EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY of LEFKE

INSTITUTE of SCIENCE and HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT of ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
MASTER'S THESIS

1990

THE USE OF L1 IN ELT CLASSROOMS; THE P R E F E R E N C E S OF THE

STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS AT MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL
UNIVERSITY NORTHERN CYPRUS CAMPUS SCHOOL OF FOREIGN
LANGUAGES

§EYDA GUNDUZ

SUPERVISOR
Asst. Prof. Dr. Sonug Dimililer

LEFKE, 2012
 iLlk]

Signed Plagiarism Form

Student's Name & Surname; §eyda Giinduz

Student's Number: 100023

Programme: English Language Teaching

• Master's without Thesis [x] Master's with Thesis • Doctorate

I hereby declare that I have fully cited and referenced all material that are not original to
this work as required by these rules and conduct. I also declare that any violation of the
academic rules and the ethical conduct concerned will be regarded as plagiarism and will
lead to a disciplinary investigation which may result in expulsion from the university
and which will also require other legal proceedings.
 Ill

E U R O P E A N UNIVERSITY of LEFKE
INSTITUTE of SCIENCE and HUMANITIES

D E P A R T M E N T of ENGLISH L A N G U A G E T E A C H I N G
M A S T E R ' S THESIS

The thesis examination for the IVIaster's Thesis titled "THE USE OF L1 IN ELT
CLASSROOMS: THE PREFERENCES OF THE STUDENTS AND
INSTRUCTORS AT MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY NORTHERN
CYPRUS CAMPUS SCHOOL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES" which was written
by §eyda Gundiiz was held at the European University of Lefke on 15 June 2011
and the thesis was approved unanimously/by majority of votes.

JURY MEMBERS SIGNATURE

Prof.Dr. Ulkii Koymen

ID'
Prof.Dr. Neil John Bratton

Asst.Prof.Dr. Sonu9 Dimililer U\

 IV

Thesis Data Entry Form

Reference No
Author's Name/Surname §eyda Giindiiz
Nationality / ID NO TC. 38068251508
Phone / Mobile Phone / e-Mail
5338307447 /sevdagnoz® email.com
Thesis Language English
Title of the Thesis The Use of L1 in Elt Classrooms; The
Preferences of the Students and
Instructors at Middle East Technical
University Northern Cyprus Campus
School of Foreign Languages

University European University of Lefke,

Gemikonagi, Lefke, TRNC.
Department English Language Teaching
Thesis Type Master
Year 2011-2012
Pages 179
Supervisor Asst. Prof. Dr. Sonu9 Dimililer
 ABSTRACT

THE USE O F LI IN ELT C L A S S R O O M S ; THE P R E F E R E N C E S O F THE

STU D EN TS AND INSTRUCTORS AT MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL
UNIVERSITY NORTHERN C Y P R U S C A M P U S S C H O O L O F FOREIGN
LANGUAGES

§EYDA GUNDUZ

SUPERVISOR
Assoc. Prof. Dr. SONUg DiMlLILER

LEFKE 2012

This study aimed at finding out about the attitudes of students and the instructors

at Middle East Technical University-Northern Cyprus Campus-School of Foreign

Languages English preparatory classes towards the use of LI in the classroom.

In order to find out about the instructors' and the students' perceptions, the

participants were provided with two questionnaires: one prepared for instructors and

one for students. Finally, a limited number of students and instructors were interviewed

in order to collect more detailed explanations for their attitudes concerning the use of

mother tongue in English lessons.

27 instructors and one 140 students from all three levels were sampled for this

study. Data obtained via questionnaires was grouped in four parts: total and group-

specific results of the student questionnaire, and total and group-specific results of the
 VI

instructor questionnaire. The findings and statistics of the study were presented via

graphics, tables and text.

The results of the study revealed that both instructors and students regardless of

their levels (beginner, elementary or intermediate) have a positive attitude towards the

use of mother tongue (Turkish) in the classroom although minor differences were

observed when the views of the instructors and the students were compared. Moreover,

when the three levels of both the part of the student and the instructor participants were

compared, the results of the questionnaires showed that level did matter in the amount

of L i use in the classroom by both the instructors and the students. Finally, it was found

out that experience did not have a significant effect on the views of the instructors.
 Vll

Ozet

ORTADOGU TEKNiK UNiVERSiTESi KUZEY KIBRIS KAMPUSU YABANCI

DiLLER OKULU'NDAKi OGRENCILERIN VE OKUTMANLARIN iNGlLiZCE
SINIFLARINDA ANA DIL KULLANIMIYLA ILGIlI TERCiHLERi HAKKINDA
BiR ARA^TIRMA

§EYDA GUNDtiZ

T E Z DANI$MANI
Do?. Dr. SONUg DIMILILER

LEFKE 2012

Bu 9ali§manin amaci Ortadogu Teknik Universitesi-Kuzey Kibns Kampusu-

Yabanci Diller Okulu ingilizce hazirlik simflarindaki ogrencilerin ve okutmanlarm

ingilizce simflarinda ana dil kullanimiyla ilgili goru§lerini saptamaktir.

Ogrencilerin ve okutmanlarm goriijlerinin belirienebilmesi amaciyla, ilki

okutmanlar i9in ve ikincisi ogrenciler igin olmak uzere katilimcilara iki tiir anket

verildi. Son olarak ogrencilerin ve okutmanlarm smifta ana dil kullaniimyla ilgili

goru§leri hakkinda daha fazla bilgi ve agikJama elde etmek igin smirli sayida ogrenci ve

okutmanla g6ru§meler yapildi.

(^ali§maya u? farkli seviyeden toplam 140 ogrenci ve 27 okutman katilmi§tir.

Anketlerle toplanan veri dort ana grupta toplandi; ogrenci anketlerinin total ve grup
 Vlll

bazinda sonu^lari, ve okutman anketlerinin total ve grup bazinda sonu^lan. ^ali§manm

sonu^lan ve istatistik bilgiler grafikler, tablolar ve duz metin araciligiyla sunulmu§tur.

Qali§manin sonuflan hangi seviyede olursa olsun (beginner, elementary ya da

intermediate), hem okutmanlann hem de ogrencilerin smfta anadil (Turk9e)

kullanimiyla ilgili pozitif fikirleri oldugunu gostermi§tir. Ancak farkli seviyedeki

okutmanlann ve ogrencilerin g6ru§leri kar§ila§tinldiginda ufak bazi degi§iklikler

gorulmu§tur. Dahasi, farkli seviyelerdeki ogrenci ve okutmanlarm goru§leri

kar§ila§tinldiginda, anketlerden ve goru§melerden elde edilen sonuglar seviye farkinm

sinifta anadil kullaniminda etkili oldugunu g6stermi§tir. Son olarak, tecriibenin

okutmanlarm smifta anadil kullaniminda onemli bir etkisinin olmadigi bulunmu§tur.

 IX

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to convey my gratitude with respect to my thesis supervisor Asst. Prof. Dr.

S O N U ^ DIMiLiLER for her advice and support throughout the writing of this thesis.

I also thank the students and the instructors at METU NCC SFL. The research

reported in this thesis could not have been conducted without the generous cooperation

of the instructors and the students.

I have a special debt to my colleague and dear friend LEYLA SlLMAN

KARANFIL for providing me with insightful advice. Without her continuous support

and ceaseless patience, this thesis would never have been written.

I also thank my fellow colleague, TALIP KARANFIL, for providing me support

and advice. Without him, it would not be possible to deal with all the statistics and

graphs reported in this work.

Thanks are also due to OZLEM EZER BOYD, who read and criticised drafts of

this thesis. Her comments and criticisms have played a vital part in the development of

this work.

I would like to extend my thanks to my dear friend and colleague, ERHAN

GUZEL, who provided me with transportation as well as motivation and encouragement

throughout the process of writing this thesis.

