AN ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE AND INTERFERENCE OF L1 IN THE TEACHING AND LEARNING OF L2 IN MALAYSIAN CLASSROOMS.

1. Introduction The report focused on the study of the influences and interferences of L1 in the learning of L2 among students in Malaysian context. Some students learnt a new language more quickly and easily than others. The simple fact was known by all who have themselves learnt the second language or taught those who are using their second language in school. Clearly, some language learners were successful by virtue of their sheer determination, hard work and persistence. However there were other crucial factors influencing success that were largely beyond the control of the learner. These factors could be broadly categorized as internal and external. It was their complex interplay that determines the speed and facility with which the new language was learned. A first language, mother tongue, native language or L1 is defined as the language a human being learns from birth. A persons first language is a basis for his or her sociolinguistic identity. Ones mother tongue makes it possible for a child to take part in the knowledge of the social work. Another impact of the mother tongue is that it brought about the reflection and learning of successful social patterns of acting and speaking. As second language or L2 is any language learned after the first language or mother tongue (L1). Second language acquisition is the process by which people learn a second language in addition to their native language. The language to be learned is often referred to as the target language or L2, compared to the first language, L1, referred to as the source language. There were many people to speak and communicate in their second language rather than mother tongue. They felt more comfortable in the second language because their mother tongue might be very limited and does not provide a great amount of words or expressions. Meanwhile, interlanguage is a linguistic system of students of a second language or foreign language in each one of acquisition levels. This system is a mediator between the mother language (L1) and learning language for students (L2). There are different stages that the students have to get to acquire the second language.

Statement of the problem When we study the second language, it occurs that we use the form of mother tongue as source and transfer it to second language. A transfer is one of the neurological processes that we know about, related to the establishment of language rules is connected with the process of transferring chunks of language coming from our mother tongue to the use, the norms and the rules of the second language. This rules were present both in monolingual and bilingual children. The case with the bilingual children gets a little more complicated since they establish a system of transfer between one language and the other and between the syntactic rules that govern them both. As recent studies show, by the time the bilingual child is two, he can separate one code from another. Bergman (1976), however, presents example of her own daughter, a bilingual 4 years old girl, who, after an early and complete separation between her English and her Spanish had been established, started to produce example of speech as: Vamos a abuelas (casa) Este coche es de Anis, no de Jorge. The effect of transfers can be on any aspect of language: in form of grammar, vocabulary, accent, spelling and etc. It is most often discussed as a source of errors (negative transfer), although where the relevant feature of both languages is the same, it results in correct language production (positive transfer). To illustrate this, we know that in for Spanish students of English, it is very common to use the structure I have 20 years old, instead of I am 20 years old. This is known as negative transference or interference. In the case of German students of English, he or she will say Ich bin 20 jahre alt, and in this case we are talking about positive transference, as both languages make use of the same grammatical structure to express the same concept. Interference might be conscious and unconscious. Consciously, the student may guess because he has not learned or has forgotten the correct usage. Unconsciously, the student may not consider that the features of the languages may differ, or he may know the correct rules but be insufficiently skilled to put them into practice, and so fall back on the example of his first language. Language interference produces distinctive forms in the way English is used depending on the speakers first language. For instance, Spanglish (Spanish), Franglish (French) or Chinglish (Chinese). Some examples of Spanglish will be

parqueando and clickenado. In this study there was description on some of the language interferences and some factors that influences the acquisition of a second language. We looked at the internal and external factors that affect the learning of L2.

Figure 1. Hierarchical Bilingual Model (from Kroll & Stewart, 1994) Kroll & Stewart, (1994), stated that bilinguals seldom translate from their L1 to their L2; they develop a weak link to their L2. Indeed, there is no reason for the L2 language learners to develop direct connections from the L1 to the L2 lexicon because their developing L2 lexicon has no information regarding concepts or meaning of the new language. In a way, L2 learners are forced to provide meaning to the word they are about to learn by associating it to information they already know (Erwin & Osgood, 1954). As a result their L1 to L2 lexical link does not develop as well as active L2 to L1 lexical links. In addition to the connections between the two lexicons, bilingual memory is thought to be composed of a conceptual store (bottom part of Figure 1). The conceptual store is said to contain abstract representations about the world (e.g., Potter, So, Von Eckhardt & Feldman, 1984). The conceptual store is connected to both the L1 and L2 lexicons. However, the connections between the L1 lexicon and the conceptual store are strong and direct; whereas, the connections between the L2 lexicon and the conceptual store are weak. Thus, the subject's L1 is more likely to access the conceptual store directly (conceptually mediate) than the subject's L2. In other words, when exposed to an L1 concept, the bilingual is more likely to access the conceptual store because of his/her L1. Because the lexical link from the bilingual's L2 to L1 lexicons are stronger and faster, the bilingual would most likely utilize these links to access the conceptual store. In this way, the link from the conceptual system to the bilingual's L2 lexicon remains weaker. A logical prediction is that on a translation task, bilinguals would be faster to translate from L2 to L1 (e.g., see HOUSE give CASA), than L1 to L2 (e.g., see CASA give HOUSE) because L2 to L1 are directly associated, and empirical data supports this prediction (e.g., Kroll & Stewart, 1994; Dufour & Kroll, 1995). L2 to L1 translations seem to be faster than L1 to L2 translations. In addition to translation tasks, experimental tasks that involve semantic priming behave in the same

manner as the translation tasks. In short, L2 to L1 translations seem to be sensitive to lexical processes (i.e., factors that have a direct effect of lexical access only) whereas L1 to L2 translations are also sensitive to conceptual/semantic processes and some require more mental effort and/or more time. Although the bilingual model depicted in Figure 1 explains most of the bilingual memory findings in interlanguage translations and semantic priming (see Kroll 1993, for a complete review), new evidence challenges some of the major assumptions of the hierarchical model. In a recent experiment, Dufour and Kroll (1995) asked fluent and nonfluent English-French bilinguals to view category names (e.g., vegetable) and decide whether a target name (e.g., peas) was a member of that category. As expected, target language presentation (French or English) did not make a difference for more-fluent bilinguals. For less fluent bilinguals, language target presentation affected categorization. It took longer to categorize English to French words (1050 ms) than French to English words (950 ms). These general results were found regardless of the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) manipulations (300 vs. 650 ms). In short, their results showed that less fluent bilinguals relied more on their lexical links (L2 to L1) whereas more fluent bilinguals showed evidence that they could access the conceptual store via their L2 lexicon directly. In general, their results suggested that the model in Figure 1 was true for non-fluent bilinguals, but only partially true for more advanced bilinguals. Most studies in bilingual memory have not systematically controlled for word frequency, word concreteness and the subject's L2 proficiency (but, see De Groot, 1992; De Groot, Dannenburg & Van Hell, 1994). In a recent study, however, Heredia (1995) utilized high proficient Spanish-English bilinguals only, high frequency words (word frequencies higher than 40 occurrences per 1,000,000) and manipulated word concreteness (e.g., concrete vs. abstract). Subjects participated in a translation task (e.g., see CASA produce HOUSE) and a translation-recognition task (e.g., is the word pair, HOUSE-CASA, a translation? YES/NO). Figures 2A and 2B summarize Heredia's (1995) results.

Figure 2A . Mean translation latencies (ms) as a function of word type and language.

Figure 2B. Mean translation- recognition latencies (ms) as a function of word type and language.

