Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 2010, 4 (1), 64-95[i].
THE ATTITUDES OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS TOWARDS USING ARABIC IN EFL
CLASSROOMS IN SAUDI PUBLIC SCHOOLS- A CASE STUDY
Haifa
AL-NOFAIE*
Abstract: This
paper examined the attitudes of Saudi teachers and students towards employing
Arabic as a facilitating tool in English classes, a topic which
has gained wide attention recently. The present study was a case study which investigated teachers' and students' attitudes
towards this issue in a Saudi intermediate school for females. To reach a clear understanding of this
issue, the study focused on one intermediate classroom which
had 30 students and three teachers of English in the entire school. Three
research tools were used for gathering data: questionnaires, interviews and
four observations of one classroom. The results revealed that the attitudes of
the teachers and the students about using Arabic were generally positive. The
participants preferred using Arabic in certain situations and for specific
reasons. Although the attitudes of the teachers and the students received
agreements, there were other points on which they disagreed. Recommendations
for future studies and solutions were discussed.
Keywords: attitudes, L1 (Arabic), L2
(English), use of L1.
Özet: Bu çalışma,
son zamanlarda dikkatleri üzerine toplayan bir konu olarak Suudi
öğretmenlerin ve öğrencilerin kolaşlaştırıcı
bir araç olarak Arapçayı, İngilizce sınıflarında
kullanmaya yönelik tutumlarını incemiştir. Bu çalışma,
durum çalışması yöntemiyle, orta seviye bir kız okulunda
okuyan Suudi öğrencilerin ve bu okulda çalışan
öğretmenlerin ilgili konuda tutumlarını incelemeyi
amaçlamıştır. Konuyu açığa kavuşturmak
amacıyla, 30 öğrencinin bulunduğu orta seviyede bir
sınıf ve okulda çalışan üç öğretmen üzerinde
yoğunlaşılmıştır. Veri toplamak amacıyla, üç
araç kullanılmıştır: anketler, görüşmeler, ve
sınıfın dört defa gözlemlenmesi. Sonuçlar göstermektedir ki hem
öğretmenlerin hem de öğrencilerin Arapça kullanmaya yönelik genelde
olumlu tutumları bulunmaktadır. Katılımcılar belirli
durumlarda ve yine belirli sebeplerle Arapçayı kullanmayı tercih
etmektedirler. Öğretmen ve öğrenci tutumları
katılımcılar arasında benzerlikler gösterse de tutum
farklılıklarının olduğu çeşitli konular da
bulunmaktadır. Çalışmada, sonraki çalışmalara ve
sorunlara yönelik çözüm önerileri de
tartışılmıştır.
Anahtar sözcükler: tutum, Arapça,
İngilizce, anadil kullanimi.
Introduction
Teaching English in
the Saudi context
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has undergone great political, social and economic development. To meet new challenges, the Ministry of education has introduced English as a foreign language in schools since 1925 (Al-Ahaydib, 1986). According to the educational policy in the Kingdom (1974: 13), the aim of teaching English was:
Furnishing the students with at least one of the living languages, in addition to their original language, to enable them acquire knowledge, arts and useful inventions, transmit our knowledge and sciences to other communities and participate in the spreading of Islam and serving humanity.
Besides the above reasons, the position of English as the world's prestigious language seems to place demands on citizens to be able to communicate with people from different parts of the world.
The compulsory educational system consists of three levels: the primary level, which consists of six grades, the intermediate level and the secondary level, each consists of three grades. Students start learning English in the last year of the primary level. The number of weekly English sessions is four and each session lasts 45 minutes. It could be said that students are not exposed to sufficient English due to the limited number of English classes.
Literature
Review
One of the major theoretical issues
that have dominated the field of second language acquisition for decades is the
use of the first language (here after L1) when teaching or learning a second
language (here after L2). This issue has been controversial, and several
supporting and opposing arguments have been raised. L1 opponent methods believe
that using L1 may prevent learners from learning the new language (e.g. the
Direct Method and the Audiolingual Method). However,
many studies have been conducted in different parts of the world to settle the
debate. These studies, as will be explained later in this paper, have found
that the advantages of using L1 can outweigh the disadvantages if it is applied
systematically. Moreover, these studies have found that most teachers and
learners are in favour of using L1 since they believe in it as a natural
language facilitator and learning strategy (e.g. Kharma
and Hajjaj, 1989; Franklin, 1990; Macaro,
1995, cited in Macaro, 1997; Dickson, 1996; Swain and
Lapkin, 2000; Scott and de la Fuente,
2008). The following section of this paper will identify approaches and methods
that exclude or include L1.
The ban of L1 throughout the history of EFL
In the sixteenth century, Latin was
widely used in Europe as the supreme language of religion, commerce and
education. The focus was mainly on teaching grammar rather than on
communication; therefore, translation was the means of teaching. To understand
grammar, students were provided with lists of words to translate sentences.
This teaching method was known as the Grammar-Translation Method (Byram, 2000).
In the middle of the nineteenth
century, foreign language teaching received more attention and progressed,
notably through individuals such as Marcel (1793-1896), Prendergast (1806-1886)
and Gouin (1831-1896). Their age was known later as
the Pre-Reform Movement (Howatt, 2004). They came up
with the notion of the similarity between first language acquisition by
children and second language learning by adults. In other words, first language
acquisition was the model for learning a second language. Therefore,
translation was considered as a source of confusion and was replaced by
pictures and gestures.
The late nineteenth-century was
characterised by the emergence of the Reform Movement whose aim was to develop
new language teaching principles (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). Using L1 in
teaching a foreign language became a controversial issue among reformers. Some
believed that mixing two languages would not help students to reach fluency;
therefore, learners should employ their mental abilities to understand the
meaning of the new language. On the other hand, other reformers emphasised the
importance of L1, especially when introducing unfamiliar items (Howatt, 2004).