Last but not least, thanks are extended to my family and friends who kindly

encouraged me with their continuous support.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Signed Plagiarism Form ii
Jury Approval Form iii
Thesis Data Entry Form iv
Abstract
Ozet vii
Acknowledgements ix
Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Presentation 1
1.2 Background of the Issue 1
1.3 Statement of the Problem 3
1.4 Purpose and Significance of the Study 3
1.5 Research Questions 5
1.6 Assumptions of the Study 6

CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Presentation 7
2.2 A Review of Some Approaches and Methods Regarding the Use of LI in
the Classrooms 7
2.3 The Proponents of an English-Only Policy in the Classroom 13
2.3.1 Reasons for Monolingual Approach 13
2.3.2 Maximum Exposure to the Target Language.... 15
2.3.3 LI Interference 16
2.4 The Opponents of an English-Only Policy in the Classroom 17
2.4.1 The Rationale Behind the Use of LI in Language
Classrooms 19
 XI

2.4.2 A Balance between the Mother Tongue and the Target

Language 25

2.4.3 Recommendations on the Use of LI in Language

Classrooms 28
2.5 Previous Research 31
2.5.1 Teachers'Perceptions 31
2.5.2 Students' Perceptions 34

CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY 36
3.1 Presentation 36
3.2 Research Design 36
3.3 Setting and Participants 37
3.3.1 The Participants 37
3.3.2 The Setting 38
3.4 Instruments 39
3.4.1 Questionnaires 39
3.4.2 Interviews 43
3.5 Data Collection 44
3.6 Data Analysis 45

CHAPTER 4 - RESULTS 46
4.1 Presentation 46
4.2 Results of the Questionnaires 46
4.2.1. Total Results of the Student Questionnaires 46
4.2.2 Results of the Student Questionnaires of Beginner
Elementary and Intermediate
Groups 59
4.2.3 Total Results of the Instructor Questionnaires 78
 Xll

4.2.4 Results of the Instructor Questionnaires of Beginner,

Elementary and Intermediate Groups 89
4.3 Results of the Interviews 106
4.3.1 Results of the Interviews Conducted with
Instructors 106
4.3.1.1 Results of the Interviews Conducted with
Beginner Level Instructors 107

4.3.1.2 Results of the Interviews Conducted with

Elementary and Intermediate Level
Instructors 112
4.3.2. Results of the Interviews Conducted with
Students 118
4.3.2.1 Results of the Interviews Conducted with
Beginner Level Students 118
4.3.2.2 Results of the Interviews Conducted with
Elementary and Intermediate Level
Students 121

CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION 124

5.1 Presentation 124
5.2 Discussion 124
5.3 Limitations 132
5.4 Pedagogical Implications and Suggestions 133
5.5 Suggestions for further research 135
5.6 Conclusion 135

REFERENCES 137

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - Student Questionnaire - Turkish 146
 Xlll

Appendix 2 - Student Questionnaire - English 150

Appendix 3 - Teacher Questionnaire - English 154
Appendix 4 - The Transcript of the Interviews Conducted with Beginner
Level Instructors
(Turkish) 158
Appendix 5 - The Translated Version of the Interviews Conducted with
Beginner Level
Instructors 162
Appendix 6 - The Transcript of the Interviews Conducted with Elementary
and Intermediate Level Instructors (Turkish) 165
Appendix 7 - The Translated Version of the Interviews Conducted with
Elementary and Intermediate Level
Instructors 169
Appendix 8 - The Transcript of the Interviews Conducted with Beginner
Level Students
(Turkish) 173
Appendix 9 - The Translated Version of the Interviews Conducted with
Beginner
Level
Students 175
Appendix 10 - The Transcript of the Interviews Conducted with Elementary
and Intermediate Level Students
(Turkish) 177
Appendix 11 - The Translated Version of the Interviews Conducted with
Elementary and Intermediate Level
Students 179
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Presentation

This chapter introduces a general background to the use of the mother

tongue in ELT (English Language Teaching) classrooms and how it is perceived.
In this section, the problem, the purpose and significance of the study, the research
questions, the limitations, and the assumptions of the study are introduced.

1.2 Background of the Issue

Throughout the language teaching history, to use or not to use the mother
tongue when teaching a language has long been a controversial issue. From the
times of the Grammar Translation Method to the introduction of the
Communicative Methods, there have been a certain number of scholars and
researchers debating over the use of the learners' native language in classrooms.
Regarding this very issue, two sides have formed: those who favor the idea that
there should be some room for the learners' mother tongue in language classrooms
for a more efficient learning environment, practicality, decrease in the language
learning anxiety and affective barriers, and increase in learners' self-confidence
(Phillipson, 1992; Mattioli, 2004; Schweers, 1999; Guest and Pachler, 2001;
Atkinson, 1987; Harbord, 1992), and those who strongly disagree with this
alliance by asserting that allowing the mother tongue into the classroom would
impede learning by minimizing the exposure, limiting the opportunities to use the
target language in the classroom, and causing interference (Macdonald, 1993;
Tumbull, 2001; Krashen, 1989; Dulay and Burt, 1972).
 The proponents of the use of L2 (target language) only when teaching a
language argue that learners do not need to comprehend everything said to them
by the teacher and switching to LI (the mother tongue) undermines the learning
process. Macdonald (1993) asserts that a large amount of input is required for the
development of L2 proficiency. Moreover, Duff and Polio (1994) highlight the
necessity of using LI in giving instructions since related discussions reflect natural
communication in the classroom. They also emphasize that the presence of LI
impedes the process of receiving the input learners might be exposed to in real life.

On the other hand, some scholars believe that the use of LI could promote
proficiency in L2 (eg. Swain and Lapkin, 2000; Auerbach, 1993). Questioning L2
exclusivity, Tumbull (2001) proposes that LI has a role in L2 teaching, but it is
necessary to find parameters for an acceptable amount of L2 and LI use. Macaro
(2001) too, denies the fact that there can be overuse of LI and states the need for a
framework that will define when LI can be valuable.

Other supporters of the use of LI base their argument on pedagogical

reasons. According to these researchers, without LI, a language task is hard to
accomplish effectively. Anton and DiCamilla (1999) argue that LI benefits
learners at a cognitive level, providing them with scaffolding when they attempt to
achieve certain learning tasks. According to Swain and Lapkin (2000), L I helps
learners understand the necessities and the content of a task, focus on language
form, improve vocabulary use and overall organization, and form the tone and
nature of their collaboration.

Moreover, the use of LI is thought to boost learners' self-confidence (Cook,

2001; Auerbach, 1993). As such, when the use of LI is strictly forbidden, learners
feel nervous and worried. The use of LI, however, enables learners to feel less
anxious and increases their desire to express their ideas. Seng and Hashim (2006)
indicate that lower proficiency students encounter difficulties in expressing
themselves confidently and accurately, so learners should be allowed to rely on LI
to understand L2.

1.3 Statement of the Problem

There are still debates over the same issue as it is an inevitable one so long
as a foreign language is taught particularly in contexts where the learners and the
teachers are not native speakers of the target language and share the same mother
tongue, i.e. in EFL (English as a Foreign Language) classes. No matter what is
said and done within the literature of the use of the mother tongue in EFL
classrooms, it would be difficult and impractical to make sound judgments
concerning whether the mother tongue should be used as an effective tool or it
should be banned from the classroom without referring to the real stakeholders:
the learners and the teachers. That is why it is essential that research be conducted
in different EFL settings with different participants. This study contributes to the
research conducted about the role of learners' first language in a foreign language
classroom by dealing with the problem of the use of the mother tongue in EFL
classes studying the perspectives of both students and teachers from different
levels about the use of L I .

1.4 Purpose and Significance of the Study

In the setting of this study. Middle East Technical University Northern

Cyprus Campus (METU NCC henceforth), English is the medium of instruction in
all departments, and most students have to study English at preparatory school for
at least two academic semesters. These conditions have brought out some strict
rules regarding the use of the target language, which is English in this context.
There has been great interest in the area of studying the use of LI in L2
classrooms and a lot of recent research has been conducted regarding the same
issue in different contexts.

This exploratory study deals with the problem regarding the use of LI in
EFL classrooms according to the views of both instructors and students. In order
to achieve this, the study makes use of two questionnaires for instructors and
students at METU NCC, School of Foreign Languages (SFL henceforth) as well
as interviews with selected instructors and students. It aims at revealing the
attitudes, beliefs and views of both instructors and students on the use of the
mother tongue when teaching and learning the target language, English.

The first major aim of the study is to determine the views of preparatory
class instructors and students at METU NCC SFL on using the mother tongue in
classrooms through two questionnaires and interviews with both instructors and
students and to correlate the results. The results of the correlation will reveal the
relationship between the use of LI by instructors and students in EFL classrooms.

The second major purpose of the study is to determine to what extent

preparatory class instructors and students at METU NCC SFL support the use of
LI during the second language learning process; in this way, it will be clearly seen
whether the mother tongue is an inseparable part of the second language learning
process or not. The study also aims at determining whether there is a relationship
between the frequency of the use of LI in the classroom by the instructors and the
students and the levels (beginner-elementary-intermediate); i.e. whether the
percentage of the use of LI goes up as the level of the students goes down.

