P. 1
Proposal Evaluation --MT in EFL Class

Proposal Evaluation --MT in EFL Class

|Views: 463|Likes:
This file is intended as a handout for ELT Research Proposal Critique in my ELT Research classes at the English Teaching Study Program of UKI Jakarta.
This file is intended as a handout for ELT Research Proposal Critique in my ELT Research classes at the English Teaching Study Program of UKI Jakarta.

More info:

Categories:Types, School Work
Published by: Parlindungan Pardede on Apr 25, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/27/2015

pdf

text

original

Research Proposal Evaluation of Use of MT in EFL Classes of Secondary Schools in Jadetabek: Students and Teachers’ Perception

Chapter I INTRODUCTION A. Background In the field of second language (SL) and foreign language (FL) teaching in general and English as a second language (ESL) or English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching in particular, the role of the students’ mother tongue (MT) and its influence on the target language (TL) has long been a controversy. Based on his review of the literature related to language teaching methods, Stern (1992, p. 279) stated that the role of MT in SL teaching is “one of the most long-standing controversies in the history of language pedagogy”. One the one hand, those supporting the prohibition of MT use in SL/FL classrooms, later becomes popular as the monolingual approach, suggest that the target language should be the only medium of communication, because SL/FL is best learned and taught through the language itself (Richards and Rodgers 2001). For them, the avoidance of the MT would maximize the effectiveness of learning the TL, because maximum exposure to TL and least exposure to MT are of crucial importance, and the use of MT may obstruct TL learning process (Cook, 2001 and Krashen, 1981). On the other hand, the advocates of MT use believe MT can be helpful in most classroom activities, such as learning new vocabulary items, explaining complex ideas, studying grammatical rules, or studying cultural elements. They assert that the monolingual approach seems to be only partially implemented in SL/FL teaching practice, and, as a matter of fact, most ESL/EFL teachers and students often resort to MT during the learning and teaching process. Nation (2003) and Larsen-Freeman (2012), for instances, argued that students’ MT should not completely eliminated from a SL or FL classes and reiterated that a judicious and well–planned use of the students’ MT can give positive results. Despite the continuous debates over the role of MT, empirical studies during the last three decades have suggested that it is likely to be unavoidable in SL/FL classrooms, especially when students speak the same MT and when teachers know the MT of their students. Auerbach (1993) for example, lists several different positive uses of L1 in L2 classrooms, i.e. classroom management, language analysis, presenting grammar rules, discussing cross-cultural issues, giving instructions or prompts, explaining errors, and checking for comprehension. Macaro’s (2001) study on six student teachers in England revealed that the participants use their MT up to 15.2% in their teaching. Based on their study on 13 Korean teachers of English in high schools, Liu et al (2004) reported their use of Korean ranged The start stating the “controversy” is very effective to attract reader’s intention

Citations used to prove the “controversy” were very well selected

This presentation of the results of recent research conducted in various places is effective to show the importance of understanding the MT use in EFL classes

1

from 10% to 90% of class time. Kim and Elder’s (2005) study on seven teachers who taught foreign languages in New Zealand revealed that the proportion of target language use among these teachers varied from 23% to 88%. Kim Anh (2010) study on the attitudes of Vietnamese university teachers towards using Vietnamese in teaching English indicated that judicious use of MT is found to be necessary in some situations in teaching English. In addition, Al-Nofaie’s (2010) study showed that the students and teachers’ attitudes towards using the Arabic in EFL classroom were positive and the students preferred MT to be used in certain situations. However, the teacher participants claimed that the untimely and excessive use of MT should be avoided because it may obstruct learning English. In the Chinese context, Tang’s (2002). study revealed that students supported the use of Chinese in English classes because it makes English learning more effective and less time-consuming. Though researches on the use of MT in FL classrooms have increased dramatically in many places in the world, in Indonesian public schools, very little attention has given specifically to this issue and only few studies have been carried out to investigate the role of Indonesia in English classes. To the present writers’ knowledge, there are only two accessible studies carried out concerning this issue in Indonesian context so far. Zacharias’ (2003) study revealed tertiary education English teachers’ account about what Indonesian is used for in their English classes: explaining the meaning of new words and grammatical points, giving instructions, checking learners’ understanding and giving feedback to individual learners. The second work, Usadiati’s (2009) action research, revealed that the use of Indonesian interchangeably with English in the explanations of concepts and rules for teaching students to write English sentences in Present Perfect Tense improved the students’ achievement. Since English has recently been taught in all levels of education, such lack of attention to the use of Indonesian in English classrooms a great disadvantage. Since both teachers and students have the same MT (most English teachers in the public school are Indonesians) they must be apt to resort to Indonesian as a support to survive or to make sense of whatever is going on in the English class. If only we have appropriate empirical data on this issue, we will be able to raise our awareness of where we are at present in our use of Indonesian in English classes and to prepare the ground for a more reasoned use of Indonesian in the English classroom. And this study is a trial to provide such necessitated data.