The appeal for new teaching methods
increased. One of the first advocates of excluding L1 was J.S. Blackie
(Hawkins, 1981). His philosophy of learning was that words should be associated
directly with objects, and thinking in L1 should be banned. This new method was
known as the Direct Method. The belief underpinning this method was that
learners acquire L2 in the same way children acquire their L1 (Richards and
Rodgers, 2001). In fact, this method was an extension to Gouin
and his contemporaries' natural view towards language learning (Brown, 2001).
Later, another method known as the Audiolingual Method appeared, and it also emphasised
banning the use of L1. This method viewed the target language and native
language as two different systems that should not be linked, so only L2 should
be used (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Brooks (1964) mentioned various characteristics
of this method. For instance, Learners had to learn through repetition and
memorising; hence, listening and speaking were introduced before reading and
writing. Moreover, learning should take place without referring to L1.The
belief that L2 should be developed with no reference to L1 is known as language
compartmentalisation and the reasoning behind this belief is to avoid L1
interference (i.e. errors result from L1 negative transfer) (Cook, 2001).
Several language theorists and
researchers have emphasised the focus on L2. Krashen
(1981), for instance, claimed that comprehensible input provides opportunities
for subconscious and implicit learning which leads to
achieving language competence. In this respect, the superiority of L2 may
indicate prohibiting L1 in the classroom (Macaro,
1997). In response to this argument, Swain (2000) extends this notion to
include output as a factor leading to language competence. She emphasises the
importance of engaging learners in collaborative dialogues in which learners
produce language. The output helps learners to monitor and evaluate their
progress. Though the role of L1 in social interaction is not
discussed by Swain (2000), it seems that the L2 output is the supreme
outcome of the concept of interaction. Classroom interaction in L2 has been
encouraged to provide learners with a naturally communicative environment
(Cook, 2001).
In accordance with previous views, Halliwell and Jones (1991) claim that using L2 as a
realistic and normal means of communication is possible. To achieve success in
learning L2, learners should be encouraged to take risks in practicing both
speaking and understanding in L2. The reason, according to Halliwell
and Jones (1991), is that learners can understand the message even when they do
not know the exact meaning of words or structures; this indicates that learners
do not need to understand all the words they hear as long as they are able to
understand the message.
Similarly, Macdonald (1993) believes
that the focus on L2 can enhance communication and activate both conscious and
unconscious learning. Also, it creates confident learners and challenges them to
communicate with others through their limited language. Macdonald's advice to
teachers is "If you get stuck in the middle of a lesson, try to
communicate your message by some other means, such as mime or
demonstration" (Macdonald, 1993: 23).
This leads to the question: What
if miming and demonstrations do not work for some reason?
The above discussed methods and opinions which call for avoiding L1 rely on two main weak
assumptions, as identified by Cook (2001). The first assumption is the
similarity between L1 and L2 learning processes, and the second assumption is
that learning L1 and L2 is a separate process. These two assumptions are
discussed thoroughly in the next section.
The weakness of the principle of banning L1
Most L1 opponents argue that
language learning by adults is similar to language acquisition by children, and
their reason is that both L1 children and L2 learners do not have any previous
knowledge about the new language. However, one limitation with this argument is
that it takes no account of the distinctions which
have been identified between learning L1 and L2 (Cook, 2001). Bley-Vroman (1990) presents a thorough explanation of five
basic differences between L1 acquisition by children and L2 learning by adults.
Firstly, children's innate ability to acquire their L1 disappears in adults.
Secondly, adults rely on their L1 when learning L2, unlike children who do not
have previous knowledge of their mother language. Thirdly, in contrast to
children, adults' exposure to L2 is not sufficient since language input is
confined to being in a learning environment such as schools. Moreover, children
are helped by social factors as motivation and personal situations that adults
lack. Finally, notwithstanding adults' difficulties when learning, they do, of
course, have more mature cognitive abilities. Bley-Vroman
(1990) argues that these differences between adults and children may explain
why adults often cannot achieve fluency.
Similarly, Macaro
(1997) points out further learning differences between L1 children and L2
adults. He states that the learning of L2 by adults combines both conscious and
unconscious processes because adult L2 learners can apply more advanced
strategies when learning the new language. Moreover, although L2 learners may
find it difficult to produce all the new language sounds correctly and achieve
oral competence, they are more able to express themselves by applying
non-verbal communicative strategies. Finally, while L1
children are corrected by their parents in a natural setting, L2
learners obtain their feedback from their teachers, and they may feel
embarrassed and hesitant to produce the language in front of their peers.
Considering children who learn a
foreign language, it could be difficult to hypothesise that their L2 learning
is similar to their L1 acquisition. It has been believed that children can
learn a foreign language better than adults. This belief is related to the
Critical Period Hypothesis which claims that effective
foreign language learning occurs before puberty (Cameron, 2001). However,
research is still needed to support this hypothesis (Cameron, 2001). The
similarity between L1 and L2 acquisition among children has been challenged in
a study by Kim et al. (1997) which found that
children apply different mental activities as they use different parts of the
brain to activate and recall new language. In addition to Kim et al.'s (1997) study, it has been found
that applying L1 learning strategies to L2 learning may not lead to success, so
children are required to pay attention when learning another language (Cameron,
2001).