The third aim of the study is to find out whether preparatory class students
and instructors at METU NCC SFL find using the mother tongue, which is
Turkish in this context, in the classroom necessary for learning the target language,
which is English in this context.

1.5 Research Questions

The study aims to address the following research questions:

1. In what ways are METU NCC, SFL instructors' and students'

perceptions of the use of LI in class similar or different?
1.1 What are instructors' perceptions of the use of LI in class?
1.2. What are students' perceptions of the use of L I in class?

2. Why do instructors and students prefer or not prefer the use of LI in

class?

2.1 Why do instructors prefer to use LI in class?

2.2 Why do instructors not prefer to use LI in class?
2.3 Why do students prefer to use LI in class?
2.4 Why do students not prefer to use of LI in class?

3. In what particular situations do instructors and students prefer the use of

LI?

3.1 When do instructors prefer the use of LI in class?

3.2 When do instructors not prefer the use of LI in class?
3.3 When do students prefer the use of LI in class?
3.4 When do students not prefer the use of LI in class?

4. Does the level (beginner-elementary-intermediate) influence the

percentage of the use of LI in class?
4.1. Does the level of the students affect their use of LI in class?
 4.2. Does the level the instructors teach in affect the percentage of the use
of L I ?

5. Does the instructors' teaching experience affect the amount of L i used

in class?

1.6 Assumptions of the Study

As a part of the data collection instruments, it is assumed that

questionnaires will create a tendency in the participants towards being more honest
(saying things they would not say face-to-face) and less likely to be influenced by
concerns such as giving the socially correct answer. It is also assumed that the
participants will respond to the questions in the questionnaires sincerely as they
are aware of the aim of the study. As for the other data collection tool, it is
assumed that focus group interviews will promote participation in the discussion
allowing in-depth discussion of the topic.
 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Presentation

This chapter investigates the different views on the mother tongue and the
use of the mother tongue in a foreign language classroom. In the light of this, the
historical background will be reviewed to highlight the evolution of the attitudes
and methods regarding the use of LI in L2 classrooms, the arguments from the
proponents and the opponents of the issue of English-only policy and finally
review of previous research conducted with regard to the attitudes of teachers and
students towards the use of the mother tongue in foreign language classrooms.

2.2 A Review of Some Approaches and Methods Regarding the

Use of LI in the Classrooms

A glance at the history of LI use in L2 classrooms clearly demonstrates

periodic but regular changes in how it has been perceived (Auerbach, 1993). In the
times of the Grammar-Translation Method, which dominated language teaching
from the 1840s to the 1940s (Richards & Rodgers, 2001), the focus was on the
written word rather than the spoken word. Translation between the two languages
was considered crucial for the sake of being intellectually capable in the second
language rather than acquiring another language to communicate, which is the
natural rationale behind learning a language. The fundamental principle of this
method was to learn a language in order to read its literature and to do this, the
method required the learner to analyze the grammar rules of the target language
and subsequently translate the sentences and the texts into and out of it (Larsen-
Freeman, 2000). According to Rouse, the aim was "to know everything about
something rather than the thing itself' (Rouse in Richards and Rodgers, p.53,
2001). Another principle of this method was "The first language is maintained as
the reference system in the acquisition of the second language" (Stem, 1983,
p.455). In other words, the native language of the learners was the medium of
instruction and it was used to explain the structures in the target language by
making comparison between two languages possible. Moreover, as it focused on
reading literature in the language it had been written in, this method was
implemented to read and write in dead languages such as Latin, rather than
modem languages.

This method gradually lost its popularity as the learners considered it as a

tedious experience of memorizing lists of vocabulary in order to handle the literary
texts. As stated by Howatt (2004), the late nineteenth-century critics of the
Grammar-Translation Method drew attention to "the two features that they most
disliked: the teaching of grammar in isolation f r o m texts and exercises and the
excessive use of translation both in the teaching of meaning and in practice
exercises" (p. 151). With the mass migration of peoples to other countries,
especially from Europe to America, educators recognized the need for
communication proficiency rather than reading comprehension and grammar;
therefore, the focus was shifted from the written word to the spoken word in the
mid- and late nineteenth century. This led to some innovations in methodology,
which brought out the Direct Method posited by Charles Berlitz in the nineteenth
century.

Among the defenders of natural methods, whose principles were developed

out of naturalistic principles of language leaming as seen in first language
acquisition, were L. Sauveur, Sweet and the German scholar Franke, who argued
that foreign languages could be taught without translation or employing the native
language of the learner (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). According to them, a
language was best taught through demonstration and action and by using it
actively in the classroom, and soon this formed the bases for the Direct Method,
which was introduced to Europe and the U.S. The principles of this method were
parallel to the monolingual approach as they included the exclusive use of the
target language in classroom instruction. The motto was 'never translate:
demonstrate'. Thus, this method excluded the use of the mother tongue in the
classroom (Harbord, 1992). Although this method was successful in private
schools, its implementation was difficult in public schools and it failed in the
public school education system (Brown, 1994). It was criticized for its extreme
dependence on the target language, as a result of which teachers had to explain
things at a great length when a brief explanation in the students' native language
would have been enough (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). To illustrate, Roger Brown,
in his book A first language; the early stages, gives the example of a teacher he
observed who was performing 'verbal gymnastics' to convey the meaning of
Japanese words instead of translating them, which would have been sufficient
(Brown, 1973).

In the twentieth century, the Audiolingual Method followed the same

premises as the Direct Method with principles revolving around the idea that
speech is language and that "language is primarily what is spoken and only
secondarily what is written'' (Brooks, 1964, p.20) as well as the behaviorist view
that learning a language is forming a habit and a language is a set of habits. The
Audiolingual Method also favored the target language-only policy by pinpointing
that the goal of language teaching is to eliminate the students' bad habits, one of
which is LI interference. However, in the 1960s, it started to decline due to
criticisms about its unsound theoretical foundations and its impractical
applications in real life.
 10

In the 1960s, language teaching was more focused on English and "it was
even less likely to draw on the experience of multilingual non-English-speaking
c o u n t r i e s . . " (Phillipson, 1992, p. 183). At the Commonwealth Conference on the
Teaching of English as a Second Language, held in Makerere, Uganda in 1961,
priorities for ELT in these countries were decided. The Makerere report, whose
aim was to increase the efficiency of teaching English as a second language,
consisted of five tenets, which "represent a pre-theoretical distillation of the
worldwide grassroots ELT teaching experience" (Phillipson, 1992, p. 183). These
tenets are as follows;

"1. English is best taught monolingually.

2. The ideal teacher of English is a native speaker.
3. The earlier English is taught, the better the results.
4. The more English is taught, the better the results.
5. If other languages are used much, standards of English will drop".
(Phillipson, 1992, p.l85)

Asserting that these tenets were false, Phillipson defined them as five
'fallacies' (1992). The first tenet, which is directly related to the purpose of this
paper, is the belief that an exclusive focus on English will maximize the leaming
of the language. The mother tongue should only be employed in extremes to check
comprehension. Tenet four supports the first one by attaching the utmost
importance to quantity of foreign language in the classrooms for successful
language leaming. However, as stated by Phillipson, "in the bilingual education
field, extensive research into cognitive development and educational success has
proved that a maximum exposure assumption is a fallacy" (1992, p.211). Tenet
five takes this monolingual approach one step further by stating that the standards
of English are will if other languages are used much, which Phillipson strongly
disagrees by proclaiming that "the educational system that is generated by English
 11

linguistic imperialism may indeed cause a decline of proficiency in English and

inadequate learning of the language" (1992, p.214).

It was during the period between the 1970s and 1980s when language
teaching experienced a major shift in paradigms with the emergence of
communicative approaches. With the change in British language teaching tradition,
noticing the need to focus in language teaching on communicative proficiency
rather than on mere mastery of structures, scholars like Wilkins, Widdowson and
Hymes started to criticize the structural theories of language. According to
Widdowson, knowing the grammar rules was not enough to use the language
(1978) and Wilkins made it clear that more than linguistic competence was needed
for communication (1976). Moreover, Hymes emphasized the importance of
communicative competence, which can be defined as knowing when and how to
say what to whom (1971). The writings of these scholars together with the work of
the Council of Europe, which incorporated Wilkins' document, consisted of the
systems of meanings that lay behind the communicative use of language into a set
of principles for a first-level communicative language syllabus. The swift
application of these ideas by textbook writers and the acceptance of them by
British language teaching experts, curriculum development centers and
governments contributed to the shift from a structural approach to a
Communicative Approach in the late 1970s and 1980s (Richards & Rodgers,
2001).