The little attention in Indonesia towards the issue is effective to show the “gaps” between current practice of English teaching and methodological knowledge on it. Thus it is urgent to conduct this research

B. Research Problems Based on the discussion in the background section above, the The background is use of Indonesian appears, in some ways, to be beneficial for learning very relevant to the and teaching English. It has also been learned that little attention has problems. been given to the use of Indonesian in English classes. There is, therefore, a great urgency to study this issue. By having appropriate
2

empirical data concerning this issue, we will have more solid basis to decide what methodology is best for our students. The problem to be addressed in this study is students and English teachers’ perception towards the use of Indonesian in English classrooms at senior high schools around Jadetabek. More specifically, the study tries to seek answers to the following questions. 1. What is the perception of teachers and students towards using Indonesian in their English classroom? 2. To what extent do English teachers and students believe in the role of the Indonesian? 3. How much Indonesian do teachers use in their English classroom? 4. How much Indonesian do students expect their teachers use in their English class? 5. How much Indonesian do students want to use themselves? 6. What for do students and teachers employ Indonesian? 7. What is the relationship between years of English teaching experience and teachers' use of Indonesian? 8. What is the relationship between years of English learning and students' expectation in the use of Indonesian? C. Research Objectives Based on the discussions on the previous sections, this study will be carried out to get empirical data about: 1. English teachers and students’ perception on the use of Indonesian in English classroom. 2. the extent of English teachers and students’ belief in the role of the Indonesian in English classroom. 3. the frequency of teachers use of Indonesian in English classroom. 4. Students’ expectation of the frequency of teachers’ use of Indonesian in their English classes. 5. Students’ expectation of the frequency of their use of Indonesian in their English classes. 6. The students and teachers objectives for employing Indonesian. 7. The relationship between years of English teaching experience and teachers' use of Indonesian. 8. The relationship between years of English learning and students' expectation in the use of Indonesian. D. Significances of the study The findings of this study are hopefully useful to the following four groups: 1. English teachers can make use of the findings and become aware of the role Indonesian plays in teaching and learning English. 2. Teacher educators-could make use of the findings to reexamine their foreign language teaching methodology at the teacher training and development centers. 3. Material writers and syllabus designers-may make them to consider Indonesian while preparing teaching materials or designing the syllabus.

These specific research questions are clearly stated and relevant to the research topic-Students and English teachers’ perception towards the use of Indonesian in English Classrooms.

the objective s are clearly stated and consistent with the research questions

This part clearly tells how the study would be beneficial to specific persons

3

4. Researchers might be stimulated to conduct further research in the area which may open the way to the development of a new ELT method and techniques that work to incorporate the use of Indonesian in the EFL classroom. E. Scope of the study Due to budget and time constraint, the present study confined Limitation (scope) itself to investigate the perception of students and English teachers of the study is towards the use of Indonesian in English classes at senior high schools clearly indicated around Jadetabek (Jakarta, Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi). F. Operational Definitions Terms and Acronyms 1. SL refers to second language 2. FL refers to foreign language 3. MT refers to mother tongue, i.e. Indonesian in the context of this study 4. TL refers to target language, i.e. English in the context of this study 5. EFL refers to English as a foreign language 6. ELT refers to English Language Teaching The terms and acronyms are briefly but concisely defined