Another drawback with the principle of banning L1, as
identified by Cook (2001), is that it considers learning L1 and L2 as two
separate processes, as embedded in the Audiolingual
Method. This view may indicate that language learning is coordinate; therefore,
the compound type of learning is neglected (Cook, 2001). In the1950's, two
types of bilingualism were identified: coordinate bilingualism
which separated L1 from L2 and compound bilingualism which linked L1 and
L2 (Stern, 1992). As a result of this distinction, two types of learning
strategies have been proposed: the intralingual and intracultural strategies that focus on using L2 only and
the crosslingual and crosscultural
strategies that allow using L1 in learning L2 (Stern, 1992). According to Stern
(1992), L1 is considered as a facilitator for learning L2. In other words,
comparing the two languages may in fact aid learning processes. Regarding the
comparison between two languages, certain empirical studies have found that the
Contrastive Analysis Approach, which is built on drawing learners attention to
similarities and differences between L1 and L2, could facilitate learning L2
(e.g. Kupferberg, 1999; Ghabanchi
and Vosooghi, 2006). However, as Stern (1992)
suggests, the aim beyond learning L2 determines which type of the previous
strategies a learner can follow. If the aim is developing communicative skills,
intralingual strategies will be used. If translation
is the aim, crosslingual strategies will be followed.
Since the separation of L1 and L2 has been made in an attempt to avoid L1 interference,
it was found that L1 transfer could develop language learning (Cook,
2001).
Therefore, the arguments for
discouraging L1 in L2 classrooms, mentioned above, have not provided strong
evidence for avoiding L1, nor have clear reasons for banning L1 been identified
(Macaro, 2001).
As a result several teaching
methods encouraging the use of L1 as a helpful teaching and learning tool have
emerged.
Methods and principles for employing L1
The literature of teaching EFL
reveals that there are teaching methods, which use L1 deliberately. For
example, besides the Grammar-Translation Method mentioned previously, a
relatively new teaching method that deliberately employs L1 has appeared and is
known as the New Concurrent Method. This method requires teachers to balance
the use of L1 and L2 (Faltis, 1990). Codeswitching
which facilitates language learning should be systematic and purposeful.
Four areas of codeswitching to L1 have been
identified: introducing concepts, reviewing a previous lesson, capturing
learners' attention and praising learners (Faltis,
1990). Adding to this point, a recent study by Raschka
et al. (2009) in a Taiwanese
classroom concluded that codeswitching is a frequent
strategic device used by highly communicative competent teachers. Other similar
methods which link L1 and L2 are the Bilingual Method, developed by Dodson
(1967), and the Reciprocal Language Teaching (Hawkins, 1987) which aims at
preparing proficient students and allowing them to switch easily from L2 to L1
and vice versa.
However, trying to balance L1 and L2
may be problematic in contexts where English is only spoken in the classroom.
More systematic methods that encourage the limited use of L1 have appeared. One of these methods is the
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). The aim of this method is to achieve
communicative competence through the focus on the four language skills for
active communication (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). Using
L1 can occur when giving class instructions; however, learners should be
encouraged to use L2 as a medium of communication even for class management (Littlewood, 1981). The
benefit of using L2 for class management is that "The students learn from
these classroom management exchanges, too, and realise that the target language
is a vehicle for communication" (Larsen-Freeman, 2000: 132).
Another current method
which minimises L1 is the Task-Based Method (Willis and Willis, 2007).
This method requires learners to complete a task in L2 through pair or group
work. Even though Learners can use different tools to communicate in L2 such as
gestures and copying words from the task sheet, translation can be used as the
last strategy as proposed by Prabhu (1987: 60):
Although tasks were presented and carried out in the target language,
the use of
the learners mother tongue in the classroom was neither disallowed nor
excluded. The teacher normally used it only for an occasional glossing of words
or for some complex procedural instructions, for example: ' Leave the rest of
the page blank in your notebooks and go on to the next page, for the next
question'.
This definition implies that L1 can
be used to explain the meaning of a new word and giving class instructions. Prabhu (1987) adds that learners are more likely to use L1
when having a private talk with their teachers and doing individual tasks. This
may indicate that using L1 in front of peers may create a feeling of guilt.
Willis and Willis (2007) consider that L1 cannot be avoided in L2 classrooms
since it can bring some benefits to the classroom, especially with beginners.
For instance, some teachers have found that learners who did a task in L1
before doing it in L2 showed good progress in L2; moreover, their overall use of
L1 decreased. Another benefit is that L1 can be used to translate new words,
more specifically those which are difficult to explain
or infer. In addition, task instructions could be given in L1 to check learners
understanding. Finally, teachers should raise learners' attention towards the
importance of maximising the use of L2, For the purpose of avoiding the overuse
of L1, Willis and Willis (2007) recommend teachers and learners to prepare
guidelines for situations in which L1 can be used in the class.
Several views upholding the benefits
of using L1 in L2 classrooms have been proposed. Atkinson (1987), for instance,
calls for its provision for three reasons. Firstly, translation is the
preferred strategy for the majority of learners. Secondly, it is a personal
technique since it helps learners to reveal their feelings and ideas. Finally,
it is a valuable technique for exploiting class time. Another
support for L1 in L2 classroom is provided by Chavez (2002) who claims that
students prefer using both L1 and L2 because the classroom is not a real
context for L2 social culture.
A similar view is held by Harbord
(1992). He considers L1 a natural communication tool between teachers and students, as in
giving class instructions, but he stands firmly against using L1 for explaining
grammar. Butzkamm
(2003) Supports the previous
reasons for employing L1 and adds that L1 promotes learners dependence on L2.
In other words, after presenting an L2 notion in L1 and asking learners for
repetition in L2, learners become more motivated to communicate in L2.
Therefore, L1 can enhance and keep the flow of communication.
Research and using L1
This section discusses research
findings about using L1 in L2 classes from the sides of both teachers and
students at school level only, which is the focus of this study. The review
below reveals that research at school level seems to be limited, and most
recent studies have investigated L1 use among college students (e.g. Schweers,1999; Scott and de la Fuente,
2008; Nazary, 2008; Brooks-Lewis, 2009; Raschka etal., 2009).
