. He concludes that literacy in reading and writing develop in the same way in the second language as they do in the MT. This would mean that students naturally begin to listen and speak before they can read and write. While a classroom which uses the MT as the language of instruction might attempt to help students develop all four skills to approximately the same level at the same time, a class which uses only the TL would expect to see a slight lag in reading in writing. However, this gap would be made up for later, once listening and speaking skills were well developed. This view that the TL should be used exclusively in the classroom is also supported in research by Duff and Polio (1990), Brooks (1990), Ellis (1999), Gass (1997) and Johnson (1995). 2.3. Views for Using Students’ MT in EFL Classes 2.3.1. The Positive Impact of MT Use on EFL Students Butzkamm (2003) has released a paper which passionately supports the use of the MT for EFL students. He begins by outlining the prevailing current opinion that the MT should be avoided as far as possible. In structuring lessons, teachers are advised to use the MT only in emergencies when there is a complete breakdown in communication. It is generally begrudgingly accepted that the MT cannot be completely excluded from the classroom, but current critical opinion, argues Butzmann, wishes it could be. ‘Time and again’ states Butzmann, ‘the use of the mother tongue is accompanied by feelings of guilt’. (p.29) However, Butzmann is a strong proponent for the positive impact of MT use on EFL students. He states that ‘The mother tongue is, for all school subjects, including foreign language lessons, a child’s strongest ally and should, therefore, be used systematically.’ (p.30) He argues that the MT is the fundamental key to understanding all other languages and can be a real asset to learners. He argues that this is true for children from aged 7-8 upwards, where the MT has taken a firm root and can be meaningfully referred to. Butzmann, however, does not want to deny the use of the target language. In fact, he argues that his theory of MT use actually encourages the use of the TL in the classroom. He comments that ‘when used properly, the MT steals very little time away from the TL and, in fact, helps to establish it as the general means of communication in the classroom.’ The MT therefore can be used as a meaningful facilitator, helping the teacher to communicate the essential points to their students more quickly, so that more time can be spent using the TL. Teachers do not need to get bogged down by taking far longer than is necessary simply to hand out instructions, for example. The teacher can simply state the instructions in the TL then provide a brief translation in the MT. Any responses from the students in the MT can be translated into the TL and the students encouraged to learn and use them. This is the basis for Butzmann’s theory which he argues will actually be of great benefit to the students. Deller and Rinvolucri (2002) also take a very positive view of the effects on students of using the MT in the language classroom. Like Butzmann, their aim is to break the taboo over MT use and turn the tide on the current thinking of excluding the MT from the classroom. Their work puts forward a myriad of different language learning exercises which combine the use of the TL and MT in order to demonstrate how this method can really work for learners. Like Butzmann they warn against the unnecessary use or overuse of the MT but overall they conclude that it is a valuable learning resource. Their book is designed to provide activities for learners of different ages and levels and also makes provisions for different levels of the teacher’s knowledge of the students’ MT. They propose the use of the MT mainly in three main areas; for comparing grammar structures, for accelerating learning for beginners, and translation exercises. The work of Rodriguez Juarez and Oxbrow (2007) also points towards a positive impact on students of MT use. They conclude that ‘if used judiciously, the mother tongue may in fact become a teaching and learning resource which can greatly enhance the acquisition process and encourage learners to focus on similarities and differences between their L1 and the language under study.’ (p.93) Here again the advantage of using the MT in relation to grammar and comparison emerges, as does the need to be prudent in its usages. However, it can be seen that a growing body of research supports the return of the MT to the ESL classroom. 2.3.2. The Situation in Which the MT Could Be Used The MT, as has been noted in the previous section, is beginning to be welcomed back into the ESL classroom. However, researchers point out that is it necessary to use the MT with caution and only apply it in certain situations. This section will therefore discuss which these situations are and how the MT can be put to best use. Auerbach (1993) has extensively examined this issue. She takes as her basis the fact that students will inevitably use the MT in class, so it is worth harnessing this and putting it to good use, which is indeed the basis of most support for this approach. The first instance in which Auerback identifies a worthwhile use of the MT is teaching students whose MTs are not from dominant language groups. She states that ‘Whereas research indicates that immersion programs can be effective in the development of language and literacy for learners from dominant language groups…bilingual instruction seems to be more effective for language minority students, whose language has less social status’. (p.15) This is an important distinction to make in deciding whether to use the MT in the classroom. Another instance in which the MT is of great use is when teaching learners with limited literacy in their MT. Auerbach notes that courses