Chapter II LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK This chapter presents two sections: In the first section, research findings, arguments, and ideas relevant to the study are summarized and synthesized as a mean to provide the study with relevant context. The second section relates the background to the problems and shows how the present proposed research could contribute to the literature of the use of MT in ELT classes. A. Literary Review 1. History of language teaching methods focusing on MT use in FL teaching A look at the history of MT use in the SL/FL classroom quickly reveals periodic but regular changes in how it is viewed (Auerbach, 1993, p.12). Therefore, Stern (1983) stated that “the role of first language in foreign language teaching is one of the most longstanding controversies in the history of language pedagogy.” Several hundred years ago bilingual teaching was the ‘norm’, with students learning through translation, which is later well-known as the Grammar Translation Method. The use of MT to study a SL/FL under the domination of this method was almost universal and readily accepted, in part because language teaching placed an emphasis on the written word above the spoken word. Under the Grammar Translation Method, MT is freely used as “reference system” in the process of foreign language acquisition (Stern, 1983). In other words, MT is used The introductory part seems “too general”. It’s better if the writers mention the five subheadings that follow.

This subheading effectively summarizes and critically discusses the historical background of language teaching methods focusing on the problems to be addressed.

4

as the main means of instruction. In the 19th Century, this trend slowly reversed itself (towards a monolingual approach), in part due to a shift towards an emphasis on the spoken word. The shift of the emphasis was partly due to mass migration and colonialism which caused people need to learn foreign languages in order to communicate orally. This led to the emergence of the Direct Method, which is based on the belief that FL learning should be an imitation of MT learning. In this light, learners should be immersed in the target language through the use of that TL “as a mean of instruction and communication in the language classroom”, and through “the avoidance of the use of MT and translation as a technique” (Stern, 1983). After its highest popularity during the period from the late nineteenth century to the first quarter of the twentieth century, the Direct Method began to decline. However, the method has laid foundation upon which many of the later methods and approaches expanded and developed. Among them are the Audio-lingual Method and Communicative Approach. The Audio- lingual Method, whose origin is found in the Army Method developed in response to the need for Americans to learn the languages of their allies and enemies alike during World War II, aims at helping learners “to be able to use the target language communicatively” (Larsen- Freeman, 2012). Like the Direct Method, this method focuses on the spoken language and forbids translation and the students’ MT in the classroom (Ellis, 2003). Meanwhile, in the Communicative Approach, which has attracted most attention from the language teaching profession during the past five decades, the restricted use of learners’ mother tongue is allowed where feasible and translation may be used when learners find it essential and helpful (Ellis, 2003). Recently, there has been an increasing attention to the advantages of MT use in the FL classrooms. Numerous studies related to the roles of MT in FL teaching and learning have been carried out around the world in order to develop communicative language teaching which considers MT as a classroom resource. Weschler’s (1997) Functional-Translation Method, which combines “the best of traditional “grammar translation” with the best of modern “direct, communicative” methods”, is a good example for this. 2. The Use of MT in the EFL classroom As indicated in previous sections, two opposing arguments have emerged regarding MT use in the EFL classes, i.e. those against it and those favoring it. Both are briefly discusses in the following sections. a. Arguments against Using MT in the EFL classroom Various arguments have been put forth for prohibiting the students’ MT in the ESL/ EFL classroom. The first and most common is interference from the native language. Dulay, Burt & Krashen, cited in Al-Harbi (2010, p. 145) define the interference “as the automatic
Subtopics 2 to 5 are effective summaries and critical discussions of arguments, previous research findings, theories and approaches relevant to the writers’ own research problems, purpose and rationale.