Reasearch on teachers' use of L1
Several studies have been carried
out in different countries to investigate areas in which teachers resort to L1.
Most of these studies revealed that a large number of teachers resort to L1 for
explaining grammar -66% in Kharma and Hajjaj's
(1989) study, 88% in Franklin's (1990) study and 87% in Dickson's (1996)
study. These findings offered support to several studies
which have found that advanced learners demonstrated good progress when
learning grammar in L1 (Cook, 2001).
Another area for using L1 was
explaining new words- 71% in Kharma and Hajjaj (1989); 39% in Franklin
(1990). The issue of learners' proficiency was identified as another area for
using L1. Teachers tend to use L1 with low ability learners (e.g. Kharma and Hajjaj, 1989;
Franklin, 1990; Dickson, 1996). Besides learners level, teachers professional
experience impacts the degree to which they resort to L1. The more they are
experienced, the less they use L1 (Crawford, 2004). Using L1 for creating a
rapport with learners and giving class instructions formed other cases
(Franklin, 1990; Macaro, 1995, cited by Macaro, 1997).
In accordance with previous research
findings, Cameron (2001) provides precise guidelines for teachers for the
beneficial use of L1 with children. For example, teachers can resort to L1 for
translating new language, chatting with learners, giving instructions,
providing feedback and error correction and checking learners' comprehension.
She points out that L1 should be used after trying other tools, such as
pictures and gestures. The advice being
"Use as much of the target language as possible, and ensure that use of
first language supports the children's language learning" (Cameron, 2001:
199). Having discussing teachers reasons for using L1, the discussion now will
move on to include learners reasons for L1 application.
Research
on learners' use of L1
Research has investigated learners'
reasons for switching to L1 in EFL classrooms. For example, in Kharma and Hajjaj's (1989) study,
81% of the Arab students were in favour of using L1, especially when they could
not express their ideas in L2. Moreover, they thought that their students felt
happy about using L1.
Swain and Lapkin
(2000) studied learners' use of L1 (English) while doing two tasks in French
(L2). According to the study, learners purposes for using L1 were grouped into
three main categories: moving tasks along, as in ordering events, focusing
attention on grammar and vocabulary search and finally interpersonal
interaction as in explaining disagreement. Besides these findings, it was
noticed that lower achieving learners tended to use L1 more excessively than
high achieving learners.
Cook (2001) recommends learners to
use L1 with each other when explaining tasks, negotiating their roles and
checking their production and understanding. A similar view is taken by Cameron (2001)
who mentions that learners prefer using L1 when seeking help from peers or
teachers.
More reasons
justifying learners use of L1 have been discussed by Nation (2003). He mentions that learners
tend to apply L1 either because they are not proficient, or are shy or
unmotivated to communicate in L2. Although Nation (2003) acknowledges the
importance of L1 in L2 classrooms, he calls for increasing learners' focus on
L2 setting out some helpful hints for this purpose. Tasks, as mentioned by
Nation (2003) should be within learners level, and this view is in tune with Vygotskys sociocultural theory.
According to Vygotsky (1978), children can develop
their language through interacting with each other and/or with adults. During
this interaction, they have good opportunities to receive help from others. Vygotsky (1978) refers to children's abilities towards
assisted language learning as the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Another
helpful hint by Nation (2003) is that teachers should use tasks that encourage
learners to use L2 such as role plays and telling
stories. Moreover, teachers should increase learners awareness of the
importance of learning L2 and remind them to use L2 while monitoring
classes.
To sum up, previous studies on
teachers' and learners' use of L1 suggest that using L1 is a natural and
realistic process. Some studies have found that using L1 is unavoidable and
fundamental to L2 acquisition (Schneider, 1979, cited in Kharma
and Hajjaj, 1989). This view contradicts many
other views which adhere to the possibility of using L2 as a natural
communicative device (e.g. Halliwell and Jones,
1991). The reason for highlighting the issue of L1 in different methods and
from both teachers and students sides is to provide a strong rational for
this study. The next section will explain this point more clearly.
Rational and aim of the study
The
issue of using L1 in L2 classrooms has grown in importance in light of recent
research. However, in Saudi Arabian public schools, the issue has not received
sufficient attention and few studies have been carried out to identify the role
of Arabic in learning English. For instance, Alam et al. (1988) conducted a study in male
schools to investigate the attitudes of teachers, students and parents towards
learning English. Out of 600 students- 32.8%- disagreed with the exclusion of
Arabic in EFL classes. Furthermore, 62% of the students preferred to be taught
by Arabic teachers. However, since the aim of the study was investigating the
participants' attitudes towards learning English, the study did not identify
the reasons or situations in which the students prefer their teachers to use
Arabic. Another study on using Arabic in teaching English was conducted by Al-Abdan (1993). The study included 451 male and female
teachers and supervisors in intermediate schools in Riyadh City. It revealed that 55.4% of the teachers
used Arabic for 10% of the class time. Also, 54.5% of them preferred to use
Arabic for grammar while the majority (87.6%) resorted to Arabic when
explaining abstract words.
Since research to date has paid
little attention to the L1/L2 issue in the Saudi context, I have been motivated
to undertake more investigation to find out the attitudes of Saudi teachers and
students towards applying Arabic in EFL classrooms. The study has been
conducted in an intermediate school in Jeddah city and included two main
groups: EFL teachers and students in one classroom in the third intermediate
level.
Research questions
The present study aimed at answering
the following questions:
Main question
·
What are the participants' attitudes towards
using Arabic in EFL classes and to what use is Arabic put in EFL classes?
Sub questions
1. Is Arabic used by
teachers and students in the third intermediate level?
2. What are the teachers reasons for
employing or avoiding Arabic?