The use of L1 in L2 classrooms is justified, but none of its supporters endorse its unlimited use. Many advocates (Atkinson, 1987; Cook 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Wells, 1999) warn against excessive L1 use, instead proposing that it be used optimally. To these scholars, L1 should only be used to help construct knowledge in the target language, facilitate interpersonal interactions, and increase efficiency. In no way should L1 be accorded the same status as TL in the classroom. FL teachers must assist their students to take advantage of their existing L1 to facilitate their learning of L2. Research studies have revealed that L1 is not only an efficient learning tool but also a useful teaching method if pedagogical activities are well designed. Students use L1 to facilitate their process of comprehension and to reduce any insecurity that may arise from their limited language proficiency. Teachers use L1 to consolidate knowledge that students have learned about the

foreign language, such as its vocabulary, sentence structures, and cultural aspects. One must also keep in mind that an appropriate quantity of L1 use by teachers cannot be defined universally because it depends on students proficiency levels and teaching purposes. L1 may be used from introductory to lower-intermediate levels on a decreasing scale. Lowerlevel students, especially those who are mature, can benefit from the explanation of grammar usage and instructions. In conclusion, students L1 is an overwhelmingly powerful tool that should neither be denied nor abandoned in foreign language classrooms. It is critical for teachers to realize the effectiveness of students L1 and attempt to use it positively. This is a concept that no serious foreign language teacher should ignore.

2. Objectives The objectives of this analysis is to find out whether L1 influence students in learning L2 in Malaysian classrooms context and to describe the language interferences that can be found comparing English to mother tongue use by the respondents. The significant of this study is to see whether the research will answer the questions: i. Does L1 influence the learning of English as second language (L2) in Malaysian classrooms? ii. Does L1 interfere the learning of English as second language (L2) in Malaysian classrooms? Activities and strategies implemented in this study were designed to motivate them in learning how to integrate and transfer their knowledge of their mother tongue L1 to L2 in spoken and written form. It hoped that the outcome of this study will be used as guideline for ESL teacher to choose and adopt the best and appropriate approach when teaching L2 to their students. This study also helped to resolve the boredom of learning English language.

3. Methodology The study has investigated the factors that contribute the influence and interference of L1 in the teaching and learning L2 in Malaysian classrooms context. The methods that were done by the researcher were of observations, tests and interviews. The study was basically a qualitative study where the objectives have proven that L1 influence students in learning L2 among Malaysian students. There were multiple activities have been carried out to prove the effectiveness of L1 in learning L2. To prove how effective the activities were, this study has selected a group of students and the samples were selected randomly. The samples were 5 students among a class of 35 multi levels proficiency of form 2 students of Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Tengku Ampuan Intan, Kuala Berang Terengganu. In order to gather relevant data, interviews, tests and observations during their 5 English lessons were done. The activities done in the class were of oral activity and written activity. Qualitative data was collected after the lesson to determine the understanding of the activities as viewed from the perspective of the respondents. The instruments were in form of test, observation sheet and interviews. Firstly, the interviewed data from 5 respondents were collected and analyzed after every class. The processes were transcribing the interviews through recording sessions. Thus, the notes and recorded materials proved the originality of the data. It was a detailed recording process occurring in natural setting that provided the basis for understanding the setting, the participants and their interaction. L.R.Gay (2003). After that the researcher collected observation data sheet from peers. Observer bias was mainly treats to the validity of the observation used. Observer bias was the peer of the researcher who may be seen differently that it would have been through the eyes of the researcher. The peer researchers created the greater involvement and opportunity for acquiring depth understanding and insight. Lastly, test results were the final type of data collecting after five lessons. The researcher compared both test and identified salient issues related to the mistakes and errors of the students tests paper. The mistakes were analyzed by the researcher to see the salient issues reflected to the learning process of L2. The data collected were important to see the equivalent of the responses that reflect on the influences and the interferences of L1 in enhancing students proficiency in learning the English as second language L2.

The researcher worked with the findings received from the respondents and peers to identify their understanding of what they were doing from their own perspective and which helped them in answering the research questions. All responses and finding were triangulated to see the equivalent of the students performance in learning English as second language (L2) which influence and/or interference by mother tongue L1. According to L.R.Gay (2003), all these type of instruments were chosen because they were easy to answer, give freedom to the respondents, economical in term of cost and time compare to experiment, stay open to new understanding and data through the study and data are directly gathered from the participants.

Pre-test

Lesson 5 Observation

Interview Students

Lesson 1 Observation

Lesson 4 Observation

Post_test

Lesson 2 Observation

Lesson 3 Observation

Analyzed 3 collected datas and findings

Figure 3 Research Design Chart

4. Findings This chapter discussed on the research findings. It focused on the aspect of the respondents profile and the result of the findings. This qualitative study triangulated the data from the five lesson observations, interviews of the five students and document analysis (pre-test and post-test). All the data were used to develop understanding, proving and conceptualizing the study. The data collection instruments were designed to gain holistic and in-depth understanding of the related factors whether L1 influence or interfere students in learning L2. The research instrument helped to answer the research questions as outlined in Chapter I. The researcher has to bear in mind that the limitation of the study was the results and findings are within the students of the research area only and there might be different results if the research done in other school or places. Location of the research : Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Tengku Ampuan Intan Kuala Berang Terengganu.

Respondents

Gender

Ethnic

Total

5 Form Two Students

3 Female

3Malays

2 Male

2 Malay

2 teachers

Female

2 Malay 2

Table 1: Profile of the Respondents

Profile of the Students

Student 1 (S1) Student 1 was a Malay girl who was 14 years old. Her ambition is to be a doctor. She was an active student. She was good at sport and outdoor. She was a volleyball team player represents her school in competition. From the personal information sheet written that she was very interested in learning English and agreed that English was the Second language of the country. She claimed that those who were good in English will get better job in future and she will be one of those people to change her life and her family member. Student 2 (S2) Student 2 was a Malay girl who was a responsible prefect in her school. She was from Chinese primary school and good at Mandarin. She spoke Mandarin with her Chinese friends and Bahasa Melayu with the Malays of course. She loved to listen to music especially English songs. She played badminton as her hobby. She has been to Genting Highland and played many games there. She loved to learn English because she wanted to be better at using it to communicate. Her ambition was to be a doctor and help those who needed her help. Student 3 (S3) Student 3 a 14-years old Malay girl came from the village nearby the school. She was a daughter of an engineer and a fulltime housewife. She sometimes used English at home. She liked reading, playing badminton, drawing and listen to music especially English song as her hobby. She has gone for outdoor activities such as jungle trekking and other activities during a police cadet camping. She loved to study English because the essence of it; interesting and fun. She aimed to be a police officer in future to support the country to combat crimes. She also loved to listen to Korean song and watching Korean drama.

Student 4 (S4) Student 4 is a 14-year old Malay boy with many siblings. He lived with his father and mother. He came from the village nearby. He spoke Bahasa Melayu at home. His hobbies were playing badminton, tennis and drawing. He has travelled to Langkawi during the holiday and visited the most of the place there. He speaks with many foreigners while he was there. He also loved to learn English because it is interesting and fun. Student 5 (S5) Student 5 is a Malay boy who lived in the hostel because of his house is far from the school. He was the eldest in the family of five. His father was a farmer and his mother was a housewife. He spent his free time doing useful activities such as jogging, camping, jungle trekking, fishing. He has been to Genting Highland and state that it was a funny moment to him because there were many things/games there that made him did not know which one to choose. Profile of the Teachers

Teacher 1 (T1) Teacher 1 received her first degree in Bachelor of Education in TESL from Universiti Putra Malaysia Serdang (UPM) in 2006. She was currently teaching Form 2 classess at Sekolah Menengah Tengku Ampuan Intan Kuala Berang Terengganu.. She had 7 years teaching experience in secondary school.

Teacher 2 (T2) Teacher 2 received her degree in language study from University Malaya in 1989. She had teaching experience at almost 22 years. She was currently teaching the SPM and STPM classes. She was also a discipline teacher and the Senior Head Teacher of Language Department of the school.