With regards to employing LI in the classroom, the Communicative

Approach neither forbids the use of it totally nor ignores it all together (Cook,
2001); that is, judicious use of LI is permitted in it (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). The
Communicative Approach mentions LI only when giving advice on how to
minimize its use (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). However, according to Finocchiaro and
Brumfit s comparison of the Audiolingual Approach and Communicative
 12

Language Teaching, a slight transition from English-only to judicious-use-of-

native-language-where-feasible policy can be observed within the distinctive
features of both approaches. In other words, "judicious use of native language is
accepted where feasible" in Communicative Language Teaching (Finocchiaro and
Brumfit, 1983, p.91-93).

With the exception of the Grammar-Translation Method, which was not

favored by the public at all, there are almost no methods which do not avoid the
use of LI. As Cook (2001) suggests, "most teaching methods since the 1880s have
adopted this Direct Method avoidance of the L I " (p.404). Nevertheless, there have
been some teaching methods which favor using both LI and L2 within the same
lesson. For example. Community Language Leaming consists of language
altemation practice in the classroom. As explained by Richards and Rodgers
(2001), in this practice, a lesson is presented in the native language first and then
translated into the target language. Students convey the meaning in the target
language through recalling the parallel meaning and flow of the native language.

Another method, the Natural Method, was a product of a combination of

Krashen's theory of second language acquisition and Terrell's experiences as a
language teacher, and it conforms to the naturalistic principles found in successful
second language acquisition with an emphasis on exposure or input rather than
practice or output (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). As Brown (2001) states,
according to this theory, "...adults should acquire a second language just as
children do: they should be given the opportunity to 'pick up' a language, and
shouldn't be forced to 'study' grammar in the classroom" (p. 79). As for the use of
LI, Terrell (1977) suggests that "the student be allowed to respond in his native
language" (p.331). According to him, this should happen in listening
comprehension most as the student can focus on comprehension only by being
allowed to respond in LI and thus s/he can improve his/her comprehension
 13

abilities and still be good at communication. Terrell (1977) continues by

maintaining that

"There is no evidence that the use of LI by the student retards in any way the
acquisition of L2. Indeed my experience has been that it speeds up this process
since it allows for concentration on one component at a time" (p.331).

2.3. The Proponents of an English-Only Policy in the Classroom

As can be seen in the history of the methods in language teaching, the

maximal use of L2 has often been promoted in foreign language (FL) education
(Duff and Polio, 1994; Widdowson, 1978). Most of the proponents of an English-
only policy in the classroom based their ideas on different hypotheses and reasons,
which will be exploited in details below.

2 . 3 . 1 Reasons for Monolingual Approach

There are mainly three reasons why the monolingual approach is favoured.
The first is the idea that L2 learning is similar to LI learning. Accordingly, L2
learning should be based on the characteristics of LI acquisition. This assumption
takes two ideas for granted: It holds the position that learning should be
unconscious, with a focus on meaning, and predicts that learners go through
similar stages in the learning process.

The Natural Approach (NA) to language teaching considers two of these

ideas as true. Language is viewed as a means to communicate meaning and
messages (Terrel, 1977). Rules, vocabulary, and other language forms are not said
to be learnt as they are given; rather they are progressively recognized in the
 14

learners' repertoire during frequent active and passive experience of meaningful

occurrences of language use, or comprehensible input (Krahnke, 1985).

NA also assumes that there is a natural order to what is leamt, referred to

as the natural order hypothesis (Krahnke, 1985). The order includes the "pre-
production, early-production and the speech emergent phase" (Richards and
Rodgers, 2001, p. 187).

However, the NA should be approached with caution as there are still

issues, such as a theory of language, which need addressing. Therefore, it may not
yet be appropriate to welcome the NA and its underlying assumptions (Krahnke,
1985). As Macaro states, "the case f o r learning the L2 'naturally', like babies
acquire their LI is not proven" (2001, p.l78).

The idea that learners go through similar stages in the learning process is
equally problematic in its nature as approaches in EFL holding this view have
different views about the stages that are involved in LI learning. Those that NA
suggests are different from those of Total Physical Response, which suggests that
learning begins with the teaching of a set of commands (Richards and Rodgers,
2001). This is mainly because the stages that children go through when acquiring
LI are still not clear. Thus, even if we accept that L2 learning should reflect LI
learning, it is essential to bear in mind that research on first language acquisition
cannot precisely define these stages.

Likewise, considering L2 and LI learners as the same is contested. Cook

(2001) argues that such an assumption makes L2 learners believe that they are
only successful after they have become as proficient as native speakers, which
certainly places a lot of pressure on L2 learners. Moreover, assuming that L2 and
LI learners go through similar stages may in fact, be misleading. In the case of FL,
 15

LI learners do not have another language so if treated the same then, L2 learners
are expected not to rely on their LI either in the leaming process, which is
impossible to accomplish Cook (2001). Another objection is that L2 leamers have
more mature minds, greater social development, and they already know how to
convey meaning (Cook, 2001).

2.3.2 Maximum Exposure to the Target Language

Regarding the second reason for favouring L2, the proponents of L2

exclusivity argue that it is not necessary for leamers to comprehend everything
said to them by the teacher and that switching to LI undermines the leaming
process. One argument conceming hypotheses claiming that exposure is necessary
for L2 goes to the belief that the quantity of input defines success. Macdonald
(1993) states that for the development of L2 proficiency a considerable amount of
input is required. Duff and Polio (1994) pinpoint the necessity of using L2 in
giving instmctions as related discussions reflect natural communication in the
classroom. Likewise, they add that the presence of LI prevents students from
receiving the input they might be exposed to in real life. Tumbull (2001)
highlights the importance of exposing leamers to target language input, which has
been proven crucial for second language leaming. These positions seem to imply
support for Krashen's (1989) input hypothesis (IH.), which the NA is based,
whereby more L2 input brings about more success in L2 as they are content that
LI input deprives leamers of necessary input. Although NA gives room for LI
until leamers feel confident enough to produce their own utterances (Terrel, 1977),
IH predicts that "more comprehensible input causes more language acquisition"
(Krashen, 1989, p.441). Atkinson (1987) challenges this by implying that as the
classroom focus is not on language acquisition, which is not practical in foreign
language leaming, but on leaming a foreign language, there is no point in absolute
use of the target language (TL). Moreover, leaming the TL does not automatically
 16

result from teaching in the TL although maximum exposure to the TL can be seen
to facilitate the pupils' linguistic confidence and competence (Guest and Pachler,
2001 ).

Comprehensible input are utterances that learners can comprehend with

regard to both the context in which they appear and the language they are phrased
in (Richards and Rodgers, 2001) and that the more of it is more likely to bring
success in L2 learning derives from Chomsky's idea of LI acquisition. Chomsky
claims that all individuals have an innate capacity, a language acquisition device
(LAD), to acquire a language and according to IH, the more input, the higher the
possibility of LAD to be activated, which means more success in learning
(Krashen, 1989). However, Ellis (1997) argues that input alone is insufficient for
achieving language acquisition. Moreover, Phillipson (1992) states that research
has failed to prove that there is a correlation between quantity of L2 and academic
success.

To allow input to become knowledge, there must be interaction between

L2 learners and other speakers. Likewise, increasing the use of LI does not
necessarily mean that it is harmful. Questioning L2 exclusivity, Tumbull (2001)
proposes that LI has a role in L2 teaching, but it is necessary to find parameters
for an acceptable amount of L2 and LI use. Macaro (2001) too, shows his
concerns about overuse of LI and states the need for a framework that will define
when LI can be valuable.

2.3.3 LI Interference

Support for the L2 only policy also comes from the belief that L2 and LI
should be separated. The rationale for this idea included theories such as
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) claiming that during the learning process
LI interferes with L2. Briefly, the CA hypothesis states that during L2 learning,
 17

leamers show a tendency to use their LI stmctures in their L2 speech, and where
^i
L2 and LI stmctures differ, they will make mistakes in production or goof ,
(Dulay and Burt, 1972, p. 236). This theory comes from the interference theory
claiming that leaming is habit formation of responses, and when LI and L2 differ,
the old habit, LI, interferes with the formation of the new habit, L2, and the result
is negative transfer. To prevent this, the old habit, LI, should be removed or
unleamed (Dulay and Burt, 1972, p.236).