3. What are the students' reasons for
employing or avoiding Arabic?
4. What
are the situations in which teachers prefer to use Arabic?
5.
What are the situations in which
students prefer to use Arabic?
6.
Methodology
Setting and Participants
The study was carried out in an
intermediate school in Jeddah, Saudi. For selecting the school and the
participants, a convenience sampling was applied. The study included three
teachers and one classroom of 30 students who were taught by one of the three teachers. The reason for including other teachers was that other third intermediate classes were taught by different teachers,
and it would be helpful to investigate whether they share the same attitudes to
get a clear picture of this particular context.
Research Instruments and Procedures for Data Collection
Three methods have been applied for
data collection: questionnaires, interviews and class observations. The
students' attitudes have been investigated through all these three methods. The
SPSS 15 software was used to provide a descriptive analysis of the closed
questions of the questionnaire, while the open questions of the questionnaire
and the interviews were analysed qualitatively according to emerging themes
(See Appendices A, B and C). Teachers' attitudes were investigated
qualitatively through semi-structured interviews only due to their small number
(See Appendix C). Although observation which mainly records seen behaviour
might not help to reach participants' feelings (O'Leary, 2004), it was employed
in this study as a compliment to gain more insights into the reasons and
situations for using L1 by the students and their teacher (See Appendix D). The
following sections examine the design and application of research instruments
in more details.
Questionnaires: The
findings from previous research have influenced the design of self-completion
questionnaires for students (e.g. Kharma and Hajjaj, 1989; Dickson, 1996; Swain and Lapkin,
2000). In this type of questionnaires, as mentioned by Bryman
(2004), closed questions are used more than open ones so that respondents may
find them easier to complete. Moreover, closed questions allow comparability of
responses (Bryman, 2004). To gain more details from
the questionnaire each closed question was followed by a blank box for adding
more answers.
Since the study attempted to measure
attitudes, a frequency scale of five points (from always to never) was used. The
benefit of this attitude scale is to facilitate quantifying data and achieving
reliability (Payne and Payne, 2004). The reason for avoiding Likert scale (from
strongly agree to strongly disagree) for this study was that it appeared to be
confusing for the students during the pilot study as will be seen in the
following section.
The questionnaire items were in
Arabic and the reason is that the students were beginners and
have studied English for three years only. Therefore, it could be
difficult for them to understand and answer English questionnaires. Before
distributing the questionnaires to the actual sample, the questions were first
written in English and then were translated into Arabic. The Arabic translation
was translated again into English to check the accuracy of the translation. For
further guides on translating questionnaires, see Jenn
(2006). After translation, the
questionnaires were distributed to 30 students.
Interviews: After having a look at the completed questionnaires
which consisted mainly of closed questions, some responses needed to be
clarified, so the next step of data collection was conducting semi-structured
interviews with students and teachers to elicit more explanations. Similar to
the questionnaires, the interviews required the interviewees to clarify their
attitudes towards employing Arabic and explain their reasons for accepting or
rejecting Arabic. Because recording was not allowed in public schools for
cultural reasons, the interviewees' responses were recorded in notes during and
after the interviews. The interviews were conducted during my last visit to the
school. Both teachers and students' interviews consisted of open questions to
find out more information that might not appear from the questionnaires.
The choice of the students for the
interview was arbitrary. Based on the students English proficiency record used
by the teacher in Semester 1, the students were divided by the teacher into two
groups: high proficiency students who obtained 70% or more and low proficiency
students who were below this range. The third student in each list was chosen.
The aim was to investigate what students from different levels think about
using Arabic. The high achieving student was labelled as A,
and the low achieving student was labelled as B.
Speaking of teachers' interviews,
three teachers were interviewed and one of the interviewees was the teacher of
the class under investigation. Since the research was a case study of an
English classroom, the choice of the class teacher for the interview was
necessary to provide an accurate scenario for the case.
Observation: The inclusion of class observation emerged from the fact that it might lead to new issues (Edwards and Talbot, 1999). This study employed semi-structured observations which combine both predetermined checklists and written notes (O'Leary, 2004). The advantage of this combination is that the checklists may facilitate organising observations, while written notes may lead to salient themes (O'Leary, 2004). The observation included four sequenced sessions (45 minutes each) and focused on different language skills and items (e.g. listening, speaking, reading, writing, grammar).
Data Analysis
This study employed two approaches
of data analysis: quantitative and qualitative. The closed questions of the
questionnaires were analysed statistically by using the SPSS program.
Descriptive statistics of data were computed, and the mode was used as a
central tendency measure to find out the frequencies of using Arabic which form one of the research questions. Since the
number of the participants was small (30 students), the chi-square test was
applied to identify any existing relationships among the questionnaire
variables (Salkind, 2008).
The qualitative approach was used
for analysing the additional points that the participants stated for the closed
and open ended questions in the questionnaires, the
interviews and the class observations. This
approach requires classifying the responses into themes as will be seen later.
Findings
1. Does Arabic occur among teachers and students in the third intermediate
level?
The study has revealed that the participants used Arabic in
English classes and this indicated that they have positive attitudes towards
employing Arabic. Teachers highlighted the importance of L1 in their classes,
however, their use of Arabic appeared to be limited as they were aware that the
excessive use of Arabic may hinder learning English. These findings were in
line with some previous studies.
For example, in Kharma and Hajjajs
(1989) study, 93% of the 185 teachers used Arabic in their classrooms for
different reasons. Similarly, Al-Abdans (1993) study
pointed out that not only 75% of the 451 Saudi teachers used Arabic with their
students for certain cases, but also they were convinced with the benefits of
this use.