The analysis of the students interview and tests plus the observation forms by peer teacher.

The researcher had made analysis on three instruments used to collect the data that reflected to the performance of students in learning L2 through the spoken and written form considering the influence and interference of L1. From the interview questions, responses from the students were defined in form of yes and no answers with reasons and comments. Most of the questions showed yes answer which reflected to agree with the factors which L1 influenced the learning of L2, accepted question number 6 and 10 which needed students to choose on what they preferred. If there were activities mentioned by the students in the interview, which proved that there were significant effect in the learning of English language L2 through any factors mentioned earlier which mean that the use of L1 influence the students proficiency level in learning L2. Research finding from the pre-test and post-test were in form of percentage. The differences in form of percentage were made by the researcher. Pre-test and post-test done by the students were differentiate to see whether there were deficits or increment in the students scores. The deficit showed that the implementation of the L1 in writing lesson were not significant with the students performance in writing skills and vice versa. That was not the end of the finding, another data that came together into the triangulation was the field notes from the peer-observation done by two participating respondents during the engagement. The data received from them were in form of comments and suggestions. The three data were collected and analyzed to match or to see the equivalent of the responses due to the factors that L1 influence the students proficiency level of L2. The findings were shown in the table 2 below:

Respondents Student 1 (S1)

Interview responses Q1 yes Q2 yes Q3 yes Q4 yes Q5 yes Q6 yes Q7 yes Q8 yes Q9 yes Q10 groupwork

Pre-test 40%

Post-test 60%

Improve from 40% to 60% increment of 20% with minor mistakes on grammar such as SVA, present continuous tense and vocabulary (word choice) 0% 50%

Student 2 (S2)

Q1 yes Q2 no Q3 yes Q4 no Q5 yes

Q6 yes Q7 yes Q8 yes Q9 yes Q10 groupwork

Improve from 0% to 50% increment of 50% with minor mistakes on grammar (preposition) 10% 30%

Student 3 (S3)

Q1 yes Q2 yes Q3 yes Q4 no Q9 yes

Q6 yes Q7 yes Q8 yes Q5 yes Q10 individual

Improve from 10% to 30% increment of 20% with minor mistakes grammar such as article, preposition, continuous tense and vocabulary (spelling and word choice) 20% 50%

Student 4 (S4)

Q1 yes Q2 no Q3 yes Q4 no Q5 yes Q1 yes Q2 no Q3 yes Q4 no Q5 yes

Q6 yes Q7 yes Q8 yes Q9 yes Q10 Individual Q6 yes Q7 yes Q8 yes Q9 yes Q10 Groupwork

Improve from 20% to 50% increment of 30% with minor mistakes grammar 20% 40%

Student 5 (S5)

Improve from 20% to 40% increment of 20% with minor mistakes grammar (infinitive to) word choice.

Table 2: Instrument 1, 2 and 3 analysis

Student 1 (S1) Research Question 1: Does L1 influence the learning of English as second language (L2) in Malaysian classrooms? From the interview with S1, it was found that all the activities encouraged her to get involved especially during the third and fourth lesson where the teacher asked the student at random to come to the front and pick a card from the envelope and showed to the class and to guess what kind of phrase it was?. She tried her best in group work and individual work during sentence-links activity in making long sentence to make the group activity a success. The third lesson was her favourite because she needed to guess the phrase and it must be place to correct category. Furthermore, she could combine the phrases to form correct sentence which appropriate to L2 writing skills. This was further support by T1s observation during the third lesson. She had highlighted that S1 was responsive and voluntarily came to the front of the class and follow the teacher instruction. (Refer Appendix 12). S1 added that she has experienced these types of activities in her real-life situation in primary school before. (Refer to Appendix 5). Furthermore, S1 stated that most of the time when she does not understand or unfamiliar with words or phrases, the teacher always allows her to use dictionary as reference and sometimes the teacher translate the difficult words. (Refer to Appendix 5). Clearly, some language teachers are better than other at providing appropriate and effective learning experiences for the students in their classrooms. These students will make faster progress. The same applies to mainstream teachers in second language situations. The science teacher for example; who is aware that she too is responsible for the students English development and makes certain

accommodations, will contribute to their linguistic development. Their responses were in line with the performance in pre-test and post-test. Therefore, implementation of L1 was significant in enhancing students writing skills in learning the English language L2.

Research Question 2: Does L1 interfere the learning of English as second language (L2) in Malaysian classrooms? Feedback from the interview done to S1, she agreed that she enjoyed the lesson very much even though the activities done by the researcher did not come to her attention because of she was hardly understand the instructions and had never experienced it before but there were activities that needs her to focus and pay attention. The teacher motivated her in L1 and made her enjoyed language learning and yet she seem to take the pride and excel in every tasks given to her. She was so proud of herself because she could answered every writing tasks given to her until she met with the 3 most difficult tasks but still managed to gain marks after the teacher explain it in L1. This was supported by S1 result of the post-test where she managed to increased 20% with minor mistakes on grammar such as SVA, present continuous tense and vocabulary especially word choice. (Refer to table 2 and appendix 20, 21). T1 and T2 stressed that, the choice of writing activities can reduced inhibition and gave them more confidence and motivate them with their partners and group members. (Refer to Appendix 10 and 11). From the interview after the 5 lessons, it was found that S1 loved the tasks as she was interested in learning the language. (Refer to Appendix 30). The tasks given were familiar to her and motivated her to write correct sentences with guided instructions without teacher guidance. (Refer to Appendix 21) It can be concluded that activities done with teacher assistance in L1 have motivated and promoted S1 in learning how to write correctly. It was indeed affected S1 through experiencing all activities carried out during the engagement. It was clear that S1 had enjoyed participating in the learning activities because she did involved in giving answers and correcting her friends regarding the tasks. Therefore, factors which involved L1 were significant in enhancing S1 in her learning of L2.

Student 2 (S2) Research Question 1: Does L1 influence the learning of English as second language (L2) in Malaysian classrooms? The feedback from the interview with S2 answered the research question. S2 writing in pre-test (Refer to Appendix 22) showed that she was not so good in L2. In the beginning, she was like those who just wake up from a long sleep. After the 5 lesson she managed to increase 50% with minor mistakes on grammar and spelling as seen in the post-test (50%) compared to her performance in the pre-test (0%) (Refer to Table 2, Appendix 22 and 23). She was quite shy in the beginning of the lesson but in the third lesson she volunteered to be the first one who picked out a sentence-halves card and pasted it on the board (Refer to Appendix 14). S2 was an average student, she always asked her friends instead of doing it herself, and this promoted a peer discussion as her friends were always there to help her. S2 preferred group work because it offers sharing and exchanging ideas. From the observation she use L1 within the group discussion. This was further supported in the observation done by T1 and T2 where S2 participated actively in all activities during the engagement. During the first and second lessons she mentioned in the interview that the activities carried out by the teacher was not challenging (Refer to Appendix 6) but based on S2 ability, those kind of activities help her to experience the surface of writing to the complexity of it. According to Nesamalar C. (1996) teacher should know every students ability and prepared activities according to the students level to meet the need of the students and the diversity of the language. During the engagement she had an opportunity to complete the tasks from easy to difficult. The teacher allowed the students to discuss with their partners using L1 or L2. The lessons gave her active learning practice (Refer to Appendix 10, 11, 12, 13). From the data gathered, S2 love learning through this kind of style because the way of teaching was different and suited her interests directly to meet the learning purpose in fun and interesting way (Refer to Appendix 6). The responses were in line with her performance in pre-test and post-test. Therefore, L1 was significant in promoting S2 to get involved and enhanced her second language skills.

