The presence of the mother tongue in the foreign language classroom. (Language Teaching & Learning).

Abstract

This article presents an issue with which most teachers teaching monolingual classes have to deal with in their daily practice and suggests an alternative approach to tackle it. The overuse of the mother tongue in the classroom has long been a problem for many teachers, and the current strategy used to solve the problem has been a system of rewards and punishments. This is the report of a practical situation in which raising students' awareness of their behavior is meant to give students responsibility for their own learning and commitment towards it.

Introduction

The role played by the learner's mother tongue (MT) in the acquisition of another language has been discussed and approached from various angles in studies throughout the history of second language acquisition (SLA) research. My concern as a foreign language teacher, however, is to what extent the MT's presence in the classroom is beneficial or not, and whether or when learners should be allowed to use the MT in the classroom.

In this paper I will reflect on some issues regarding the use of the MT by my students during classes. It comprises the benefits of not only comprehensible input but also output for the acquisition of the target language (TL), and the importance of sensitizing learners to their responsibility for their own learning.

Review of Literature

In a context where the teacher has a monolingual class and is fluent in the learners' native language, or in foreign language settings where, in general, teacher and students share the same L1, the use of students' MT is certainly an issue (Brown, 1994; Harmer, 1991). Brown (1994) acknowledges that in these situations the use of students' MT becomes an option. He states, though, that it is important "not to let the classes go to excess in the use of the students' native language." (Brown, 1994:105)

Accordingly, Harmer (1991:71) points out that "translation is obviously an excellent Technique ... The main advantages are that it is quick and efficient." He highlights, though, that there are also disadvantages, one of which being that "not all languages have words for exactly the same concepts, and it is often the case that in a given language there is not really a word which means the same as a word in another language." (Harmer 1991:71), and our students have to be sensitized to that fact.

Certainly, attempting to ban the use of the MT from our foreign language classes is not the issue. As an example, Nunan (1999) narrates the experience of students who were fined by the teacher every time they were caught using their MT and, as a consequence, they dropped into silence. Instead of promoting the use of the TL, the attitude of the teacher blocked the process of learning/acquisition. It is self evident, though, that the overuse of the MT diminishes opportunities for learners to experiment with the TL. Learners will always benefit from the use of the TL no matter how little TL they have.

There is some controversy as to whether beginning students should be required to produce the TL or not. Clearly, at early levels, the emphasis ought to be given to input and the learner's silent period should be respected as asserted by the Natural Approach and the Total Physical Response (TPR). It is agreed in current pedagogy, however, that input only is not enough to foster acquisition (Ellis 1994; Harmer, 1991; Nunan, 1999; Willis, 1996). Willis (1996) emphasizes that both exposure to and use of the TL are vital to its acquisition. Swain (1985), in his comprehensible output hypothesis, states that "learners need opportunities for `pushed output'. "Harmer (1991) asserts that:

   exposing students to language input is not enough: we also need to provide
   opportunities for them to activate this knowledge, for it is only when
   students are producing language that they can select from the input they
   have received. Language production allows students to rehearse language use
   in classroom conditions whilst receiving feedback (from the teacher, from
   other sstudents and from themselves) which allows them to adjust their
   perceptions of the language input they have received. (Harmer, 1991: 40)

Thus, the teacher is required to provide learners with opportunities of exposure to the language. But beyond this, it is also important to stimulate language use. Once students are pushed to use any and/or all the TL that they know to communicate with, they will be forced to access the language they have stored and will gradually develop strategies for communication. Moreover, only by using the TL will they notice their linguistic needs and try to work on them.

Report of the experiment

Bearing in mind the theoretical issues discussed above, I will focus now on what I was able to observe in my own classes. I recorded two of my lessons at two different levels (high-beginning and intermediate) with groups composed of teenagers. Via these tapes I detected that my students were using the MT (Portuguese) excessively. In order to be more accurate, I recorded the same students during pair/group-work activities to identify when and why they switched to Portuguese. I found out that students referred back to their MT during three different situations.

A. For common classroom interaction, e.g. "Pega o lapis, por favor!" "Eu vou beber agua, ta?!" ("Pick up the pencil, please." "I'm going to drink some water, OK?!")

B. To help their classmates, e.g. " `wear'? O que e isso?" -- "E `usar roupa `. O que voce usa numa festa?" ("`wear'? What does it mean?" -- "It means `usar roupa'. What do you wear for a party?")

C. When the subject interests them, e.g. "I don't like my hair." -- "Voce nao gosta do seu cabelo?! Ah, se eu tivesse um cabelo desse ...!" ("I don't like my hair." -- "You don't?! Ah, if I had such hair ...!")

What might be the reasons for this switching back to the MT? I have speculated as to some probable causes. For problem A, it could be argued that students refer to the MT because they lack this type of language in English. But that is not the case with these students. Hence, one explanation I came up with is that students seem to be playing the role of the English learner by selectively choosing the moment in which they use the TL. If this is the case, then teachers are to blame to a certain extent, since outside the classroom and for real communication with students, most teachers I have observed always or almost always use the MT. Thus, students may be reproducing in the classroom the model they have received.

Besides it does not seem natural to them to use the TL for such simple things since their classmates understand the MT and these simple things are not directly related to the task. They don't want to be perceived as teacher's pets by using English all the time.

For problem B, we could say that, as mentioned in the review of theoretical issues above, translation is easily perceived as a "quick and efficient" technique, and it is not surprising that it is the favorite of students when working amongst themselves.

Regarding problem C, we should recall Krashen's affective filter hypothesis. In learning another language, learners are also involved in the building up of another self. Hence, when excitement comes onto the scene and the affective filter is activated, they rely on their first self (in this case, the Portuguese one) since they do not have feelings or emotions in their on-building "English self." Yet they have enough knowledge of the language to express themselves in such situations.