Similar to the teachers attitudes,
the students attitudes towards using Arabic in the classroom were generally
positive. According to the questionnaires, 70% of the students were in favour
of their teachers use of Arabic. However, the research tools also showed that
the students avoided the over-use of Arabic, except for doing pair or group
work. For instance, about 57% students, as revealed in the questionnaires,
thought that using Arabic might prevent them from learning English. Moreover,
they preferred to use it when there was a perceived need for this. This limited
use of L1 is a sign of positive attitudes held by the students about learning
L2 as claimed by Storch and Wigglesworth (2003). The
following sections discuss in detail the reasons and areas in which the
students use or avoid Arabic.
2. What are the teachers reasons for employing or avoiding Arabic?
Teachers had various reasons for
employing Arabic. They usually use Arabic to clarify difficult items for weak
learners, so that they do not lag behind their peers. This finding was
confirmed by the interviews and the observations. Another reason
which was figured out from the interviews was the learners level. The three interviewed teachers agreed that beginners need more
explanation in Arabic because they have not made good progress in English yet.
The previous findings seem to be
consistent with Franklins (1990) and Dicksons (1996) studies
which found that using L1 with lower level students was a crucial factor
in increasing teachers use of L1. However, Dickson (1996) suggests that
increasing weak students motivation would be a proper alternative to L1. One way of increasing learners
motivation is using interesting resources such as comic-books
which may decrease teachers' use of L1 (Stephens and Crawley, 1994).
3. What are the students' reasons for using or avoiding Arabic?
From the research tools, most of the
students revealed their desire to avoid the overuse of Arabic, whether from
their side or the teachers side. The main reason they provided for this
avoidance was to increase their opportunities to practice English. However,
they did not deny, as mentioned in the questionnaires and interviews, that
using Arabic could provide them with some confidence and lead to better
understanding if used in certain situations which will
be mentioned later. Generally speaking, the students attitudes towards Arabic
are in line with other views that consider L1 as a naturally unavoidable
learning strategy (e.g. Atkinson, 1987; Harbord,
1992; Cook, 2001; Nation, 2003).
4. What are the situations in which teachers prefer to use
Arabic?
The study highlighted some cases for
which Arabic appeared to be a helpful option. Data from the research
instruments revealed that using Arabic for teaching grammar was one of the most
common uses amongst the teachers. Their reason was that students could find it
difficult to understand linguistic terms in English. This result is in
agreement with many existing studies. For instance, Al-Abdans
(1993) study found that many Saudi teachers (54.5%) have employed Arabic for
explaining grammar while 66% of the Arabic teachers in Kharma
and Hajjajs (1989) study preferred this use.
Using Arabic for explaining the
meaning of words was another area explored by the research tools. The results
of this study are in accordance with earlier studies (e.g. Franklin, 1990; Al-Abdan, 1993) which have pointed to
using L1 for translating new words as a common practice amongst teachers. The
teachers in the present study employed Arabic systematically in the case of
explaining abstract words. During the class observations, for instance, the
teacher translated only abstract words, and she used pictures and drawings for
concrete words. The issue of translating new words has been viewed as a
positive application. For instance, Nation (2003) recommends translating L2 words into their L1 equivalents, especially when teaching
beginners. This indicates that translation has been considered the most effective
learning method. Amongst other areas for using Arabic, giving exam instruction
was preferred by teachers to avoid confusion.
Although the present study produced results which corroborated the findings of a great deal of
previous research, there were other areas which
appeared to be in contradiction with them. For example, the teachers tried to
avoid Arabic for greetings, giving class instructions, explaining difficult
activities, checking students comprehension, contrasting L1 and L2, allowing learners
to ask questions in Arabic and doing pair or group work. The teachers reason
for avoiding Arabic in the classroom in these situations was to provide
students with sufficient opportunities to practise English. It is true that
students need to practise the new language as much as possible, especially in a
context like Saudi Arabia, where English is rarely spoken outside the
classroom. However, teachers should bear in mind that they should try to create
meaningful learning environments and Arabic seems to be a helpful tool for
clarifying any ambiguity or confusion that occurs during communication.
It seems that the teachers in this
study are strict about using Arabic. They should bear
in mind that high restrictions over the use of L1 may discourage students. In this study, the teachers reluctance to allow students
to enquire about the new language in Arabic could discourage students who may
not be able to find the right words in English. The restriction about using
Arabic for such a purpose might be related to the fact that teachers in Saudi
public schools do not receive sufficient and clear guidance on how to
use Arabic effectively and systematically in EFL classrooms, a point which was
raised by Al-Abdan (1993). Neither the course books
nor the teachers guide books include any helpful tips
on the issue of employing Arabic. Also, it should be taken into consideration
that English course books for the intermediate level focus on grammar and do
not prepare students for communication (Al-Awadh,
2000).
5. What are the situations in which
students prefer to use Arabic?
The
following table (Table 1) summarises the main findings related to this
question.
The above table reveals the
students positive attitudes towards Arabic in EFL classes. Besides, it pin points areas for using or avoiding Arabic. Speaking of
the favourable areas for using Arabic, giving exam instructions, as revealed in
the table, headed the other areas (86.7%). Regarding this point, the students
and the teachers shared the same opinion on the usefulness of Arabic for giving
exam instructions. This might be related to the
role of Arabic in reducing stress that often happens during exams. Another case
of an equal significance was using Arabic for translating new words (86.6%).
This finding supports the belief that students prefer to learn new words
through translation which could be a clear and quick
strategy (Nation, 2003; Storch and Wigglesworth,
2003). In this study, the students preferred to get the meaning directly from
the teacher or their peers without checking a bilingual dictionary
which some students considered as time consuming. However, it may be
better for the students to use bilingual dictionaries as they may get incorrect
translations from their peers.