Research Question 2: Does L1 interfere the learning of English as second language (L2) in Malaysian classrooms? S2 stated that she enjoyed all activities and feel happy because the teacher did not bother the use of language during discussion or any activities in the interview. She enjoyed and had fun in group activities (Refer to Appendix 6). T1 agreed with her during the observation whereby most of the students participated in the activities carried out by the teacher. T1 highlighted that the activities provided an active learning environment and promoted spoken and written skills. T1 added students laughed and they had fun doing the activities (Refer to Appendix 14 and 15). Conducting activities such as forming sentences by matching sentence-halves and completing the sentence-links to form correct sentence in both language L1 and L2 give the students the opportunity to participate in all activities. The activity of matching sentence-halves taught students in identifying and using proper grammar items such as nouns as (subject), verb and preposition as part of items found in (predicate). These kind of activities provide students the knowledge of L2 structure and lexical items or vocabulary. Meanwhile sentence-links offered S2 to know about where to place verb and suitable prepositions use with kind of nouns. (Refer to Appendix 22). Certain knowledge learnt in interesting, fun and challenging ways interested students and left long lasting schemata as they experienced it in learning the language. It can be summed up that, S2 had just woke up from a long sleep with a nightmare and gained a lot of confidence to participate in all activities ignoring the use of target language in giving instructions. This also had motivated her to voluntarily contribute in individual activities and overcome the inhibition in her.

Student 3 (S3) Research Question 1: Does L1 influence the learning of English as second language (L2) in Malaysian classrooms? From the interview with S3, the data indicated that the tasks did encourage her to get involved in all activities. Her favorite activity from the entire five lessons was the subject and predicate because it offered her an opportunity to choose and combined the sentence-halves to form correct sentences. S3 also stated that all activities were challenging and yet they offered the needs of writing because its offer knowledge and to her it was fun to learn (Refer to Appendix 7). As she stated earlier, English was a subject she love to learn because it is interesting and fun (Refer to Appendix 32). This was supported by T1 and T2; lessons were very fun and interesting, student were responsive and the activities were excellent and of course the students laughed and they had fun learning the lesson (Refer to Appendix 14 and 15). Teacher (T1) stressed that in the third and the fourth lesson students were helping each other in guessing the right noun phrase (subject) and the verb phrase (predicate). They also provided with the correct preposition to be used with nouns given in the sentence-links activity. T1 noticed that the students were asking a lot in the while writing stage of both lessons. Even thou they use L1 in asking questions, it helped other who lacks of understanding instructions and questions given by teacher in L2. T1 realized that how valuable it was and sometimes the students asked her for assistance. As the result S3 has improved by 20% with minor mistakes in grammar and vocabulary such as article, preposition, tenses and word choice and spelling (Refer to Table 2 and Appendix 24 and 25). The results of the pre-test and post-test were in line with the performance of the S3. Therefore, the use of L1 was significant in enhancing the students L2 proficiency.

Research Question 2: Does L1 interfere the learning of English as second language (L2) in Malaysian classrooms? The interview on S3 highlighted that S3 loved the lesson when they were given the opportunity to get involved in the lesson. The involvement was not to let them down but to solve the mistakes that they had and thus they just did not know about it. As stated in Luft, J.; Ingham, H. (1955), who created Joharis Windows used in cognitive psychology, there were four windows which reflected to a person regarding to the perspective of how far a person knows about him/her self. S3 also added that, activities that were implemented by the teacher gave a big impact on her writing whereby she had improved and the activities offered her with the needs for writing skills. She also added that those kinds of activities helped her to make better sentences, paragraphs and be familiar with the kinds of writing (Refer to Appendix 7). Conclusions formed by S3, that such activities could arouse students interest in learning through the lesson. The content of the activities was an important element in writing lesson. By implementing and considering all aspects of writing, the lesson became meaningful and encouraged the students to participate actively even though there were mistakes and misunderstanding done by the students. This reduced inhibition and overcome students shyness. In testing the productive skills such as in writing skills for students in Malaysian context, due to their ability to acquire the language, the emphasis was placed on the ability to form grammatically correct sentences with correct punctuation. Students also tend to make mistakes on capitalization and alignment which signified the lack of care and wrong handwriting habit developed over a long time. Therefore, some language translation promoted and encouraged S3 to participate and thus enhancing his L2 language skills.

Student 4 (S4) Research Question 1: Does L1 influence the learning of English as second language (L2) in Malaysian classrooms? From the interview with S4, some general impressions of the student were revealed. He appeared to participate and there were parts that needed to be improved especially in the presentation parts, theres been a mind block among Malaysian students especially the dominant race and those who came from rural area. They were willing to wash back from the activities done during the engagement because they dont understand L2. S4 noticed that the researcher had made the activities easy for him by giving many examples and provided with lots of information and translation so that he can moved on to the next level. Even though the activities were not very challenging to him but the kindness of the teacher by providing photocopied materials and didnt bother of the use of L1 in class made him gave his best cooperation during the engagement. S4 shared knowledge and was looking at his friends written work in the practice stage which helped him completed the tasks. He added it was challenging when it came to writing paragraph because he had never experienced learning how to write paragraphs before until last week (during research time) (Refer to Appendix 8). This notion was supported by T1 and T2 during their observation in the third lesson. T1 advised that, it is important for teachers to have the competency in the subject they taught. Teachers must consider their students abilities, background and level of proficiency in implying activities during teaching and learning, so that the students will experience and openly gave their cooperation during the lesson (Refer to Appendix 14). In making students at ease followed by humors along the journey will lead to longevity of the taught schemata in students cognitive area. It was supported in pre-test and post-test where he managed to excel 30% rather than careless and making habitual mistakes such as forgot in placing full stop at the end of the sentences, and that impact his writing proficiency but then he managed to recover the mistake by playing safe. He wrote simple sentences in post-test (Refer to Appendix 26 and 27). Therefore, the responses made in the three instruments were completely significant that L1 influence the learning of L2 in Malaysian classrooms.

Research Question 2 : Does L1 interfere the learning of English as second language (L2) in Malaysian classrooms? The interview highlighted that S4, enjoyed the activities very much. He preferred writing activities instead of oral activities. But in a circumstance the good job was done by the researcher was that he managed to make S4 participated in most of the activities, by creating fun and interesting activities. T1 also promoted opportunity to the students with variety of activities especially to let them experience something on their own and provided them with new knowledge. Students learnt from their previous knowledge was one aspect where teacher should considered in planning a lesson. This showed that the teacher expertise made it easy for some students to participated, as they were familiar with the topics and found that the learning were challenging and meaningful to them. With the used of translation method and the help of the teacher who provided with plenty of examples, information and humors as a part of teaching and learning process, T1 and T2 supported that the learning became lively and fun because the students were responsive. (Refer to Appendix 14, 15, 16 and 17). It can be assumed that, the factors that contribute in learning L2 was an important aspect in the lesson. S4 preferred working in group because he found that it was interesting and fun. Apart from sharing ideas, it automatically reduced the inhibition in him. S4 stated that many of his friends had helped him on how to handle with such problems. By that, the use of L1 in language lesson L2 made the learning became meaningful and encouraged S4 to participate actively even though at first he was shy.