This theory, suggesting the removal of LI for success in L2, is contested

by Dulay and Burt (1972), who state that this is unattainable and, having accepted
this, more recent studies on CAH seem to be slightly different. The idea of
deleting LI to prevent negative transfer is replaced by the concept of
"suppressing" items that may be transferred negatively by certain L2 leamers with
a certain LI. Eckman (2006) asserts that with the CAH being revised and the
incorporation of the principles of universal grammar, it is possible to predetermine
different patterns in a certain LI that are likely to create a negative transfer in the
leaming of L2, and then to practice those patterns so that the negative transfer is
suppressed. This idea seems more likely and gives room for positive transfer,
where LI facilitates the leaming of L2. Nevertheless, CAH's behaviourist nature
remains contentious. Behaviouristic theories seem to be replaced by cognitive ones
as they are believed to be insufficient. Differences in LI and L2 do not always
lead to mistakes. Cognitive theories propose cognitive constraints such as,
leamers' ideas of what is transferable, which attempt to account for these
insufficiencies (Ellis, 1997).

2.4 The Opponents of an English-Only Policy in the Classroom

Most of the methods and approaches together with several second language
theoreticians and researchers not only support the use of the target language at a
 18

maximum level (see part 2.3.), but even ban the mother tongue as Cook asserts,
"...the L2 is seen as positive, the LI is negative. The LI is not something to be
utilized in teaching but to be set aside" (2001, p.404) or is "an evasive manoeuvre
which is to be used only in emergencies" (Butzkamm, 2003, p.29). Despite
assumptions like these, there are also a lot of researchers and teacher-researchers
who oppose an English-only policy in class. In this part, the arguments of the
proponents of employing LI in the classrooms to a certain degree will be analyzed.

The researchers who support the use of LI in the classroom start with
drawing a general picture of how the mother tongue has been perceived among
them. Prodromou (2000) refers to the mother tongue as the "skeleton in the
cupboard!" (p.8), which has been there all the time without being mentioned yet.
Gabrielatos (2001) calls it a "bone of contention" adding that "teachers should not
treat the use of LI by themselves or learners as a sin... LI does have a place in
ELT methodology" (p.6). Like these two researchers, in the literature of ELT,
there is an increasing number of teacher-researchers stressing "the growing
methodological need in TEFUTESOL f o r a principled, systematic and judicious
way of using the mother tongue in the classroom" (Ferrer, n.d). Nevertheless, there
is a sense of guilt among teachers assuming that using LI means being lazy or
having no will power to manage the students (Burden, 2000). Ferrer (n.d.) refers to
this guilt as "for some of us, there seems to be a generalized feeling of guilt that
we are acting counter to the principles of good teaching when we use the learners'
mother tongue as a tool to facilitate learning". According to Cook (2001),
"teachers resort to the LI despite their best intentions and often feel guilty f o r
straying f r o m the L2 path" (p.405). Harbord (1992) affirms that non-native
teachers, who constitute the majority of this profession, have been affected
negatively by an English-only policy, which makes them "feel either defensive or
guilty at their inability to 'match up' to native speakers in terms of conducting a
class entirely in English" (p.350).
 19

2.4.1. The Rationale behind the Use of LI in Language Classrooms

One of the problems with the English-only, or 'monolingual' approach, is

that it is impractical (Phillipson, 1992). As an EFL teacher and non-native speaker
of Italian, Mattioli, a teacher-researcher, proclaims that "It is unrealistic and
impractical to insist that learners refrain from native language use altogether,
when by exchanging briefly in the LI (instead of struggling in English) they can
move forward in the task and comprehend a point much more quickly (2004,
p.25).

One of the reasons behind the banning of LI from the classroom due to its
impracticality is that it reduces the performance of both teachers and students.
Maximum target language creates an environment where both the students and the
teacher have to act as if they do not know each other's native language. This
creates disbelief and eventually leads to a decrease in the levels of performance on
the teacher's side and "alienation from the learning process on the part of the
pupils" (Guest and Pachler, 2001, p.85). Guest and Pachler indicate that "non-
curriculum-specific target language, which leamers do not have at their disposal"
(p.85) is needed for the development of good social relationships between teachers
and leamers. However, they also state that teaching in the target language does not
create opportunities to leam the target language while the positive effects of
maximum exposure to the target language on the leamers' linguistic competence
should not be underestimated. Pan and Pan agree with this idea by stating that "If
LI is utilized well and presented communicatively, it can be a facilitative tool that
will improve the language proficiency of students" (2010, p.88).

Another concem about L2-only policy is pertinent to the fact that the target
language may create a barrier to understanding and to leaming at some points. As
exposure in the classroom is not similar to the one occurring in the real world and
 20

teacher talk is different from a native speaker, it may, at certain points, impede
learning (Guest and Pachler, 2001). A great deal of research supports this (e.g. Al-
Nofaie, 2010; Anh, 2010; Sharma, 2006; Tang, 2002 and Schweers, 1999) by
stating that clarifying a complex topic which was previously taught in the target
language in LI helps the students gain insight into the topic better. In other words,
it helps students cognitively rather than linguistically and teachers do not refrain
from using LI, nor do they leave their students confused for the sake of using the
target language only. Macaro's example would clarify this point better. If teachers
used only the target language to introduce the phrase "raised in the gutter", and
tried to explain or paraphrase it (brought up badly by poor parents) without code
switching to LI, students particularly at lower levels would be deprived of its
original meaning (2001). Pan and Pan pinpoints the importance of the use of LI by
stating that "Although students might better comprehend the teacher's spoken
remarks via modified input, they do not learn the new aspect of target language"
(2010, p.89). Butzkamm (2003) bases his belief about use of LI on his own
experience as a foreign language learner and summarizes this point as "Don't we
all know it in our bones: when we encounter a new piece of language, we want to
know straight away and without further ado what it means precisely, so that we
can put it to use immediately, work with it and make the most of it" (p.30).

In order to support the idea that LI is a useful tool which helps to destroy
the barriers created by the target language, some scholars pinpoint that the
avoidance of LI denies target language learners a valuable educational tool. They
argue that code switching from target language to LI is an effective strategy for
improving student proficiency. Swain and Lapkin (2000) suggest that LI helps
learners understand the necessities and the content of a task, focus on language
form, improve vocabulary use and overall organization, and form the tone and
nature of their collaboration. According to them, without LI, the task given to
learners may not be achieved as effectively, or might not be accomplished at all.
 21

Furthermore, Anton and DiCamilla (1999) argue that LI benefits leamers at a

cognitive level; providing them with scaffolding during their attempt to
accomplish leaming tasks. To illustrate, a writing task can be done collaboratively
with pairs of students working together and using LI to solve the problems that
may occur within the process, which promotes L2 leaming. Within this respect,
Anton and DiCamilla underline the significance of LI as a cognitive tool:

"Within a sociocultural perspective, we have shown that use of LI is beneficial

for language leaming since it acts as a critical psychological tool that enables
leamers to construct effective collaborative dialogue in the completion of
meaning-based language tasks by performing three important functions;
construction of scaffolded help, establishment of intersubjectivity, and use of
private speech", (p. 245)

The issue of using L I in the classroom has also been approached from a
humanistic perspective. According to Atkinson (1993), for example, one of the
positive effects of employing the mother tongue in the classroom is that it gives
students the opportunity to show that they are intelligent and sophisticated people
(p. 14) as leamers say what they want to say using LI (Atkinson, 1987, p.242)
rather than keeping silent due to being less proficient at the language. Liao (2006),
in his study about Taiwanese college students' English leaming, indicates that
because of their anxiety and lack of English competence, the students remained
silent when TL was the only medium the teacher allowed during discussions.
Harbord (1992) reinforces this idea by maintaining that eliminating LI would have
negative consequences as "the mother tongue is the womb f r o m which the second
language is born" (p.355). According to Burden (2000), the classroom should not
be seen as a miniature of an English speaking country. Instead, "a more
 22

humanistic approach is needed that values the students, their culture and their
language" (p. 147).