In addition to the previous cases in
favour of using Arabic, many students preferred learning English through
contrasting it with Arabic (83%). This opinion contrasted the teachers
opinions who mentioned their avoidance of contrasting
English and Arabic. The possible benefits of contrastive analysis have been
linked to better learning, as mentioned by Kupferberg
(1999) and Ghabanchi and Vosooghi
(2006). Perhaps the implementation of robust developmental programmes for our
teachers would help raise awareness in this area.
Another important use of Arabic was
given to peer or group work (73%). There were other cases in which the students
preferred the use of Arabic such as in explaining difficult activities,
expressing opinions, asking questions and explaining grammar. These findings
were in accordance with Cooks (2001) balanced view of allowing students to use
both L1 and L2. However, in the current study, the class observations showed
that the students over-used Arabic when doing an activity in pairs or groups
and this appeared contradictory to the teachers restrictions of avoiding
Arabic for pair or group work. It should be noticed that the teachers emphasis
on forwarding questions to her in English only might play a crucial role in the
increasing amount of Arabic spoken by students when doing activities together.
Students seek help from each other excessively through Arabic; therefore, it
seems that students should be allowed to ask their teachers about the new
language in L1 rather than keeping them confused and hesitant. Using L1
excessively for pair or group work in L2 has been a common problem. Although
the use of L1 during the conduction of a collaborative task is a natural
phenomena and a recommended strategy for reducing cognitive load on students
(Scott and de la Fuente, 2008), the students in the
current study tended to use it excessively. Therefore, it could be useful to
follow the suggestions by Willis and Willis (2007) which
recommend preparing rules to be followed by students about using L1. Moreover,
it could be beneficial to discuss with students their reasons for using L1
(Willis and Willis, 2007).
The above discussion revealed some
purposes for which the students used Arabic; however, some areas in which the
students avoided Arabic have been identified. One area in which there was
overwhelming agreement from the students was avoiding Arabic for less riveting
lessons. Many students (73%) agreed that boring lessons become more boring when
Arabic is applied. This could be a
sign that the students were motivated to learn English
as they wanted their teacher to use English even with boring lessons. However,
this study did not focus on the relationship between
students motivation and their use of
L1, an area which needs further investigation. In
addition to the above variables frequencies, the chi-square test was applied
with this small sample to find out if there was any existing relationship among
variables. However, there were no significant relationships among these
variables.
Another area for avoiding Arabic was
giving class instructions (66.6%). Many students said that these instructions
were clear to them and they had become accustomed to them. Also, the class
teacher explained that she usually acquaints her students with common phrases
of instructions at the beginning of the year to reduce the amount of Arabic in
the class. Avoiding Arabic for this case seems
to be logical and acceptable since the students have already been provided with
the instructions.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The results of this study revealed
that the use of Arabic was an unavoidable phenomenon. The teachers and
students use of Arabic appeared to be systematic, though there were a few cases in
which they did not make the best use of it. The teachers were aware of the
disadvantages of the excessive use of Arabic, as their use of Arabic depended
on their students specific needs most of the time. They preferred to use it
with beginners and low achieving students to help them understand the new
language. Moreover, the study revealed some situations for which the teachers
used Arabic. Explaining grammatical terms, introducing new vocabulary and
giving exam instructions were the main areas for employing Arabic by teachers.
Despite the teachers flexibility in using Arabic in some situations, they
appeared to be strict about allowing their students to ask questions in Arabic;
also, they were not in favour of contrasting the two languages which, as
previously mentioned, contradicted the recommendations of some studies.
Speaking of the students
application of Arabic, the majority of the students were in favour of the
systematic use of Arabic, and they expressed their desire to practice the new
language. In spite of their belief
in the necessity of minimising Arabic, they did not ignore the feeling of
comfort that Arabic can create, especially when used for certain purposes.
These findings were in line with the argument that resorting to L1 is a natural
phenomenon (Atkinson, 1987; Harbord, 1992; Nation,
2003; Scott and de la Fuente, 2008). The students
main uses of Arabic applied to giving exam instructions, translating words,
contrasting the two languages, explaining grammar, asking questions and
participating in pair work. The
last two areas were in contrast to the teachers views. In addition to the
previous issues, the students were against employing Arabic when giving class
instructions and explaining uninteresting lessons.
It is recommended that further
studies be undertaken on larger scales to develop more understanding of
teachers and learners attitudes towards applying Arabic in EFL classrooms in
the Saudi context. Moreover, this study could encourage further research to
investigate the relationship between using Arabic and motivation on one hand
and between using Arabic and promoting learners level on the other hand. These
new studies could help educators and curriculum developers to publish
guidelines for teachers and students on applying Arabic systematically. Also,
course books should be improved to include the four skills (listening,
speaking, reading and writing) and engage students in doing activities in
English outside the classroom, as recommended by Al-Awadh
(2000). This would reduce the amount of spoken Arabic in EFL classrooms and
provide more communicative opportunities.
Acknowledgement
This article is based on my MA
dissertation, which was completed at Newcastle University in 2008. I owe a
great deal to my supervisor Dr. Katie Scott for her guidance throughout the
study. Also, I would like to thank the Ministry of Education in Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia, and all participants for their help and active participation.
References
Al-Abdan, A.A., 1993. A study on using Arabic in teaching English in Saudi intermediate schools. King Saud University Magazine, 50 (2), p. 396-426.
(العبدان, عبدالرحمن عبدالعزيز, دراسه ميدانيه لاستخدام اللغة العربيه في تدريس اللغة الانجليزيه بالمدارس المتوسطه السعوديه., مجلة جامعة الملك سعود, م5 , العلوم التربوية والدراسات الاسلاميه، (2),ص391-426, 1993 م.)