Student 5 (S5) Research Question 1 : Does L1 influence the learning of English as second language (L2) in Malaysian classrooms? Student 5 (S5) has answered the questions confidently, he use English at home; he stated that the activities encouraged him to get involved in the lesson. Activities that implemented by the teacher were different from he ever experienced before. The activities helped him a lot in learning L2. He added, writing activities that done in every lesson helped him a lot in writing essay in L2. He added more that the activities offered the needs for him in writing in target language because it was an important knowledge used in answering the PMR exam paper (Refer to Appendix 9). S5 addressed that he was motivated by the people surround him where he would use English when communicating with people, his friends and teachers at school. (Refer to Appendix 34). Even thou he is not native speaker, according to Shoebottom (1996-2004), Students who are learning a second language which is from the same language family as their first language have, in general, a must easier task than those who arent. So, for example a Dutch child will learn English more quickly that a Japanese child. There were some evidence that students in situations where their own culture has a lower status than that of the culture in which they are learning the language make slower progress. This was supported by T1 and T2 during the observation in lesson 3, 4 and 5. The writing activities design had fulfill the needs of the students in language L2 lessons. Begin with the simplest activities to difficult activities which promoted the flows of the language skills. The observer added that the activities done in the lessons influenced to material-based and more to student-centred and mostly writing activities needs to be done individually. S5 choose group work because he can share works and ideas with other. Peer and group work worked best in certain stage. From the document analysis, pre-test and post-test; S5 increase 20% on his writing proficiency. This means that even though the activities applied in the lesson was not challenging to him, it could encouraged and exposed him in many aspect of writing (Refer to Appendix 9). The responses had proved that L1 helped students improving their L2 learning skills and proficiency of L2..

Research Question 2: Does L1 interfere the learning of English as second language (L2) in Malaysian classrooms? From the finding, S5 enjoy the lesson because the kindness of the teacher by providing photocopied materials for them. His favourite activity was choosing, guessing and matching sentence halves to form correct sentences. For him by experiencing and knowing about some situation made him confident in producing written work especially when answering the exam paper. Furthermore, these types of activities helped him to develop his writing skills and encouraged him to get involved in the lesson (Refer to Appendix 9). The observers, T1 and T2 supported the above notion during the observation in all 5 lessons. They stated that S5 enjoyed himself and was fully confident especially during the activities done in lesson 3 and 4. There always mistakes done by the students but somehow after they had gone through explicit learning on writing , the students developed better knowledge and experience which affected the production of their works (Refer to Appendix 14,15,16,17, 18 and 19). The document on pre-test and post-test supported that S5 have achieved 30% on writing proficiency. He agreed that all activities done in all lessons were very interesting. (Refer to Appendix 9). As conclusion, the implementation of experiential learning activities enhanced students knowledge in writing skills in language learning. With the helped of specific activities appropriate to writing skills students maintained the high level of interest in learning the language. Therefore, the use of L1 in learning L2 refers to the factors that improved the knowledge of L2 among Malaysian students as supported by the responses of all the participants in this study.

Summary This study is to survey on the usage of L1 influence the acquisition of learning English as second language in Malaysian classrooms. The result shows that the students of Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Tengku Ampuan Intan Kuala Berang Terengganu were able to gain marks after they were exposed to the factors that reflected the learning of L2 through certain activities. The respondent of the study were 5 form 2 students and 2 teachers. The data collected were analyzed in term of triangulation of the interview, lesson observation and pre-test and post-test marks of the students. The researcher shared the emerging themes with the participants and encouraged them to provide feedback in this study. The students do not know much about English grammar. They felt bored when the teacher taught using instruction in L2 and taught them about grammar items. From the tasks given in every lesson; students lack of knowledge on part of speech and punctuation had revealed. Simple analyses of the students works were analyzed to see how far they had improved in writing showed that by using translation method in every lesson students were able to participate and complete the tasks. When they have mastered the concept of the target language, they would be familiar on the formalities of it and become a competence user of the target language.

5. Conclusion The results of the study had shown that despite time and effort exerted in learning L2, this study lead to significant improvements in the students' performances on various aspects of language proficiency. Considering the limitation of time and the huge amount of material to be covered, it certainly would be feasible to include the teaching of handwriting, spelling or punctuation in an academic language class; it was currently practiced as such for the secondary school students in Malaysian context. A recommended alternative was to encourage students active participation and peercooperation in acquiring these and similar aspects of language through interaction with authentic texts or even orally. The use of L1 in FL classrooms is justified, but none of its supporters endorse its unlimited use. Many advocates (Atkinson, 1987; Cook 2001;

Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Wells, 1999) warn against excessive L1 use, instead proposing that it be used optimally. To these scholars, L1 should only be used to help construct knowledge in the target language, facilitate interpersonal interactions, and increase efficiency. In no way should L1 be accorded the same status as TL in the classroom. FL teachers must assist their students to take advantage of their existing L1 to facilitate their learning of L2. Research studies have revealed that L1 is not only an efficient learning tool but also a useful teaching method if pedagogical activities are well designed. Students use L1 to facilitate their process of comprehension and to reduce any insecurities that may arise from their limited language proficiency. Teachers use L1 to consolidate knowledge that students have learned about the foreign language, such as its vocabulary, sentence structures, and cultural aspects. One must also keep in mind that an appropriate quantity of L1 use by teachers cannot be defined universally because it depends on students proficiency levels and teaching purposes. L1 may be used from introductory to lower-intermediate levels on a decreasing scale. Lower-level students, especially those who are mature, can benefit from the explanation of grammar usage and instructions. In conclusion, students L1 is an overwhelmingly powerful tool that should neither be denied nor abandoned in foreign language classrooms. It is critical for teachers to realize the effectiveness of students L1 and attempt to use it positively. This is a concept that no serious foreign language teacher should ignore. As the present research suggested, the use of some basic aspects of language cannot always be prescribed to learners as such. Instead, it would be more fruitful, as well as more time-saving; to help learners developed a keener language consciousness.

6. Recommendation The research was only a preliminary study on how using experiential learning activities can enhance students writing skills. Reflecting from the instruments used and the sample of the study, it could only provide an overview of how students responded to experiential learning activities. It was incapable of providing definite answers and how reliable the findings were. The limitation of this research restricted any generalizations on the experiential learning tasks of other learners in the class. For example, this research was only applicable to a mix-culture class and to that few students observed and interview. Results should be better with observable differences between multi-racial

students. Without more data and input, it cannot be determined whether gender or other factors relating to the competency of the students. Future researches should therefore explore the impact of gender on learners in the language classrooms. Thus, such inquiries can further contribute to the conceptualization of more comprehensive model of variables affecting experiential learning tasks. In recent years, English language teaching in a developing country like Malaysia has taken a new character. A need has arisen to specify the aims of English language learning more precisely in terms of the learning of formal grammar as English is expected to play an important role in our society. Throughout the world, students at different levels of education find it a struggle to learn English. In most countries English has taken a unique position whereby students or scholars are pushed to a situation where they cannot have better career or higher education without the knowledge of English. The students remain in a compulsory situation to learn English in order to remain competitive. In Malaysia English, naturally, was given an important place before independence. In most of the institutions English had been the medium of instruction. The students were happy to learn the language because highly proficient non-native and native speakers of English taught it. The study of English was considered to be superior, not only status wise but also for career. A child was expected to interact through English with its family members, neighbours in various types of interaction. One common and accepted approach to language teaching is through contrastive method. In other words, the language specific features of both the mother tongue of the learner and the second language are studied thoroughly and an attempt is made to teach the second language and also to prepare instructional materials for second language teaching. There are, of course, many other influences at play when we learn a second language, but the influence that the mother tongue has on the language we produce when we use a second language has become a very important area of study for people interested in second language acquisition, language teaching, ELT publishing, and language in general and is usually referred to as Language Interference, Transfer, or Cross-linguistic influence. It is suggested that the language produced by foreign learners is so unavoidably influenced, and even distorted, by the mother tongue of the learner that it should rather be termed an Interlanguage, since it has features of both the target language and the mother tongue. The better the learner is at overcoming language interference, the more diluted that blend will be. The