where the MT is used ‘attract previously unserved students who had been unable to participate in ESL classes because of limited L1 literacy and schooling’. (p18) The MT gives these students a welcome support which helps them grapple with gaining literacy in the new language. Without this aid, drop out rates are high, if the students even sign up to a class at all. Auerbach also supports the use of MT for accelerating the speed of learning. It is, therefore, particularly useful for students with a low level of English. However, Auerbach does not limit its use to low levels, simply suggesting that it would be used more often at the initial stage. In reality, even at an advanced stage of language acquisition the MT can reduce the time taken for explinations. Auerback refutes the idea that using the MT will slow the speed at which students will being to think in English, citing research which suggests it actually speeds up the process. (See Shamash, Y. (1990). Learning in translation: Beyond language experience in ESL. Voices, 2(2), 71-75.) 2.3.3. Students Attitudes toward Using the MT Kavaliauskienė (2009) has conducted research to assess the attitude of students towards the use of their mother tongue in the EFL classroom. Her overall findings conclude that all students perceive benefits when the mother tongue is occasionally used, but the amount of usage depends on the level of the student in English, where the higher the level the less mother tongue is used. Kavaliauskiene studied a group of adult learners at university aged between 18 and 22 and attempted to assess their opinion of the use of the MT in the EFL classroom. A Likert-type scale of five answers from strongly agree to strongly disagree was used to gauge student responses. Kavaliauskiene found that all students were overall quite positive about the use of the MT, although the amount used depended on the level of the student. Indeed, it seems that pointing out similarities between languages as well as very significant differences, can give the student a mental reference point from which to make sense of the foreign language. In Kavaliauskiene’s survey, almost all of the respondents mentally translated between languages at least some of the time, even if the class was being conducted exclusively in the target language, because they believed it helped them to do so. Kavaliauskiene therefore concludes that it makes sense to harness a process which students already do naturally and which students perceive as beneficially to their language development. Kavaliauskiene and Kaminskiene (2007) have also carried out research on the attitudes of students towards the use of MT in the classroom. They focus closely on the perception of students towards using the MT in the classroom and particularly the issue of mental translation and comparison between languages. They too found that in this different group, students customarily relied on mental translation in the classroom. Further, they established that students responded positively to exercises involving different types of summary making activities, such as writing a summary of a text or inventing their own questions about a text, when these were used as a springboard from which to discuss errors stemming from the MT. Back-translation was also a popular exercise with students, where they worked in pairs with one translating from the MT to English and the other from English to the MT. Pairs then swopped translations and translated them back into the original language. Students responded positively towards this because they could then check their translations themselves and it helped improve their understanding of vocabulary and grammar. Levine (2003) has also carried out a survey of students’ feelings using their MT in the classroom rather than the target language and he too used a questionnaire to obtain feedback from the students. He focused particularly on the amount of anxiety students perceive they feel when using the target language. He found that anxiety was surprisingly low among the students, which suggests that this group did not feel that they needed the MT to be present in the classroom. Indeed, anxiety actually fell in classes where the perceived level of target language use was higher. This suggests that students who are more used to always using the target language in their lessons are less worried and therefore feel less need to use the MT in the lesson than students whose classes are conducted less frequently in the target language. 2.3.4 Teachers’ Attitudes toward Using the MT Levine’s 2003 research also explores teachers’ attitudes towards using the MT in the ESL class room. In her research she asked teachers to assess how much of the time during the lesson they were using the TL. The average response was that teachers were using the TL about 80 percent of the time. This indicates a significant usage of the MT in classes which were designed to follow the immersion method with exclusive use of the TL. This suggests, therefore, that teachers recognize and respond to the need to use the MT in order keep the lesson moving, keep the students engaged and facilitate learning. Levine also found that teachers recognized a much higher level of anxiety amongst students when using the target language than students themselves reported. Teachers also reported that as the use of the TL in the class increased, so the anxiety shown by the students increased, even thought the students’ responses indicated that their stress actually decreased as the amount of time using the TL increased. This suggests that teachers are highly sensitive to the difficulties which students face in using the TL and are aware of the comfort that the use of the TL in the class room can bring. There is also evidence to suggest that teachers favor referring to the MT when teaching grammar. Borg (1998) conducted research into the strategies which teachers use when teaching grammar. During his study he observed that ‘a strategy the teachers regularly used in teaching grammar was to encourage students to refer to their LI.’ (p.18) This attitude fits with research discussed elsewhere which suggests that the ML is best used in the classroom for dealing with issues such as grammar. Teachers clearly recognize that allowing a student to access their own MT as a point of reference aids their learning process. 2.3.5. The use of Students’ MT in EFL Class in Some Arab Countries The question over whether to include or exclude the MT in the EFL class in Arab countries is one which has been little addressed by recent scholarship. However, it is an important issue since cultural considerations must taken into account when deciding which teaching approach will be most effective for students in any particular social context. The English only approach is a firmly Westernized concept which may not translate well to other regions. Current research which does exist was conducted in 2005 by Orland-Barak and Yinon. They conducted research among student teachers as to their view of using MT in the EFL classroom, specifically in the Arab world. Orland-Barak and Yinon’s research entailed encouraging student teachers to record, transcribe and reflect on one of their lessons, considering the role of the MT within it. The results of their study demonstrated that in fact student teachers were inclined to believe that use of the MT could have a positive impact on their lessons. The teachers stated that they had a more realistic and balanced view about the use of the mother tongue having listened back to their own lesson, and were less inclined to believe that the best teaching method was English only. Interestingly, this study was also carried out on Jewish teachers with the same results. This research therefore suggests that there are fewer cultural differences than might be thought when approach the teaching of English as a second language. 2.4. Grammar-Translation Method 2.4.1 Negative Impact of the GTM on Learning a Foreign Language The Grammar-Translation method is the process by which students translate grammar and other passages of text out of the target language into their mother tongue and vice-versa. Although it has traditionally been regarded as a standard method of language teaching, and indeed still occurs today in the language classroom, much criticism has been made of this method in recent research. It has become to be regarded as dogmatic, with little benefit being seen for the language student. It is now considered that translating grammar structures is detrimental because English structures often do not occur in other languages, or have slightly different usages to the mother tongue. It is now considered better practice for students to learn grammar structure usages in context, rather than translating to and from equivalents in their own language. Further, lessons are conducted in the mother tongue. Fundamentally the lesson is guided by the teacher and the students have to follow the teacher in order to learn. The whole approach centers on exercises on reading written texts, writing, translating vocabulary and translating grammar structures. The most basic negative impact of the GTM is that students often come out of it with a very low ability to speak or understand others when they speak. This is because the method focuses so heavily on reading texts. This constant focus on the same types of exercise often result in a negative reaction from the student. Richards and Rogers (2001: p.254)) comment on the GTM that it ‘resulted in the type of Grammar Translation courses remembered with distaste by thousands of school learners, for whom foreign language learning meant a tedious experience of memorizing endless lists of unusable grammar rules and vocabulary’. Such research demonstrates the tedious nature of the method and the need to avoid the learning process being meaningless to the student. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007) also provide research evidence which indicates the negative impact which the GTM has on learners. Their criticism focuses on the extent to which the teacher leads and the students follow, with little opportunity for the student to infer meaning or learn independently. They state that ‘there is little recourse to using or ‘thinking in’ English’. (p.464) Their observations were based on English classes held in China which took a grammar-translation approach. They report that the students in turn held ‘negative attitudes to the bookish nature of learning English and its unrelatedness to [their lives]’. (p.464) It is clear, therefore, that this method can put learners off because it is boring and because they don’t see what point it has in relation to them. 2.5. Using Translation in EFL Teaching The GTM, as seen in section 2.4, can have a negative impact on the learner. This section will discuss on the use of translation in the classroom more broadly and whether it can be seen to have benefits for the language learner. Research by Koppe and Kremer suggests that translation is, in act, a fundamental part of the language learning process, if used in the right way. They stress that ‘Poststructuralist translation strategies which involve negotiation, context, and previous knowledge can contribute to FL teaching-learning, since they can be transformed into something that involves both teachers and learners objectives. Our students, in order to become full citizens in our global society, need all the available tools that we can dispose for their improved learning.’ (pp.9-10) Their argument is that translation is one way of learning and therefore need not be disregarded because of the negative effects of the GTM. It must, simply, be approached in a different way. The theorist Stanley Fish (1980) supports this view, arguing that translation can have the positive effect of allowing language learners to interpret and approach meaning from their own perspective. Fish’s theory revolves around the idea that all groups of people belong to different ‘interpretative communities’. Excluding translation from the language classroom means that the learner is cut off from his own interpretative community, expressed through his language and so loses a valuable angle from which to interpret the new text. Duff (1996) also support this view. He argues that ‘we all have a mother tongue, or first language. This shapes our way of thinking and to some extent our use of the foreign language (pronunciation, choice of words, tone, word order, etc). Translation helps us to understand better the influence of the one language on the other, and to correct errors of habit that creep in unnoticed (such as the misuse of particular words or structures)’. (p.6) For Duff, therefore, the mother tongue can be a point of reference to be built upon and therefore should not be ignored in the EFL classroom. Research by Atkinson (1987) also supports the idea that the mother-tongue can be meaningfully introduced into the language classroom by using translation. He argues that ‘the potential of the mother tongue as a classroom resource is so great that its role should merit considerable attention and discussion in any attempt to develop a ‘postcommunicative’ approach to TEFL for adolescents and adults’. (p.241) It is clear, therefore, that in Atkinson’s research translation can play a constructive role in the language classroom. However, Koppe and Kremer (2008) conclude their research with a word of warning, stating that ‘Still, translation should never be overused – it is an activity which has a place in language teaching, only if properly designed and used at the right time and with the right students’. This is where the GTM goes wrong, in structuring the entire lesson around translation. Current research, rather, points towards integrating translation as a small part of the lesson into one which mainly focuses on other teaching methods. References 1. Atkinson, David. (October 1987) The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource? ELT Journal, 41(4) 241-247 2. Auerbach, Elsa Roberts (1993) Re-examining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1) 9-32 3. Borg, Simon (1998) Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: a qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 9-38 4. Butzkamm, Wolfgang (Winter 2003) We only learn language once. The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms: death of a dogma. Language Learning Journal, 28, 29-39 5. Cohen, Louis, Manion, Lawrence & Morrison, Keith R.B. (2007) Research Methods in Education. Oxford: Routledge 6. Deller, Sheelagh and Rinvolucri, Mario (2002) Using the Mother Tongue: Making the most of the Learner’s Language. London: Delta Publishing 7. Duff, Alan (1996)Translations. Oxford: Oxford University Press 8. Fish, Stanley (1980) Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretative communities. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press 9. Garcia, Gilbert N. (2000) What is the length of time it takes limited English proficient students to acquire English and succeed in an all-English classroom? Issue Brief: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 5, 1-15 10. Hinkel, Eli (2004) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Oxford: Routledge 11. Kavaliauskienė, Galina (2009) Role of mother tongue in learning English for specific purposes. ESP World, 22(8), 1-12 12. Kavaliauskienë, Galina and Kaminskienë, Ligija (2007) Translation as a learning tool in English for specific purposes. Kalbotyra, 57(3), 132-139 13. Koppe, Carmen Terezinha and Kremer, Lucia Maria, S. (2008) Translation in the EFL classroom. How and what to work. Paper published by the Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná. Pp. 1-11 14. Levine, Glenn S. (2003) Student and Instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use and anxiety: report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 343-364 15. Lucas, Tamara and Katz, Anne (Autumn 1994) Reframing the debate: The roles of native languages in English-only programs for language minority students. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 537-561 16. Met, M., and Lorenz, E. (1997) Lessons from U.S. immersion programs: Two decades of experience. In R. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 243-264). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 17. Orland-Barak, Lily and Yinon, Hayuta (2005) Different but similar. Student teachers’ perspectives on the use of L1 in Arab and Jewish EFL classroom settings 18. Polio, C. G., amd Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers language use in university foreign language classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. Modern LanguageJournal, 78, 313-326. 19. Ramirez, A. (1994) Literacy acquisition among second language learners. In Ferdman, R. Weber, & A. Ramirez, (Eds.) Literacy across languages and cultures. NY: SUNY Press. 20. Richards, Jack C. & Rogers, Theodore Stephen (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 21. Rodriguez Juarez, Carolina and Oxbrow, Gina (2007) L1 in the EFL classroom. More a help than a hindrance? Porta Linguarum, 9 93-109 22. Personal author, compiler, or editor name(s); click on any author to run a new search on that name.NunanCentre for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. (CARLA): http://www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol4/Feb2001_WhyImmers.html Figure 1: Chart to represent answers to questions 5 and 9 Figure 2: Chart to represent answers to question 14 Figure 3: Chart to represent answers question 15 Read More