5

transfer, due to habit, of the surface structure of the first language onto the surface of the target language". According to Cook, (2001), interference is a major source of difficulty in the TL learning and to avoid that, the separation of MT and TL should be made. Harbord (1992) also supports MT and TL separation, and he acknowledges that overusing MT makes students believe that word for word translation is a useful technique, and, consequently, they will work towards transferring meaning in learning the TL. The second argument asserts that using MT might negatively affect students' learning process because it reduces the exposure learners get to the TL and reduces their opportunities for using the TL (Turnbull, 2001, and Deller & Rinvolucri, 2002). In other words, MT use will prevent the maximum provision of the TL. This argument is usually strengthened with the idea that EFL learners often have little or no exposure to the target language outside the classroom. Teachers, therefore, should not spend this valuable classroom time using MT. In agreement with this view, Auerbach (1993) indicates that "the more students are exposed to English, the more quickly they will learn; as they hear and use English, they will internalize it and begin to think in English" (p. 14). The other argument, chiefly advanced by Krashen (1981), is MT acquisition argument. The philosophical basis Krashen used to support this claim is that adults learn the TL similar to the way children pick up their MT. The justification put forward for the claim is that to acquire their MT, children do not rely on another language. However, Cook (2001a) argues that the analogy to MT acquisition is simply beside the point, According to him, the nature of MT acquisition is fundamentally different from SL/FL learning, especially in terms of age and situations. Therefore, the fact that by definition children do not fall back on another language while acquiring their MT has no implication for whether or not SL/FL learners should make use of their MT while learning SL/FL. In line with this, Weschler (1997) asserts that, “Children take years following the natural order of acquisition to master the concrete before the abstract. By contrast, already having mastered the latter, adults can take shortcut” (p. 4). In the same vein, Cook (2002) notes that the misguided vision of the MT acquisition is one of those factors that have outlawed the role of translation in SL/FL teaching. He further comments that the idea of relating SL/FL learning to MT acquisition is based on assertions without evidence or weak evidence. Based on these arguments, we can conclude that the advocates of the monolingual approach believe the best way to teach EFL is by using English as the medium of teaching. b. Arguments Supporting MT Use in the EFL Classroom The monolingual approach has been criticized by researchers and practicioners who believe that limited use of MT is a very natural and useful tool in the SL/FL classroom. Thus, many researchers have thought of ways to use MT into the EFL teaching effectively
6

(Schweers, 1999; Cook, 2001, Deller & Rinvolucri, 2002; and AlNofaie, 2010). Atkinson (1987) strongly supports that students' MT shouldn’t be completely ignored in the English classes since "the use of L1 can be very effective in terms of the amount of time spent explaining" (p. 242). According to Auerbach (1993), "when the native language is used, practitioners, researchers, and learners consistently report positive results" (p. 18). As shown by Harbord (1992), Auerbach (1993) and Deller and Rinvolucri (2002), MT represents a powerful source that can be used to enhance the SL/FL learning. In this situation, there is a extensive amount of literature which strongly suggests that MT can play a supportive and facilitating role in the EFL classroom as a valuable linguistic resource, and consequently, it should not be totally avoided (Schweers, 1999 and Nation, 2003). ELT teachers must have ever experienced or felt that the students’ MT can be used as a teaching technique especially in the areas where there is marked difference between MT and EFL system. Harmer (2001) also notes that MT use is a quick and helpful technique in teaching the TL. To conclude, the most realistic principle in ESL/EFL teaching should be to use English where possible and MT where necessary" (Atkinson, 1993). 3. Teachers’ Attitudes towards MT Use in the EFL Classroom According to AL-Nofaie (2010), teachers’ attitudes towards MT use have been examined in different countries with varied results. The results of Al-Buraiki’s (2008) study aimed to investigate the Omani English teachers' attitudes in basic education school showed that the teachers believed that MT has a positive role to play in teaching the young learners. Crawford's study (2004) concerning the primary level as cited in Al-Nofaie (2010) revealed that 54 % had "reservations" in using MT as the main medium of teaching. The study of Sharma (2006) on the attitudes of Nepali teachers and students towards the use of the native language in the EFL classroom revealed that all respondents preferred the occasional use of MT in the English classes. They also asserted that judicious use of mother tongue is justified because it helps students learn English better. Similarly, Kim and Petraki (2009) reported that for Korean students and teachers' MT plays a helpful role in the language classroom, especially in the early stages. 4. Reasons for Using MT in the EFL Classroom Several studies have been carried out in different countries to investigate areas in which teachers can take advantage of their students’ first language (Al-Nofaie, 2010). The notion of MT serving as "a time–saving device" is the most frequent justification given by teachers for LI use (Atkinson, 1987. p, 422) Similarly, Shimizu (2006, p. 77) indicated that "timesaving" is one of the principle arguments why researchers are in favor of using MT. As Turnbull (2001) stated, "I know from my personal experience that it is tempting to use the MT to save time"(p.536).
7