reliance on similarities between the language being learnt and the mother tongue can be both a help and a hindrance, similarities are expected to lead to positive transfer. This would help the learner to get things right. This is a rich area of study. While discussing the influence of first language over the second language, it is appropriate to mention what Lado (1971:2) who had said that, those elements that are similar to his native language will be simple for him and those elements that are different will be difficult. In this context, it is evident that the language teacher and language learners should ideally know the structures of both the mother tongue and the second languages. Because such knowledge can help the language teacher to identify the areas of influence of mother tongue on the second language and also to develop some teaching techniques to rectify the interference. Language teaching practice often assumes that most of the difficulties that learners face in the study of English are a consequence of the degree to which their native language differs from English (a contrastive analysis approach). A native speaker of Malay language, for example, might face many more difficulties than a native speaker of German, because German is closely related to English, whereas Malay is not. However it must be emphasized that not all similarities result in ease of learning and differences in difficulties. Language learners often produce errors of syntax and pronunciation thought to result from the influence of their L1, such as mapping its grammatical patterns inappropriately onto the L2, pronouncing certain sounds incorrectly or with difficulty, and confusing items of vocabulary known as false friends. This is known as L1 transfer or "language interference". However, these transfer effects are typically stronger in beginners' language production. SLA research has highlighted many errors which cannot be attributed to the L1, as they are present in learners of many language backgrounds (for example, failure to apply 3rd person present singular -s to verbs, as in 'he make'). Teachers of primary schools believe that English should only be introduced to the Malay pupils at a much later stage after the students have had a good grasp of their mother tongue. They believe that the L2 should follow L1, the L2 should be taught in secondary schools However, Akinbote and Ogunsanwo (2003) have a different view on the use of English language in the early years of the primary school. They opined that the use of mother tongue in the process of teaching and learning in the early years helps, not only to preserve and value ones culture but also to develop it lexically. According to the authors the use of English language in the early primary school makes the average

primary school child unable to be sufficiently literate in either the mother tongue or English language. They felt that to use English language at that level will lead to the children having a mental translation of all concepts presented in English language to their mother tongue in order to gain sufficient meaning of the concepts presented. These researchers believe that a citizen that is literate even only in the mother tongue will be sufficiently equipped to live a useful life in the fast changing world. So if permanent literacy is to be promoted in the primary schools the use of the mother tongue as the medium of instruction in schools ought to be encouraged. It is therefore generally accepted that in teaching and learning processes, the mother tongue of the child is of utmost importance. For one thing, it categorizes a large part of the childs environment, that is, it has names for most of the objects, actions, ideas, attributes and so on that are so important to him, as well as to any society.

7. REFERENCES Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource? ELT Journal, 41(4), 241-247.

Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402- 423.

De Groot. A. M. B. (1992). Determinant of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1001-1018.

Dufour, R., & Kroll, J. F. (1995). Matching words to concepts in two languages: A test of the concept mediation model of bilingual representation. Memory & Cognition, 23, 166180.

Ervin, S., & Osgood, C. (1954). Psycholinguistics: A survey of theory and research problems. In C. Osgood & T. Seboek (Eds.), Psycholinguistics (pp. 139-146). Baltimore, MA: Waverly Press. Gay, L.R & Aisasian, P (2003). Educational Research Compentencies for Analysis An Analysis and Applications. (7th ed) Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Heredia, R. R. (1995). Concreteness Effects in High Frequency Words: A Test of The Revised Hierarchical and the Mixed Models of Bilingual Memory Representations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Kroll, J. F. (1993). Accessing conceptual representations for words for words in a second language. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 54-81). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149-174.

Luft, J.; Ingham, H. (1955). "The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness". Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group

development (Los Angeles: UCLA).

Nesamalar, C. (1996), ELT Methodology Principle and Practise, Shah Alam: fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd.

M. C., So, K., Eckardt, V., & Feldman, L. (1984). Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 23-38

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 251-274. Wells, G. (1999). Using L1 to master L1: A response to Antom and Dicamillas Sociocognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 248-254.

8. APPENDIX

Appendix 1

Interview Protocol
Name of Student : Class Questions: 1. Did you enjoy the lesson? 2. Were the activities challenging? 3. Did the activities encourage you to get involved? 4. Have you ever experienced this kind of tasks in your real-life situation? 5. Were the activities different from the usual activities that you have carried out before? 6. Which is your favourite activity in the entire 5 lesson? Why? 7. Did the teacher encourage you to use dictionary to find word translation? 8. Do you think that you can develop your English better with the help of Bahasa Melayu translation? 9. Did the teacher help you in understanding the instructions? How? 10. Which do you prefer, group work, pair work or individual work? Why? :

Appendix 2 Observation Form

Name of observer Date Time Subject Topic Activities No 1 2 3 4 5 6 : . : : : : . : . Field Notes

Observation Items Willingness to participate voluntarily Ability to write by listening. Frequent use L1 Active learning environment Spontaneous conversation. Activities are appropriate to English language lesson.

7 8 9

L1 Reduce inhibition Cooperation among group members Understood the instruction/tasks (use translation method)

10

Enjoyed the activities

Appendix 3
Name : ________________________________ Cass : _______________________ PRE-TEST Date : _________________

Look at the picture carefully and write 10 sentences in the space provided. Perhatikan gambar di bawah dengan teliti dan tuliskan 10 ayat pada ruang yang disediakan.

1. ________________________________________________________________ 2. ________________________________________________________________ 3. ________________________________________________________________ 4. ________________________________________________________________ 5. ________________________________________________________________ 6. ________________________________________________________________ 7. ________________________________________________________________ 8. ________________________________________________________________ 9. ________________________________________________________________ 10. ________________________________________________________________

Appendix 4
Name : ________________________________ Cass : _______________________ POST-TEST Date : _________________

Look at the picture carefully and write 10 sentences in the space provided. You may use the words given. Perhatikan gambar di bawah dengan teliti dan tuliskan 10 ayat pada ruang yang disediakan. Anda boleh menggunakan perkataan yang diberi.

1. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. ______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix 5
Transcription of the Interview Student 1 (S1) 1. Did you enjoy the lesson? Yes, I enjoyed the lesson. 2. Were the activities challenging? I think most of the activities is not challenging accept activities in the fifth lesson. 3. Did the activities encourage you to get involved? Yes, all activities encourage me to get involved. 4. Have you ever experienced this kind of tasks in your real-life situation? Yes, I have experienced these types of tasks in my real-life situation in primary school before. 5. Were the activities different from the usual activities that you have carried out before? Yes, it is a bit different from Ive ever experienced before. 6. Which is your favourite activity in the entire 5 lesson? Why? I think the activities which need me to choose subject and predicate and combine it to form correct sentences. 7. Did the teacher encourage you to use dictionary to find word translation? Yes, she did. 8. Do you think that you can develop your English better with the help of Bahasa Melayu (Translation)? Yes, I think it help me a lot in my writing and understanding the meaning of English words and sentences. 9. Did the teacher help you in understanding the instruction? How? Yes, she help to translate and explain the difficult words. 10. Which do you prefer, group work, pair work or individual work? Why? I prefer group work because it offers discussion, input and can share ideas.

Appendix 6
Transcription of the Interview Student 2 (S2) 1. Did you enjoy the lesson? Yes, I enjoyed the lesson. 2. Were the activities challenging? No. 3. Did the activities encourage you to get involved? Yes. 4. Have you ever experienced this kind of tasks in your real-life situation? No. 5. Were the activities different from the usual activities that you have carried out before? Yes, it is different from Ive ever experienced before. 6. Which is your favourite activity in the entire 5 lesson? Why? I think the fourth activities which need me to combine sentence halves to form correct sentences. 7. Did the teacher encourage you to use dictionary to find word translation? Yes. 8. Do you think that you can develop your English better with the help of Bahasa Melayu translation? Yes. 9. Did the teacher help you in understanding the instruction? How? Yes, she helped me a lot by explaining on how to use dictionary and translating. 10. Which do you prefer, group work, pair work or individual work? Why? I prefer group work because we can combine ideas and share it with others.