Another rationale behind the importance of the use of LI in the classrooms

is that the use of the mother tongue is thought to boost learners' self-confidence
(Cook, 2001; Auerbach, 1993) and provide a sense of security by validating
students' already existing knowledge as well as their lived experiences. As such,
when the use of LI is strictly forbidden, learners feel nervous and worried. The
use of L I , however, enables learners to feel less anxious and increases their desire
to express their ideas. Seng and Hashim (2000) indicate that lower proficiency
students encounter difficulties in expressing themselves confidently and accurately,
so learners should be allowed to rely on LI to understand L2. As Butzkamm (2003)
states

"Using the mother tongue, we have (1) leamt to think, (2) leamt to communicate
and (3) acquired an intuitive understanding of grammar. The mother tongue is
therefore the greatest asset people bring to the task of foreign language leaming
and provides a Language Acquisition Support System", (p. 29)

In addition to the rationales stated above, some researchers like Atkinson

(1987), Auerbach (1993), Cook (2001) and Harbord (1992) advocate the
contribution of use of LI to reducing affective barriers and increasing students'
confidence when comprehending the target language successfully. In his paper,
which examines when teachers should use the students' mother tongue, Burden
(2000) finds that the mother tongue relaxes the students by lowering their
affective filter through the non-banishment of the mother tongue. Thus, LI
relieves "the stress of entering the alien territories of both the classroom and the
foreign language" (Lewis, 2009, p.224). Besides, scholars like Atkinson (1987)
 23

and Butzkamm (2003) believe that "the actual corpus of language" (i.e. the
mother tongue) could be facilitated intelligently by the teachers. Butzkamm (2003)
reinforces this by building a theory with ten maxims upon this belief together
with some research into this area. He suggests ten ways to facilitate the mother
tongue intelligently in the classroom and shows how it enhances students' use of
L2 under his theory of Language Acquisition Support System (a phrase he
borrowed from Bruner, 1983). The outline of this theory is that "The mother
tongue is the master key to foreign languages, the tool which gives us the fastest,
surest, most precise and most complete means of accessing a foreign language"
(p.31). Students' minds should be seen as more than a tabula rasa. Their previous
experiences with language can be expanded by building on them (Mattioli, 2004).
Moreover, Oxford (1990), in her compensation strategy, explains some sub-
strategies which facilitate LI to overcome certain difficulties in leaming the target
language. Like Butzkamm and Atkinson, she also believes that translating
strategy allows leamers to use their mother tongue as the basis for understanding
what they hear or read or for even producing in the new language. Likewise,
transferring strategy allows the leamer to apply previous knowledge to facilitate
new knowledge as long as the two languages have parallel elements or concepts.
Switching to a mother tongue strategy is employed especially for speaking and
this strategy allows the leamer to use the mother tongue for an expression without
translating it.

In addition to the reasons for utilizing LI in the classroom, some teacher-

researchers support the use of LI by stating that, based on their observations in
their own classrooms and their research, employing students' own language in the
classroom builds rapport between the teacher and the students and creates a
positive effective environment, which is essential for both leaming and teaching
efficiently. One of these researchers is Schweers (1999), whose findings from the
interviews with some teachers and students is that the use of LI is popular and
 24

students tend to prefer teachers who understand their L I . Schweers (1999)

mentions his own teaching experience by stating that "I feel the relationship we
have developed by my using Spanish occasionally has made my students more
eager than usual to tackle the challenges of leaming English" (p.9). Thus, LI
facilitates an environment where students identify better with a teacher who speaks
their mother tongue placing value on it by not excluding it from the classroom
(Celik, 2008). According to another researcher, Harbord (1992), LI fosters
teacher-student relationships through chatting in LI before the start of the lesson
to reduce student anxiety or telling jokes in LI. The results of a study conducted
in Malaysia supports all of the above by concluding that learners' positive
affective support gets stronger when LI is employed in the classroom (Ahmad,
2009). Butzkamm (2003) fosters this by asserting that "paradoxically, a foreign
language friendly atmosphere is best achieved through selective use of the mother
tongue" (p.32).

The last reason for the use of the mother tongue in a foreign language
classroom is the level of the students. Researchers like Franklin (1990) and Al-
Nofaie (2010) state the need for the mother tongue especially with lower level
students. The findings of Franklin's research support this in that when asked why
they use students' mother tongue in the classroom, 79% of the teachers put
forward the low level of students as a reason. Moreover, in a study conducted by
Anh (2010), several teacher interviewees suggest that the use of the mother tongue
should vary according to the levels of the students; in other words, the higher the
level of the students is, the less the use of the mother tongue should be.
 25

2.4.2 A Balance between the Mother Tongue and the Target

Language

Despite the support of use of LI, the scholars do not hesitate to warn that
the mother tongue should not be used excessively. Among these, Atkinson (1987)
states that excessive dependency on LI is likely to result in:

"1. The teacher and/or the students begin to feel that they have not 'really'
understood any item of language until it has been translated.
2. The teacher and/or the students fail to observe the distinctions between
equivalence of form, semantic equivalence, and pragmatic features, and thus
oversimplify to the point of using crude and inaccurate translation.
3. Students speak to the teacher in the mother tongue as a matter of course,
even when they are quite capable of expressing what they mean.
4. Students fail to realize that during many activities in the classroom it is
essential that they use only English. " (p.246)

Furthermore, Harbord (1992) argues that if using the mother tongue in

certain areas causes such problems, it should be replaced wherever possible by a
corresponding L2 strategy. Wilkins (1974) warns that we should be careful when
spending time on LI and "consider very carefully whether any intended use is
really justified" and remember that "time spent using it is time not spent using the
foreign language" (p.83). Shoji (2006) expresses his disagreement with the idea
that using LI saves time;
 26

"I would not believe that the LI use can be justified only because of time-
saving strategy for anything of that sort. Quick reaction precludes reflection.
But the process of reflection, the wrestling with words and meaning may be
crucial for leaming, may be more conducive to conscious awareness or
unconscious assimilation than rapidly provided feedback. " (p.6)

Finally, Prodromou (2000) describes the portrait of a balanced use of LI

in foreign language classrooms by attributing different metaphors to it. In the light
of this, the mother tongue in the classroom can be:

"1- a drug (though with therapeutic potential, it can damage your health and may
become addictive);
2- a reservoir (a resource from which we draw);
3- a wall (an obstacle to teaching);
4- a window (which opens out into the world outside the classroom; if we look
through it we see the students' previous leaming experience, their interests, their
knowledge of the world, their culture);
5- a cmtch (it can help us get by in a lesson, but it is recognition of weakness);
6- a lubricant (it keeps the wheels of a lesson moving smoothly; it thus saves
time)." (p. 8)

For some scholars, there should be a balanced use of LI on the part of both
teachers and students. Since people inevitably refer to their mother tongue when
leaming a foreign language, it should be used systematically (Butzkamm, 2003).
Burden (2000), in his study, asks the students, whom he calls "other stakeholders
in educational process", about their attitudes towards use of the mother tongue in
their English classes. The responses show that the students also want a balance
between use of the mother tongue and L2 in their classes, since they want the
teachers to use English exclusively in communication and LI when it is
appropriate to explain the usage of English. Nation (2000) pinpoints that it would
not be wise to exclude LI, which is a proven and efficient means of
communicating meaning but it should not be over-used. The possibility of the two
 27

languages' existing simultaneously is acknowledged by Tumbull as well (2001).

Likewise, researchers like Guest and Pachler (2001) wam against maximum target
language use as it may affect teachers badly by reducing their level of performance
and alienate pupils from the leaming process.

Some researchers highlight some factors that affect the ways to create a
balance between the mother tongue and target language when leaming a foreign
language. Harmer (2001) poses four factors: the students' previous experience,
their level, the stage of the course and the stage of the individual lesson. Harbord
(1992) proposes that a judicious use of LI facilitates communication in that the
time saved by using the mother tongue can be used for more productive activities.
He also claims that using LI can facilitate leaming of L2 by aiding L2 acquisition
by means of comparison with L I . Moreover, Cook (2001) suggests that a
systematic use of the mother tongue may have positive effects on teaching. She
offers some ways for teachers to use LI positively as follows:

"• to provide a short-cut for giving instructions and explanations where the cost of
the L2 is too great
• to build up interlinked LI and L2 knowledge in the students' minds
• to carry out leaming tasks through collaborative dialogue with fellow students
• to develop L2 activities such as code-switching for later real-life use" (p.418)

The last factor is that when used cautiously, LI also helps teachers lower
the anxiety level of the students, which is relatively high at pre-leaming stages.
Regarding this. Nation (2003) puts forward the following suggestion:
 28

"There is a useful role for the LI in helping learners gain the knowledge needed
to reach a higher level of L2 performance. Whenever a teacher feels that a
meaning based L2 task might be beyond the capabilities of the learners, a small
amount of LI discussion can help overcome some of the obstacles." (p.3)

2.4.3 Recommendations on the Use of LI in Language

Classrooms

Most researchers came up with recommendations on certain uses of the

mother tongue. One of them is Atkinson (1987), who offers that LI can be used

• when eliciting language by using the question "How do you X in English?"

instead of using mimes or such techniques which are likely to be ambiguous for
students,

• in discussions of classroom methodology at early levels,

• in presentation and reinforcement of language (mainly early levels),

• when checking for sense,

• in development of useful leaming strategies,

• to facilitate co-operation among learners by allowing the students to compare

their answers to grammatical exercises in their mother tongue

• when giving instructions to particularly early levels: "In some cases a

satisfactory compromise is perhaps to give the instructions in the target language
and to ask f o r their repetition in the students' language to ensure that everyone
fully understands what to do" (p. 243).