Auerbach (1993) and Schweers (1999 also agree that saving time is a justified reason for using MT especially at lower levels. According to Harbord (1992), teachers' use of MT to save time provides opportunities for "real teacher-student communication in TL classroom" (p.352). Another significant reason for teachers' use of the students' MT in the TL classroom is to achieve natural communication between them and their students. Harbord (1992, p. 352) argues that "facilitating teacher-student communication", and "facilitating teacherstudent rapport" are two basic objectives for the teachers' use of students' MT in the EFL classroom. In accordance with the previous view, Auerbach (1993) indicates that achieving a good relationship between students and teachers is a desirable aim that can be fulfilled through MT use. Nation (2003) indicates that it is easier and more communicative to use MT in the EFL classrooms to facilitate communication between students and teachers. Additionally, Miles (2004) considers that MT should be used in the EFL classroom in order not to create a barrier between the students and the teachers. It is also acceptable to use MT in the EFL classroom by teachers to convey the meaning of an unfamiliar word, to clarify abstract word, and to explain difficult concepts (Meyer, 2008). Turnbull (2001) concurs with the opinion that “it is efficient to make a quick switch to the L1 to ensure that students understand an unknown word” (p. 535). As shown by Meyer (2008), the absence of MT when explaining the unfamiliar concepts can raise the level of anxiety among students. Motivating students by using MT has received much interest in literature. Hamdallah (1999, p. 290), for example, emphasizes that in order to keep the learner's motivation in an " ideal circle", appropriate use of MT in EFL classroom could be used. He adds that using MT to motivate students encourages them to express their ideas since it has a direct influence on the "psychological pressure". However, he concludes that when learners' ability of TL increases, it is necessary to minimize the use of MT. Critchely (2002) indicates that with lower level learners, teachers should use MT when appropriate to build positive and mutually supportive relationships that will promote student motivation (p. 3). It is also commonly agreed in the literature that MT could be used by EFL teachers to give complex instructions to early levels (Harbord, 1992 and Auerbach, 1993). In Cook's (2001b) and AL-Nofaie's (2010) studies, the findings revealed that a large number of teachers' favorite choice for giving complex instructions was by using the students' mother tongue. Harbord (1992) emphasized that giving class instructions by using MT is an important point to achieve and facilitate communication between teachers and students. 5. The Amount of L1 Use in the EFL Classroom A body of research about how much MT is used in the EFL classroom by both teachers and students with different kinds of data, including questionnaire, interviews and observation of lessons, has
8

been carried out in different contexts and indicated a great degree of variability in the amounts of the MT and the TL use by teachers. Guthries (1984), who investigated the MT and the TL use of 6 university French instructors, found that there was a great degree of variability in the amounts of the MT and the TL use by teachers. Overall, most of them used the MT in a relatively low percentage of the total time. Five out of the six instructors apparently used the MT 2% to 17% of the time (with one exception above 40%). Duff and Polio’s (1990) study in FL classes at the University of California showed a wide range of percentages across languages: from 0% to 90% the first language with a 32.1% “cross-class average” (p.156). Their interviews with teachers dealing with the variability in MT/TL ratio showed that the variables that might have played a role included language type, departmental policy and guidelines, lesson content, materials and formal teacher training. Macaro (1997), intended to investigate how much MT was used by instructors, why they claimed to use it, and what factors appeared to influence their decision to use it, found that very little MT was used in the classes recorded by the instructors. When instructors initiated a switch to MT, it appeared that they did so for the sake of efficiency and convenience, or to impose discipline or keep control of the class. According to Macaro (1997), teachers switched from TL to MT mainly to give and clarify instructions for classroom activities, to give feedback to students, to translate, and to check comprehension. More recent studies on this issue also revealed a great degree of variability in the amounts of the MT and the TL use by teachers. Macaro’s (2001) study on six student teachers in England revealed that the participants use their MT up to 15.2% in their teaching. Based on their study on 13 Korean teachers of English in high schools, Liu et al (2004) reported their use of Korean ranged from 10% to 90% of class time. Kim and Elder’s (2005) study on seven teachers who taught foreign languages in New Zealand revealed that the proportion of target language use among these teachers varied from 23% to 88%. Based on the results of these studies, it can be concluded that the amounts of the MT and the TL use by teachers are varied, and thus, more empirical support is needed before sound pedagogical and policy decision are made. B. Conceptual Framework The inclusion of the students’ MT in SL/FL classes has long been a controversy. On the one hand, proponents of the monolingual approach believe that to maximize the effectiveness of learning the TL, MT should be prohibited, because maximum exposure to TL and least exposure to MT are of crucial importance, and the use of MT may obstruct TL learning process. Thus a second/foreign language is best learned and taught through the language itself. On the other hand, the proponents of the MT use argue that MT can be helpful in most classroom activities. As a consequence, MT should not completely eliminated from a SL or FL classes for a well-judged and well–
This conceptual

