Effectiveness of Second Language Instruction - Essay Example

?Whether L1 should be allowed or not in the L2 is very ive and depends on the type of learners. Linguists and researchers have varied opinions on the best type of instruction to facilitate L2 learning. Krashen, who uses Comprehension Hypothesis in language and literacy development, states that language acquisition occurs through maximum exposure to Comprehensible input, and therefore L1 should be disallowed in class (Piske & Young-Scholten, 2009). Form instruction, an innovative instruction method supports communicative language teaching principles and focuses on exposing students to oral and written communication in real-life situations in L2. The communicative approach to L2 instruction advocates the use of L2 in second language learning. Indeed, Van Patten and Cadierno’s experimental study on students learning Spanish in 1993 supported the communicative approach to L2 instruction (Morett, people.ucsc.edu). Another successful method is direct instruction or integrating L2 learning with content learning, using L2 only. One example is the implementation of French immersion teaching in Canada from the 1960s. L2 learners not only mastered content but also acquired the language of instruction (Francis, 2008). Advocates of monolingualism claim that using L1 in the classroom conflicts with SLA theories, which argue for modified input and negotiation in L2 as a way of learning (Polio, 1994 in Miles, 2004). Nation (2003) states that, when teachers use L1, students tend to follow suit and the class becomes a grammar-translation class. Besides, mixing both languages might cause confusion in the students, giving rise to interference. As L1 and L2 structures are dissimilar, they need to be separated to avoid confusion. Hence, students listening to the teacher’s explanation in the target language get good listening and speaking practice. As they keep on hearing and listening to the language, they become more comfortable and proficient in it. Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman (1999) in Bankier (eslarticle.com) contend that language errors made by learners are caused by interference from the L1. They use the example of a Japanese student saying "He was fallen by the rain" instead of "The rain fell on him". Here, a minimal knowledge of the L1 is useful to show the difference between both, but if we are teaching the active and passive forms, it is better done in English than in Japanese. Nevertheless, new research indicates that the use of L1 allows learners to work out L2 at lower levels. As they become more proficient in L2, they gradually use it more, relying less on L1 (Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001). Mouhanna (2009) conducted a study on 124 students from three levels of English proficiency at a foundations English programme in a UAE tertiary institution. He found that level 1 students required more L1 support (mean: 2.05) compared to Level 3 students (mean: 3.03). Similarly, Simsek’s data analysis (2010) of the achievement test of English Grammar on Turkish students found that L1-assisted learning was more effective at increasing the students’ achievement of English Grammar than monolingual grammar instruction. There was also a significant difference between the delayed post-test means of the experimental and control groups, showing that L1-assisted language learning was more lasting than monolingual grammar teaching. In an investigation on the use of L1 to generate ideas for writing among low proficiency Malaysian students, Stapa and Abdul Majid (2006) found that students using L1 generated 166 ideas, compared to 85 from students not using their L1. The first group also ‘produced better quality essays in terms of organization, vocabulary, language and mechanics’. This is because generating ideas on a topic in a different language creates confusion and inhibits long-term memory processes. Thus, low proficiency learners should be allowed to use their L1 when communicating abstract ideas and accessing content, as it supports L2 acquisition (2006). In Holland, the mandatory Utrecht pilot was used as part of the Dutch Integration policy to prepare new Moroccan arrivals and long-term residents without Dutch citizenship for the workplace. 220 women were taught Dutch in 200 – 500 hours. One group had an L1 teacher who taught Dutch in L1, another had an L1 as well as an L2 teacher, and the third group had an L2 teacher who used only L2. It was found that using L1 helped learners to reflect on learning processes, learn meanings of words, and contrast grammatical structures of both languages. However, the group using L1 and L2 teachers achieved 84.2% L2 literacy at the first level, compared to 21.1% and 30% when instruction was only in L1 and L2 respectively. But, at level 2, the majority of the group with the L2 teacher met the L2 literacy requirement, demonstrating that teaching in the L2 benefits learners in long-term programmes (Prins, 2011). A study by Morett (people.ucsc.edu) compares the use of grammar-translation and the communicative approach to teach Spanish vocabulary. She found that learners in the communicative approach recalled more words than an uninstructed group in a short-term post test. But, ‘no significant differences’ were noticed between groups taught with the grammar-translation method, suggesting that other factors like prior knowledge and instruction also contributed towards early L2 acquisition, not the avoidance of L1. Not using L1 may be right in some situations but various techniques must be utilised to make up for this. If some L1 is allowed, the time saved can be used for other activities, e.g., translating vocabulary items, or quickly comparing L1 and L2 grammar. This will reduce interference as students become more aware of common errors. In classes that have a dominant L1, students can compare and contrast the L2 with the language they know best when studying form and meaning. They can check exercises with partners, understand jokes and complex instructions, and learn vocabulary with direct equivalents. Thus, the use of L1 in the class depends on the type of learners. At lower levels, where students cannot express emotions properly, it lessens the burden of constantly using L2 or consulting dictionaries. At higher levels, teaching in L2 is preferred. It is only in a multilingual classroom that using L1 becomes impractical as a teacher would not know so many languages. REFERENCES Bankier, J, How to Save Time and Increase Learning with the Students’ First Language , viewed 9 Mar2011, Francis, N 2008, Integration of language and content learning: Research advances Selected papers from the 17th International Symposium on English Teaching Taipei: English Teachers Association, Y.- N. Leung & H. Chang (eds.), pp. 343-354 Miles, R 2004, Evaluating the Use of L1 in the English language Classroom. School of Humanities. Centre for English Language Studies Department of English, University of Birmingham, viewed 9 Mar 2011, Morett, L M, The Effect of Instructional Method on Second Language Acquisition: An Examination of Some Contributing Factors, viewed 29 Mar 2011, Mouhanna, M 2009, Re-Examining the Role of L1 in the EFL Classroom, UGRU Journal Volume 8, Spring 2009, viewed 10 Mar 2011, Nation, ISP 2003, Effective ways of building vocabulary knowledge. ESL Magazine 6, 4 14-15. Harvard style Piske, E & Young-Scholten 2009, Input Matters in SLA, viewed 28 Mar2011, Prins, J 2011, L1 as language of instruction in L2 acquisition, viewed 28 Mar2011 Simsek, M R 2010, The effects of L1 use in the teaching of L2 grammar concepts on the students’ achievement Journal of Theory and Practice in Education 2010, 6 (2):142-169 Viewed 29 Mar 2011 Stapa, Siti Hanim & Abdul Majid, Abdul Hameed 2006, The use of first language in Limited English Proficiency Classes: Good, Bad or Ugly, Jurnal e-Bangi Jilid1, Bil.1, viewed 28 Mar 2011 Upton, TA & Lee-Thompson, L 2001, The role of the First Language in Second Language Reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 469-495.Cambridge University Press. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T 1993, Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243. Read More