Al-Ahaydib, M. E., 1986. Teaching
English as a foreign language in the intermediate and secondary schools of
Saudi Arabia: diagnostic study. PhD thesis, University of Kansas.
Al-Awadh, K., 2000. The problems of teaching English in the
intermediate stage of the Qassim province as
perceived by teachers. MA thesis, King Saud University.
Al-Dakheel, A., 2002. The final report on teaching English in the
primary level in Saudi Arabia.
Riyadh: Ministry of Education.
(الدخيل، عبدالعزيز. التقرير الختامي للفريق المكلف بدراسة موضوع تدريس اللغة الانجليزية في المرحلة الابتدائية بالمملكة العربية السعودية. الرياض، .2002.)
Atkinson, D., 1987. The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource. ELT Journal, 41(4), p. 241-247.
Bley-Vroman, R., 1990. The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20 (1-2), p. 3-49.
Brooks-Lewis, K. A., 2009. Adult learners perceptions of the incorporation of their L1 in foreign language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics, 30 (2), p. 216-235.
Brooks, N. H., 1964. Language and language learning: theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Brown, H.
D., 2001. Teaching by principles: an
interactive approach to language
pedagogy. 2nd ed. NewYork: Longman.
Bryman, A., 2004. Social research methods. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Butzkamm, W., 2003. We only learn language once. The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms: death of a dogma. Language Learning Journal, 28, p. 29-39.
Byram, M. ed., 2000. The routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning. London: Routledge.
Cameron, L., 2001. Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chavez,M.
(2002). The diglossic foreign-language classroom:
Learners views on L1 and L2 functions. In C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign language classrooms: AAUSC issues in
language program direction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 163–208.
Cook, V., 2001. Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), p. 402-423.
Crawford, J., 2004. Language choices in the foreign language classroom: target language or the learners first language. Regional Language Centre Journal, 35(1), p. 5-20.
Dickson, P., 1996. Using the target language: a view from the classroom. Slough: The National Foundation for Educational Research.
Dodson, C. J., 1967. Language teaching and the bilingual method. London: Pitman.
Edwards, A. and Talbot, R., 1999. The hard-pressed researcher: a research handbook for the caring professions.2nd ed. London: Longman.
Faltis, C., 1990. New directions in bilingual
research design: the study of interactive decision making.
In Jacobson, R. and Faltis, C., ed. Language distribution issues in bilingual
schooling. Clevedon: Multilingual matters, 45-57.
Franklin, C. E. M., 1990. Teaching in the target language: problems and prospects. Language Learning Journal, 2, p. 20-24.
Ghabanchi, Z. and Vosooghi, M., 2006. The role of explicit contrastive instruction in learning difficult L2 grammatical forms: a cross-linguistic approach to language awareness. The Reading Matrix, 6 (2), p. 144-153.
Halliwell, S. and Jones, B., 1991. On target teaching in the target language. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Harbord, J.,1992. The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal, 46(4), p. 350-355.
Hawkins, E., 1981. Modern Languages in the Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Howatt, A. P. R., 2004. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenn, N.C, 2006. Designing a questionnaire. Malaysian Family Physician, 1(1), p. 32-35. Retrieved 11 March 2008 from:
http://ejournal.afpm.org.my/v1n1/index.htm
Kharma, N.N. and Hajjaj, A. H., 1989. Use of the mother tongue in the ESL classroom. IRAL, 27(3), p. 223-235.
Kim, K. S.,
Relkin, N., Lee,K.
M. and Hisch, J., 1997. Distinct cortical areas
associated with native and second languages. Nature, 388, p. 171-174.
Krashen, S., 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kupferberg, I., 1999. The cognitive turn of contrastive analysis: empirical evidence. Language Awareness, 8 (3-4), p. 210-222.
Larsen-Freeman, D., 2000. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W., 1981. Communicative language teaching: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macaro, E., 1997. Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Macaro, E. (2001). Analyzing student teacherscodeswitching
in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making.
Modern Language Journal, 85, p.
531–548.
Macdonald, C., 1993. Using the target language. Cheltenham: Mary Glasgow.
Ministry of Education, 1974. The educational policy in the Saudi Arabian Kingdom. 2nd ed. Riyadh: Ministry of education.
Nation, P., 2003. The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL Journal,5 (2). Retrieved 10 September 2007 from:
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/june_2003_PN.php.
Nazary, M., 2008. The role of L1 in L2 acquisition: attitudes of Iranian university students, Novitas-Royal, 2 (2), p. 138-153. Retrieved 14 March 2010 from:
http://novitasroyal.org/nazary.pdf
O'Leary, Z., 2004. The essential guide to doing research. London: Sage.
Payne, G. and Payne, J., 2004. Key concepts in social research. London: Sage.
Prabhu, N. S., 1987. Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raschka, C., Sercombe, P. and Chi-Ling, H.,
2009. Conflicts
and tensions in codeswitching in a Taiwanese EFL
classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism,12
(2), p.157-171.
Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T.S., 2001. Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Salkind, N. J., 2008. Statistics for people who think they hate statistics. London: Sage.
Schweers, W., 1999. Using L1 in the L2 classroom. English Teaching Forum, 37/2.
Retrieved 1 January 2008 from: http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol37/no2/p6.htm
Scott, V. M., and De la Fuente, M. J., 2008. What is the problem? L2 learners' use of the L1 during consciousness-raising form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92 (1), p. 100-113.
Stephens, P.and Crawley, T., 1994. Becoming an effective teacher. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
Stern, H. H., 1992. Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is
there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly, 37, 760–770.
Swain, M., 2000. The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. P., ed. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97-114.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S., 2000. Task-based second language
learning: the uses of the first language. Language
Teaching
Research, 4 (3), p.251-274.
Vygotsky, L. S., 1978. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Willis, D. and Willis, J., 2007. Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