Selective use of the mother tongue especially in foreign language

classrooms with learners at a lower proficiency level can also be a very useful tool
in managing the time efficiently when explaining complicated concepts and ideas
 29

such as conditionals or tenses (^elik, 2008). To illustrate, Wilkins (1974) proposes

that LI use facilitates the lesson when checking on comprehension, explanations
and instructions informally and quickly especially in classrooms with students at
lower levels. Moreover, some researchers agree on the fact that use of the mother
tongue helps problem solving to be constructed more easily and naturally (Wells,
1999; Anton and DiCamilla, 1999).

L2 can also be a facilitative tool for communicative purposes. When doing

speaking, students may use LI among themselves to clarify questions and meaning
of words in L2, find new words in L2 corresponding to already known ones in LI,
and use language to process complex concepts. LI use in written tasks is also
beneficial in that it aids the clarification of meaning by building shared meaning
while evaluating written tasks through discussion (Morahan, 2000). Building on
the conclusions of her study about the effects of the use of LI concepts in the
teaching of L2 grammar concepts on students' achievement and the retention of
their leaming, §im§ek (2010) proposes that a modem language teaching method
should take advantage of the students' mother tongue. Novel methods of teaching
which use LI concepts in EFL classes actively should be searched for and "local
and native methods that build an LI scaffold f o r the restructuring of L2 concepts
should be developed and return its dignity to LI in the field of foreign language
teaching" (p. 164).

The two researchers, von Dietze and von Dietze (2007), highlight some
other effective uses of LI such as fostering group cooperation, helping students
understand instmctions, providing feedback and opinions, creating basic
motivational conditions, making use of culturally loaded words, checking
comprehension, comparing LI and L2 for error analysis, and scaffolding for
cognitively challenging material and explanation of grammar. In this sense, LI is
also a useful tool for validating students as individuals, which counts as a
 30

humanistic side of it. Moreover, it is suggested to be used as a humor provider,

which is highly motivating in classrooms.

Krajka (2004), referring to Deller (2003), pinpoints some other uses of the
mother tongue as follows: "LI should be used as a resource to notice differences
and similarities between the two languages, to let learners develop and produce
their own materials..., and to encourage spontaneity and fluency, to have a
beneficial effect on group dynamics and to receive ongoing and meaningful
feedback f r o m learners" (p.3). In addition. Cook (1999) recommends at least two
ways to use LI effectively in the classroom. She asserts that students or teachers
can make use of LI when presenting meaning. If a clarification of a complex
structure in grammar or a complex concept is needed, students can refer to their LI
via bilingual dictionaries or their teachers. Secondly, LI can be used in
communication activities. Cook claims that in classes where students share the
same mother tongue, restricting their LI in communicative activities would be
unwise as "every activity the student carries out visibly in the L2 also involves the
invisible L I " (p. 202). Finally, Dujmovic (2007) summarizes the following uses
of LI in the classroom as:

• "It can prevent time being wasted on tortuous explanations and instructions,
when it could be better spent on language practice...

• It can be used contrastively to point out problem areas of grammar, false

cognates, etc...

• It can be used with beginners for pre-lesson small talk which allows the
teacher to get to know the students as people, and for discussions to explain the
course methodology etc...

• When students are trying to say something but having difficulty, they can
say it in their own language and the teacher can reformulate it for them..." (p. 95).
 31

2.5 Previous Research

In this part, six studies conceming the use of LI in different contexts

varying from Iran to Puerto Rico will be analyzed so as to draw a general picture
of the issue of the mother tongue use in EFL settings. The studies investigating
teachers' and students' perceptions on the use of LI were conducted in different
settings, indicating that it is a widespread concem within the world of FL. These
include Iran (Mahmoudi, 2011), Saudi-Arabia (Al-Nofaie, 2010), Vietnam (Anh,
2010), Nepal (Sharma, 2006), China (Tang, 2002) and Puerto Rico in an ESL
context, where students are resentful about leaming L2 (Schweers, 1999).

The applied methodologies and methods imply that the topic has been
approached both from constmctivist and positivist positions. Those taking the
constmctivist position include Mahmoudi (2011) and Al-Nofaie (2010) who used
observations. Schweers (1999) takes a positivist position using questionnaires.
Some studies incorporate both positions, using a mix-method approach. Anh,
(2010) and Sharma (2006) employed questionnaires and semi-structured
interviews. Tang (2002) applied classroom observations, interviews, and
questionnaires. Participants included teachers and students from universities or
high-schools. In Sharma's study participants were not informed that they were to
be observed as it was believed that this would facilitate in the collection of
unbiased data (i.e. participants may have not used LI in the classroom if they had
been informed of the purpose of the study).

2.5.1 Teachers' Perceptions

Findings of these studies indicated teachers' positive attitude towards the

use of LI in class. More specifically, Mahmoudi's (2011) study revealed that of
about 400 minutes of class time around 25% was in Persian. Similarly, all the
 32

teachers in Anh's (2010) study advocated the use of LI, saying that it was a part of
the teaching method and played a positive role in the classroom. Sharma (2009)
reports that 62% of the teachers thought that LI should be used in class and the
use of LI appeared 13 times in a 45-minute lesson. Moreover, 77% of the teachers
in Tang (2002) and 50% of the teachers advocated the use of LI in class in
Schweers' (1999) study.

Teachers' seem to utilize LI in class for several reasons including

clarification of difficult structures (Mahmoudi, 2011; Al-Nofaie, 2010; Anh, 2010,
Tang, 2002), gaining time (Anh, 2010), giving instructions (Sharma, 2009),
demonstrating differences and similarities between different cultures (Tang, 2002)
and showing that both languages could coexist (Schweers, 1999).

In Al- Nofaie's study, the three interviewed teachers usually used Arabic
to clarify difficult items for especially weak learners. The three interviewed
teachers in Al- Nofaie's study stated their preference to use Arabic when teaching
beginner level students as they have not made good progress in English yet. Here,
L I also played a positive role in the classroom and was a part of the teaching
method which was personally reported and reflected in the questionnaires in Anh's
study (2010). The teachers (67 %) in Anh's research stated that explaining new
words in English was time-consuming and ineffective, so giving a Vietnamese
equivalent could help students understand more clearly as students' understanding
of the lessons was very important and 75 % of the time they stated that that LI
helped students understand complex grammatical points better. Though only based
on observations, the use of LI was mostly due to the syllabic design, content of
the textbook, non-homogeneity of classes in terms of learners' English proficiency
and lack of sufficient time in the case of Mahmoudi's research (2011). Tang's
findings revealed that 44 % of the teachers thought it was more effective and 39 %
stated that it aided comprehension greatly and one teacher used LI because it
 33

helped students become aware of the differences and similarities between different
cultures. In Schweers' study, from the interview conducted with 4 teachers, one of
the teachers used LI to act as a model person who spoke and used both languages
to show that the two languages could coexist and to let them know that the teacher
respected and valued their language, which was important for the students to see
as they were resistant to leaming English for cultural and political reasons and
they resented its imposition as a required language. As for avoiding the use of LI,
the teacher participants in all studies agreed on the reason to provide students with
sufficient opportunities to practice English.

All six studies reached the same results with respect to the situations in
which teachers used L I . The top situation was teaching grammar and explaining
complex grammar points and concepts as the students could find it difficult to
understand linguistic terms in English (e.g. 75 % in Anh and 44 % in Tang). The
second situation was when teachers explained the meaning of new words
especially if they were abstract (e.g. 67 % in Anh, 14 times in a 45-minute lesson
in Sharma and 39 % in Tang). Giving instmctions was another situation in which
LI was required (e.g. 13 times in a 45-minute lesson in Sharma). Especially when
giving exam instmctions, the teachers used LI to avoid confusion. Lastly, the
teachers employed LI when they checked for understanding in case their students
were confused with their English explanations (e.g. 50 % in Anh).