Appendix 7
Transcription of the Interview Student 3 (S3) 1. Did you enjoy the lesson? Yes, I enjoyed the lesson because I dont have to bring any books for these lessons. 2. Were the activities challenging? Yes, almost all activities are challenging accept matching the punctuation. 3. Did the activities encourage you to get involved? Yes, I can involve myself in writing activities 4. Have you ever experienced this kind of tasks in your real-life situation? No, I never did these kind of activities before. 5. Were the activities different from the usual activities that you have carried out before? Yes, it is very different from Ive ever experienced before. 6. Which is your favourite activity in the entire 5 lesson? Why? My favourite activity is the subject and predicate because it needs me to choose and combine sentence halves to form correct sentences. 7. Did the teacher encourage you to use dictionary to find word translation? Yes, she gave me guidance and clear explanations in using dictionary. 8. Do you think that you can develop your English better with the help of Bahasa Melayu translation? Yes, it improved my writing and helps me to make better sentence then paragraph. 9. Did the teacher help you in understanding the instruction? How? Yes, she guide and help us a lot in order for us to make good sentence and familiar with the sentence pattern. 10. Which do you prefer, group work, pair work or individual work? Why? I prefer individual work because I can focus in my study.

Appendix 8
Transcription of the Interview Student 4 (S4) 1. Did you enjoy the lesson? Yes, I enjoy the lesson very much, need no book to bring. 2. Were the activities challenging? No, not very challenging accept making sentences because before this I never write paragraph. 3. Did the activities encourage you to get involved? Yes, it encouraged me to get involve. 4. Have you ever experienced this kind of tasks in your real-life situation? No, Ive never experienced this kind of task until last week. 5. Were the activities different from the usual activities that you have carried out before? Yes, it is different from Ive ever experienced before. 6. Which is your favourite activity in the entire 5 lesson? Why? I think the activities which need me to combine subject and predicate to form correct sentences because it is interesting and easy. 7. Did the teacher encourage you to use dictionary to find word translation? Yes. 8. Do you think that you can develop your English better with the help of Bahasa Melayu translation? Yes. 9. Did the teacher help you in understanding the instruction? How? Yes, she did. 10. Which do you prefer, group work, pair work or individual work? Why? I prefer group work because we can combine ideas and share it with others.

Appendix 9
Transcription of the Interview Student 5 (S5) 1. Did you enjoy the lesson? Yes, I enjoyed the lesson because the teacher is very kind by giving photocopied materials. 2. Were the activities challenging? No, not so challenging accepts the lesson on making paragraph because for me it is difficult. 3. Did the activities encourage you to get involved? Yes, the activities encouraged me to get involved in the lesson 4. Have you ever experienced this kind of tasks in your real-life situation? No, Ive never experience with these kind of activities. 5. Were the activities different from the usual activities that you have carried out before? Yes, it is very different from Ive ever carried out before. 6. Which is your favourite activity in the entire 5 lesson? Why? My favourite activity is the one with subject and predicate where the students need to come to the front and choose sentence halves and guess the form of it and combine it to form correct sentences. 7. Did the teacher encourage you to use dictionary to find word translation? Yes, because dictionary is the source of word information. 8. Do you think that you can develop your English better with the help of Bahasa Melayu translation? Yes, Bahasa Melayu can be translated into English easily. 9. Did the teacher help you in understanding the instruction? How? Yes, the teacher translate the instruction in Bahasa Melayu. 10. Which do you prefer, group work, pair work or individual work? Why? I prefer group work because we can share our works and ideas with others.

Appendix 10 Observation Form

Name of observer Date Time Subject Topic Activities No 1 2 3 4 5 6 : Meerita a/p Kunna Segaran : 12th January 2014 : 12.05p.m 13.25p.m : English Language : Punctuation : Matching and completing sentence Field Notes Well done. Student were cooperative Yes Yes Students were active Yes, student responded immediately to the teacher Yes, but to many activities for single period. Perhaps can reduce as students are quite slow in completing the multiple tasks. OK. It helped Well done Clear instruction

Observation Items Willingness to participate voluntarily Ability to write. Frequent use L1 Active learning environment Spontaneous conversation. Activities are appropriate to English language lesson

7 8 9

L1 Reduce inhibition Cooperation among group members Understood the instruction/tasks (use translation method)

10

Enjoyed the activities

Fun

Appendix 11 Observation Form

Name of observer Date Time Subject Topic Activities No 1 2 3 4 5 6 : Pn Hjh Siti Rokiah bt Hj Ikhsan : 12th January 2014 : 12.05p.m 13.25p.m : English Language : Punctuation : Matching and completing sentence Field Notes Students were cooperative Yes Yes Student were active Yes Yes but student were quite slow

Observation Items Willingness to participate voluntarily Ability to write by listening. Frequent use L1 Active learning environment Spontaneous conversation. Activities are appropriate to English language lesson

L1 Reduce inhibition

Students were more confident in pair or groups work.

8 9

Cooperation among group members Understood the instruction/tasks (use translation method)

Good Clear

10

Enjoyed the activities

Fun

Appendix 12 Observation Form

Name of observer Date Time Subject Topic Activities No 1 2 3 4 : Meerita a/p Kunna Segaran : 13th January 2014 : 1.25p.m 2.05p.m : English Language : Punctuation (Name of Places and Address) : Writing address and re-write sentences Field Notes Overall students participated well Yes Yes Student responded well by giving a random address to the teacher 5 6 Spontaneous conversation. Activities are appropriate to English language lesson 7 8 9 L1 Reduce inhibition Cooperation among group members Understood the instruction/tasks (use translation method) 10 Enjoyed the activities Students had fun learning Occurred in all strategy Yes Loud and clear instruction Yes Yes interesting too

Observation Items Willingness to participate voluntarily Ability to write by listening. Frequent use L1 Active learning environment

Appendix 13 Observation Form

Name of observer Date Time Subject Topic Activities No 1 2 3 4 5 6 : Pn Hjh Siti Rokiah bt Hj Ikhsan : 13th January 2014 : 1.25p.m 2.05p.m : English Language : Punctuation : Writing address and re-write sentences Field Notes Students participated well Yes Yes Students responded well Interesting Yes

Observation Items Willingness to participate voluntarily Ability to write by listening. Frequent use L1 Active learning environment Spontaneous conversation. Activities are appropriate to English language lesson

7 8 9

L1 Reduce inhibition Cooperation among group members Understood the instruction/tasks (use translation method)

OK. Helped a lot Good cooperation Clear

10

Enjoyed the activities

Students enjoyed

Appendix 14 Observation Form

Name of observer Date Time Subject Topic Activities No 1 : Meerita a/p Kunna Segaran : 14th January 2014 : 12.05p.m 13.25p.m : English Language : Writing : Subject and predicate Field Notes Students came to the front of the class to pick out the subject and predicate 2 3 4 5 6 Ability to write. Frequent use L1 Active learning environment Spontaneous conversation. Activities are appropriate to English language lesson 7 8 9 L1 Reduce inhibition Cooperation among group members Understood the instruction/tasks (use translation method) 10 Enjoyed the activities Of course students laughed and they had fun too OK. It helped Good Yes, perfectly clear instruction Yes Yes Lesson was very fun and interesting Students were responsive Excellent activities and fun