framework briefly but concisely links the research problems to existing literature and the research objectives. However, a good

conceptual framework
9

planned use of the students’ MT can give positive results. Since most current research results tend to support the judicious and well–planned inclusion of MT, this issue deserves more studies to get more empirical data. The more data concerning this issue available to use, the easier it is for us to find more suitable teaching methodology for our students. This study is one of the trials to meet this challenge. Its findings will at least enrich empirical data concerning with secondary school students and English teachers’ perception towards the use of Indonesian in English classrooms.

should be able to guide (like a map does) researchers’ inquiry, it will be much better if it also includes the research method, instruments, and data analysis.

Chapter III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter provides the basic plan of the proposed study. It covers the specific research purposes and questions, research design, participants, time and place, data collection instruments and techniques, data analysis technique, and research procedure. At the end of this chapter, information about the budget is also presented. A. Specific Research Purposes The findings of this study are hopefully able to get empirical data about: 1. English teachers and students’ perception on the use of Indonesian in English classroom. 2. The extent of English teachers and students’ belief in the role of the Indonesian in English classroom. 3. The frequency of teacher’s use of Indonesian in English classroom. 4. Students’ expectation of the frequency of teachers’ use of Indonesian in their English classes. 5. Students’ expectation of the frequency of their use of Indonesian in their English classes. 6. The students and teachers objectives for employing Indonesian. 7. The relationship between years of English teaching experience and teachers' use of Indonesian. 8. The relationship between years of English learning and students' expectation in the use of Indonesian. A brief but concise introductory paragraph. It enables the readers to anticipate what follows in the next subsections. Unfortunately, not all items included is exposed. The research procedure and budget sections could not be found. This restatement of the Specific Research Purposes helps the reader to easily see the connection of the research objectives and other points in this chapter. The research method is justified and very relevant to achieve the objectives.

B. Research Method This study will employ an explanatory mixed method design, which, according to Creswell et al. (2003) enables the researcher to gather qualitative input to explain and extend quantitative results, in order to gain a comprehensive insight of the research.

10

C. Participants The target participants of this study are 20 English teachers and 750 students from 20 secondary schools around Jabodetabek (Jakarta Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi)

The participants are properly define, but the sampling technique is not mentioned

D. Time and Place Time of the study This study will be conducted in May—August 2013 in is properly stated, Jadetabek. but the place deserves more detailed description E. Data Collection Instrument and Technique Data will be collected employing survey and interview techniques. The survey will be conducted using two questionnaires: (1) teachers’ questionnaire and (2) students’ questionnaire. Both of them will be constructed to gauge the perceptions of both teachers and students toward the use of MT in their English classes. Focused semi structured open-ended interviews will be conducted to all teachers and 40 students (2 students from each school), who were respondents to the questionnaire administered, to gather qualitative input. The themes that emerged during the interview sessions were coded in accordance to the quantitative dimensions from the questionnaire. The rationale for using focused semi structured open-ended interviews is to understand the respondents’ point of view rather than make generalizations. The data collection techniques are properly described. The instruments are described, but it lacks of questionnaire’s reliability and validity tests.

F. Data Analysis Technique Data will be analyzed descriptively. To run frequency analysis The data analysis and to cross tabulation of the data, SPSS version17.0 will be technique properly described employed. Since this study involves qualitative data, the researchers should have described how the data trustworthiness will be enhanced. In other words, they should have included

G. Data Triangulation ?????????????????????????

explanation about data triangulation.