A plan to solve the problem

I have witnessed many teachers trying to solve this type of problem by resorting to a system of rewards and punishments. Learners are either fined for using MT or bribed with chocolates and medals, and, sometimes, blackmailed with red and green cards.

Personally, I am not assured of the durability of the results obtained through these current strategies. Therefore, to solve the problem of the overuse of the MT in the EFL classroom, my main strategy was to raise students' awareness of it. Thus, I reported my findings (the facts related above) to them. Next, I took the cassette with the recording of their pair/group-work back to the classroom and had them listen to it. They were required to notice the amount of Portuguese used and to deliberate on the following issue: "Of those utterances performed in Portuguese, which ones could have been said in English?" They were quite surprised with the results. They noticed that they were able to use more English than they had before.

The next step was to sensitize the students to the importance of practicing the TL if they really wanted to be able to communicate in it. First, we talked about the learning process and the role of input and the importance of output to their development as language learners. Second, I attempted to be clear in showing why I was insisting that they really monitor themselves to seize any opportunity to use English -- even when talking among themselves in pairs or groups -- and to present the English classroom as their chance to do so (for example, they could hardly find another place where they would have the chance to use classroom language). Finally, we set our guidelines to be fair in the amount of use of the MT and the TL in the classroom. We decided that:

I. Concerning the use of the MT

A. Portuguese would be allowed under the following circumstances:

1. When the teacher and the group needed to negotiate disciplinary and other management factors.

2. For brief instructions on how to carry out a task or activity if the group was not able to understand them in English.

3. For brief explanations of grammar points.

4. To clarify the meanings of words that remained confusing after students and teacher had had a try at defining them in the TL.

5. If the student had a question to ask and could not formulate it in English (the other students would try to reformulate it in the TL afterwards).

B. Students would be allowed to use translation only as their last resort; they would mime, paraphrase, draw or use other techniques first.

II. Concerning the use of English

A. There would be no high expectations -- students would not be expected to be fluent immediately.

B. Every student would be assured the right to speak, but no one would be forced to do so.

C. Students would remain silent only if s/he did not have an opinion about the subject but not because s/he did not know how to say something in English -- this student would be allowed to say it in Portuguese and his/her classmates would help him/her with the translation to English.

D. The teacher would help students by approaching the group any time a student switched to Portuguese and using the simultaneous translation technique.

E. Students would monitor themselves to speak English in the classroom -- with the teacher and among themselves.

F. The teacher would provide students with task management language (e.g. Who's meant to start?; Are we supposed to write anything?; It's your turn!). A poster containing examples of these would be posted in the classroom.

G. The teacher would provide students with ways of expressing excitement, anger and other emotional reactions. (It is obvious that this will not solve problem C; however, this will be one more resource for the learners.)

Report of the results

Four weeks after the first recording and the beginning of the investigation, I taped the groups again and observed the following:

A. Students are using the TL for common classroom interaction.

B. Students are trying other ways to clarify meaning before resorting to translation.

C. When "excitement" is involved, students still tend to switch to the MT; however, when it happens, they seemed to be conscious of the process and are resorting to simultaneous translation or to the use of both MT and TL to convey the idea.

Moreover, I noticed that, in a sample of 24 students: 75% of them are really committed to their goal of speaking English and improving their learning; 25% are trying to use English in the classroom but, mainly, when the teacher is present (they have not really assimilated that the decision of taking part in the agreement settled by the group was a personal commitment).

Conclusion

Investigations of this type require a certain amount of time until real improvement in students' use of the TL can be observed. However, I was able to achieve more than I had expected to. My students are not only using more English but they also seem to be more conscious of the learning process and more responsible for their own learning.

Since the "raising-awareness lesson" they have asked questions and made requests that demonstrate their reflective thinking. As an example, they asked me to inform them of the goals of each activity. I have done so and what I have noticed is that, most of the time, they are concentrating their efforts in achieving the proposed goal. This attitude has improved the quality of our lessons. For instance, on one occasion I told the students that the goal of an activity was to practice "used to" to talk about the past and, then, they attempted to focus on the use of this form.

To the surprise of some teachers, even adolescents are able to deliberate seriously about their learning. Learners should not be treated as pets that are conditioned by a system of rewards and punishments (such as chocolates or green/red cards) to produce an expected behavior. Human beings are the most developed creatures of all, and a stimulus can produce a variety of responses -- some of which are totally unpredictable. Thus, the response will vary according to personality type, learning preferences, environment, motivation, moment and other variables. When dealing with learners it is important to remember that they are human beings and should not be under estimated.

References

Brown, D. 1994. Teaching by Principles -- An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harmer, J. 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.

Krashen, S. D. 1988. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. London: Prentice Hall.

Moskowitz, G. 1978. Caring and Sharing in the Foreign Language Class -- A Sourcebook on Humanistic Techniques. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Spencer, D. and D. Vaughan. 1997. TAB or `Why don't my teenagers speak English?' English Teaching Professional. Issue Three/April, 12-13.

Spratt, M. 1991. Should we use the L1 in the monolingual FL classroom? In: A. Matthews, M. Spratt, and L. Dangerfield (eds.). At the Chalkface. Practical Techniques in Language Teaching. Nelson.

Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-Based Learning. London: Longman.

Cristiane Alves Lemos, Faculdade de Tecnologia e Ciencias in Vitoria da Conquista, Bahia, Brazil

Cristiane is an EFL teacher and holds a specialization degree in Linguistics Applied to English. Her interests include teaching young learners and L2 pedagogy.