Observation Items Willingness to participate voluntarily

Appendix 15 Observation Form

Name of observer Date Time Subject Topic Activities No 1 2 3 4 5 6 : Pn Hjh Siti Rokiah bt Hj Ikhsan : 14th January 2014 : 12.05p.m 13.25p.m : English Language : Writing : Subject and predicate Field Notes Students willing to come infront of the class Yes Yes Interesting lesson Good responds Good

Observation Items Willingness to participate voluntarily Ability to write by listening. Frequent use L1 Active learning environment Spontaneous conversation. Activities are appropriate to English language lesson

7 8 9

L1 Reduce inhibition Cooperation among group members Understood the instruction/tasks (use translation method)

Ok Good Clear instruction

10

Enjoyed the activities

Students enjoyed the activities

Appendix 16 Observation Form

Name of observer Date Time Subject Topic Activities No 1 : Meerita a/p Kunna Segaran : 15th January 2014 : 12.05p.m 1.25p.m : English Language : Writing sentence/Paragraphic : Sentence-link Field Notes Students were able to come out with sentence link. Excellent 2 3 4 Ability to write by listening. Frequent use L1 Active learning environment Yes Yes Students really enjoyed the lesson. Participations were excellent. 5 6 Spontaneous conversation. Activities are appropriate to English language lesson Yes Yes, good activities prepared by the teacher. Students were able to identify the mistakes and suitable words use. 7 8 9 L1 Reduce inhibition Cooperation among group members Understood the instruction/tasks (use translation method) 10 Enjoyed the activities Extremely interesting and students enjoyed the lesson Yes, it helped a lot Good cooperation among themselves Loud and clear

Observation Items Willingness to participate voluntarily

Appendix 17 Observation Form

Name of observer Date Time Subject Topic Activities No 1 2 3 4 5 6 : Pn Hjh Siti Rokiah bt Hj Ikhsan : 15th January 2014 : 12.05p.m 13.25p.m : English Language : Writing sentence/ Paragraphic : Sentence-link Field Notes Students were able to write their own sentence Yes Yes They had fun Yes Interesting

Observation Items Willingness to participate voluntarily Ability to write by listening. Frequent use L1 Active learning environment Spontaneous conversation. Activities are appropriate to English language lesson.

7 8 9

L1 Reduce inhibition Cooperation among group members Understood the instruction/tasks (use translation method)

Yes, helped Good cooperation Clearly

10

Enjoyed the activities

Yes

Appendix 18 Observation Form

Name of observer Date Time Subject Topic Activities No 1 : Meerita a/p Kunna Segaran : 16th January 2014 : 10.30a.m 11.05a.m : English Language : Writing : Writing sentence and paragraph Field Notes Students were able to write sentences according to the guideline given 2 3 4 5 6 Ability to write by listening. Frequent use L1 Active learning environment Spontaneous conversation. Activities are appropriate to English language lesson. 7 8 9 L1 Reduce inhibition Cooperation among group members Understood the instruction/tasks (use translation method) 10 Enjoyed the activities Yes Yes Yes Students really enjoyed the lesson. Yes Students are asked to re-write the paragraph. They were able to identify the mistakes Yes Excellent Loud and clear

Observation Items Willingness to participate voluntarily

Appendix 19 Observation Form

Name of observer Date Time Subject Topic Activities No 1 : Pn Hjh Siti Rokiah bt Hj Ikhsan : 16th January 2014 : 10.30a.m 11.20a.m : English Language : Writing : Writing sentence and paragraph Field Notes They were able to write the sentence on the board 2 3 4 5 6 Ability to write by listening. Frequent use L1 Active learning environment Spontaneous conversation. Activities are appropriate to English language lesson 7 8 9 L1 Reduce inhibition Cooperation among group members Understood the instruction/tasks (use translation method) 10 Enjoyed the activities Yes very fun Well done Clear Yes No Lesson was fun Yes Students are required to re-write the paragraph after they have identified the mistakes

Observation Items Willingness to participate voluntarily

Appendix 20

Error analysis on the students wrong answer. Q4. The picture shows that the boy is doing the action and the use of is going to is refer to the future tense and the use of preposition with is not suitable because it is use for people and the suitable preposition is by. Q5. The used of preposition from is not suitable because the combination word before it is out then the right word choice is of. Q6. The word choice the paddle is wrong because students lack of vocabulary, they get confused by the use of word with exact sound. The word is a puddle of. Q7. The students didnt put a dot after the short form of the word Mrs. Q8. Students word choice lining, is wrong because it sound as the same as leaning the exact word and the word gate is not suitable because the picture show a fence rather than a gate and the word looking is proper than seeing. Q10. There is a missing word a use with unwritten symbol of quotation mark Do Not Litter sign.

Appendix 21

Appendix 22

Error analysis on the students wrong answer. Q1. Unneeded article for certain quotation. Lack of grammar knowledge. Q2. Wrong word choice acrossing, should be crosssing. Lack of vocabulary or confuse with words with sound similar. Q3. The correct preposition is on. Lack of grammar usage. Q4. No full stop after short form. Short form should have full stop. Unfamiliar with short form or punctuation cases. Q5. Wrong sentence structure and tenses used. The correct structure can be Sue is on the swing. or Sue is swinging on the swing.. Unfamiliar with sentence structure Q6. Missing word after infinitive to. Eg. ..to get... Lack of grammar usage. Q7. Wrong tenses use. Lack of grammar or structure Q8. Missing verb to be is which should be write before verb with ing and spelling mistake of tunnel. Lack of grammar usage and unfamiliar vocabulary. Q9. Wrong spelling of word. Lack or unfamiliar of vocabulary. Q10. Wrong word choice children is proper than people. Lack of vocabulary and word use.

Appendix 23

Appendix 24

Error analysis on the students wrong answer. Q1. Wrong word choice children is proper than people. Lack of vocabulary and word use. Q2. No full stop after short form and wrong tenses use. Unfamiliar with short form or punctuation cases and lack of grammar usage. Q3. Wrong spelling of word. Lack or unfamiliar of vocabulary. Q5. Wrong word choice and missing word. Lack of vocabulary or unfamiliar structure. Q6. Wrong word choice and missing word. Lack or unfamiliar of vocabulary. Q7. Word structure (hanging) and the usage of preposition. Lack of structure and vocabulary.

Appendix 25

Appendix 26

Error analysis on the students wrong answer. Q2. Wrong word choice children is proper than people. Lack of vocabulary and word use. Q3. Short form write wrongly and the use of singular and plural noun and continuous tense. Lack of grammar and vocabulary. Q4. Punctuation mistake. Habit of not ending the sentence with full stop. Q6. Punctuation mistake. Habit of not ending the sentence with full stop. Q7. Sentence structure. Unfamiliar with sentence structure. Q8. Punctuation mistake. Habit of not ending the sentence with full stop. Q9. Word choice and omission of words. Lack of vocabulary. Q10. Tenses and punctuation. Habit of not using VTB and ending the sentence with full stop.

Appendix 27

Appendix 28

Error analysis on the students wrong answer. Q1. Wrong word use and two words that consider as one. Unfamiliar vocabulary. Q2. Word with same sound but different meaning. Lack or unfamiliar of vocabulary. Q3. Sentence structure. Lack of exposure and practice on writing sentence with correct structure. Q5. Spelling confusion and usage of preposition. Lack of practice and writing sentence. Q6. Word choice. Lack of vocabulary and grammar. Q7. Wrong spelling. Lack of exposure on spelling. Letter that should be change and replace. Q9. Word and grammar use. Lack of vocabulary and usage of infinitive to. Q10. Wrong word use. Lack of grammar on adverb and preposition.

Appendix 29