11

References Al-Harbi, A. (2010). Mother tongue maintenance and second language sustenance. A two way language teaching method. TESOL Journal, 2, 144-158. Al-Nofaie, H. (2010). The attitudes of teachers and students towards APA style!!! The 1st using arabic in EFL classrooms in Saudi public schools. letter of “arabic” Novitas-ROYAL, 4 (1), 64-95 should be capitalized Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching monolingual classes: Using L1 in the classroom. Harlow: Longman Group Ltd. the 1st letter of “English” should be Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining english only in the ESL classroom. capitalized TESOL Quarterly 27, (1), 9–32. the word “Taboos” Cook,G. (2002). Breaking Taboos. English Teaching Professional, should be in small Issue23, 5-7. letter Cook, V. (2001a). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Arnold. _______ (2001b). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue Canadienne des Language Vivantes, 57 (3), 402 – 423. Critchley, M.P. (2002). The role of L1 support in communicative ELT: A guide for teachers in Japan. The Language Teacher, In general, the referencing style, 23(9), 1-9. using the APA, is Deller, S. & Rinvolucri, M. (2002). Using the mother tongue: Making well done, except the most of the learner's language. London: Baskerville Press in some items marked in red Ltd. Duff P.A. and Polio, C.G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? Modern Language Journal ,74, 154-66. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Guthrie, E.M.L. (1984). Six cases in classroom communication: A study of teacher discourse in the foreign language classroom. In: Lantolf J.P. and Labarca A, (Ed.). (1984). Research in second language learning: Focus on the classroom. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Hamdallah, R. (1999). To use or not to use Arabic in English language teaching, An-Najah National University Research Journal- B, 13 (1), 285-296.

12

Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal, 46, 350-355. Hsieh, L..T. (2000) The effects of translation on English vocabulary and reading learning’, paper presented at the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. Kim Anh, K. H. (2010). Use of Vietnamese in English language teaching in vietnam: Attitudes of vietnamese university teachers. ELT Journal, 3(2). Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon. Kobayashi, H., and C. Rinnert. (1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition, Language Leaning, (42), 2: 183-215. Larsen–Freeman, D. (2012). Techniques and principles in language teaching. (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Macaro E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Macaro E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ code-switching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. Modern Language Journal. 85, 531-48. McCann, K. (2005). Not lost in translation. IATEFL Issues, 186. Meyer, H. (2008). The pedagogical implications of L1 use in the L2 classroom. Retrieved September 12, 2010 from http://www.kyoai.ac.jp/ college/ronshuu/no08/meyer1.pdf. Miles, R. (2004). Evaluating the use of L1 in the English language classroom (Master thesis, University of Birmingham). Retrieved February 4, 2008 from: www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/Milesdiss.pdf. Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. The Asian EFL Journal, 5 (2), 1-8. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schweers, W. Jr. (1999). Using L1 in the TL classroom. English
13

Teaching Forum, 37(2), 6-7 Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English classroom. English Teaching Forum, 40(1). Turnbull, M. (2001). There is role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but… The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54 (4), 531-540. Retrieved August 9, 2010 from http://www.utpjournals.metapress. com/index/n5753111t48u536r.pdf Turnbull, M., & Arnett, K. (2002). Teachers’ uses of the target and first languages in second and foreign language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 204–218. Usadiati, W. (2009). Contribution of L1 in EFL teaching. Kata, 11(2), 171-184 Vaezi, S., & Mirzaei, M. (2007). The effect of using translation from L1 to TL as a teaching technique on the improvement of EFL learners’ linguistic accuracy – focus on form. Humanising Language Teaching, 9 (5). Retrieved February 20, 2013 from http://www.hltmag.co.uk/ Sep07/mart03.htm. Weschler, R. (1997). Uses of L1 in the English classroom: Introducing the functional-translation method. In The Internet TESL Journal, November, 1997. Retrieved March 16, 2013 from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Weschler-UsingL1.html Zacharias, N. T. (2003). A survey of tertiary teachers’ beliefs about English Language Teaching in Indonesia with regard to the should be in small role of English as a global language (Master thesis, letters Assumption University, 2003). Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/thesis.php.

Note: This file is intended as a handout for ELT Research Proposal Critique in my ELT Research classes at the English Teaching Study Program of UKI Jakarta.

Parlindungan Pardede

14

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->