One finding in Sharma's study differs from the others in that most teachers
stated that they used LI when they could not control the classroom and when they
shared some cultural jokes and riddles.
 34

2.5.2 Students' Perceptions

Like the teachers, the attitudes of the students to the use of LI in class were
generally positive. More specifically, Al-Nofaie's (2010) study reveals that 70 %
of the students were in favour of their teachers' use of Arabic and this is 87% in
Sharma's (2006) study. Tang (2002) stated that 70 % of the students thought that
LI should be used in the classroom. 88.7 % of the students advocated the use of
LI in the study of Schweers (1999).

The situations the students stated are compatible with the ones the teachers
presented. Most students preferred LI when they had difficulties in understanding
complex grammar points, new vocabulary items and instructions (e.g. 60 % in
Sharma and 69 % in Tang). In Al- Nofaie's study, when leaming vocabulary items,
students perceived the use of LI and translating new words as a clear and quick
strategy (e.g. 86.6 % and in Tang 42 %). The students in the same study also
preferred to use LI when doing peer or group work (73 %). In the study conducted
by Sharma, 64 % of the smdents replied that Nepali should be used to help define
some new vocabulary whereas 2 % of the students preferred the teachers to use LI
to give suggestions on how to leam more effectively.

The most popular reason of the student participants was that using LI gave
them some confidence and led to better understanding of difficult concepts (e.g.
69% in Schweers, 1999, 86 % in Tang, 2002). Checking comprehension and
defining new vocabulary items were also among the reasons the students gave (e.g.
in Tang 42 %).

Overall, a few of the students stated that they felt less lost when LI was
employed by the teacher or when they used their mother tongue in the classroom
(e.g. 6 % in Tang and 5 % in Sharma). However, the students avoided the over-use
 35

of LI thinking that it might prevent them from leaming English. They reported
using LI only when there was a need for this. For instance, Al-Nofaie (2010)
indicates that most of the student did not favour the ovemse of their mother tongue
whether they were high or low achieving students. Likewise, Mahmoudi (2011)
reports that all of the students were supportive of the use L2 more than LI and Al-
Nofaie (2010) points out that 57 % of the students avoided LI to increase their
opportunities to practice English.

Although they were conducted with different participants from different

cultural backgrounds, in different settings and countries, all six studies, the details
of which were presented before, revealed that there were almost no discrepancies
between them in terms of the findings. The key findings of each study display
similarities, which support the judicious use of LI in certain situations for specific
reasons and reveal that the attitudes of the teachers and the students about using
LI were generally positive.
 36

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

3.1 Presentation

This chapter is devoted to the presentation of the methodological

procedures utilized in this study. The major topics comprise the design of the
study, the setting and the participants, the instruments, and the data collection and
analysis. The setting and the participants section describes the context of the study
as well as the way the participants are selected. The instruments and the data
collection sections deal with the procedures employed in the collection of the data
of the study. The data analysis section addresses itself to the explanations of the
statistical techniques which are employed in the analysis of the data of the study.

3.2 Research Design

In this descriptive study, a descriptive research design has been carried out
in order to present the views of instructors and students regarding the use of the
mother tongue. With the participation of 27 English instructors and 140 students at
METU NCC, SFL, the study aims to describe and compare the perceptions and
attitudes of instructors and students towards the use of LI in the classrooms during
foreign language teaching and leaming. In addition, it attempts to discover
whether foreign language instmctors suggest use of LI in EFL classrooms and
whether the students support the use of the mother tongue in the classrooms. The
data was collected through measurable instruments such as questionnaires used for
getting the attitudes of instructors and learners towards the use of LI in the
classrooms. The data collected through the questionnaires was analyzed
quantitatively. Another data collection tool was the interviews conducted with 6
students and 8 instmctors representing different levels. The data collected through
 37

the interviews was analyzed qualitatively. Data analyses provide information on

both views of participants that take part in this process actively.

3.3 Setting and Participants

3.2.1 The Participants

At METU NCC, SFL, in the first semester of the 2011-2012 academic year,
English is offered at three different levels: "beginner"," elementary" and
"intermediate", and all courses share the general objective of teaching all four
language skills. The student population of the school is 440 and the number of the
instructors actively giving preparatory classes is 31. Among the overall population,
27 instructors and 140 students from all three levels were sampled for this study to
ensure a wide range of variation with respect to the level of English being taught
and learnt and to investigate whether the difference in the level is a variable
pertaining to the attitudes of the participants towards the use of the mother tongue,
in this context Turkish, in English lessons. 80 students from beginner level, 40
students from elementary level and 20 students from intermediate level, in total
140 students were selected. In selecting the instructor participants, those with
different teaching experiences were accessed. From beginner level 20, from
elementary level 6 and from intermediate level 1, in total 27 instructors were
sampled for the study. As for the interview part of the data collection, 3 students
from beginner level, 2 students from elementary level and 1 student from
intermediate level were selected. Among the instructor participants, 4 from
beginner, 3 from elementary and 1 from intermediate level were sampled. To
conclude, this study included instructors with different work experience and
students with differing levels of English.
 38

Participants were selected on the basis of several criteria. First, instructors

are Turkish non-native speakers of English. There are 31 instructors at SFL, all of
whom are non-native English speakers and native speakers of Turkish. Similarly,
99% of the students are Turkish and the participants for this study were selected
among these students as, for consistency, the student and the instructor
participants are supposed to share the same mother tongue. Second, instructors
have at least one year of experience at METU NCC, SFL, and students, two
months of study. This ensured that participants have a fair amount of familiarity
with the school's program. Finally, their current status was considered. This study
tried to ensure that participants were actively teaching or studying at the time it
was conducted.

3.3.2 The Setting

Middle East Technical University Northern Cyprus Campus (METU NCC),

a branch of a state university in Turkey, is a private university in North Cyprus.
The number of the undergraduate students is approximately 1620. The faculties
range from Engineering to English Language Teaching. The medium of instruction
is English, so students need a certain level of English proficiency before beginning
their departmental courses.

At SFL, there are three levels (beginner, elementary and intermediate) in

the fall semester and in the spring semester these levels change into pre-
intermediate, intermediate and upper-intermediate. The participants of this study
were sampled from the fall semester levels. There are 10 classes at the beginner
level. The students at this level take 6 hours of English a day. The elementary
group has 6 classes, the students of which take 5 hours of English a day. Finally,
the intermediate group consists of only one class, and the students at this level take
4 hours of English a day. The courses are designed to teach all four language skills.
 39

In addition, the courses also aim to found a basis for the development of academic
skills.

In order to continue with their departments, at the start of their first

academic year, students sit a proficiency exam. Those who get a score of 60 are
qualified to go to their departments but those who cannot have to study at SFL for
a whole year. At the end of the year, students re-take a similar proficiency test, and
are again required to get at least 60 to pass.

3.4 Instruments

The instruments utilized in this study comprise two questionnaires (see.

Appendices 2 and 3) developed and piloted by Okke§ Oflaz (2009) 1 and four focus
group interviews (see. Appendices 5,7,9 and 11) conducted with both instructor
and student participants. The use of both qualitative and quantitative approaches
ensured the triangulation. Moreover, sampling both the students and the instructors
provided the study with a wider perspective of attitudes, which is an asset of
triangulation.

3.4.1 Questionnaires

The reason why questionnaire was chosen to be one of the data collection
tools is that their anonymous nature makes questionnaires reliable. Participants
tend to be more honest (saying things they would not say face-to-face) and are less

1
The necessary permission from the designer of the questionnaires, Okke§ Oflaz, has been granted
through Yiiksekogretim Kurulu, Ulusal Tez Merkezi since the author himself could not be contacted.
According to the rules and regulations of Yuksekogretim Kurulu, Ulusal Tez Merkezi, if the author of a
thesis consents to publish his/her thesis and the contents of his/her thesis on Ulusal Tez Merkezi, other
researchers are allowed to use that thesis together with its contents such as questionnaires. In the light of
this, the questionnaires designed by Okke? Oflaz were employed in this study by being acknowledged in
the acknowledgments part of this study. Moreover, the approval of the Research Center for Applied Ethics
at Middle East Technical University has also been obtained to avoid any inconvenience.
 40

likely to be influenced by concerns such as giving the socially correct answer,

when they do not have to give their names.

Two sets of questionnaires for the teacher and the student participants (18
items in student questionnaire and 18 in instructor questionnaire) using a
frequency scale of five points (from always to never) were administered in the first
semester of 2011-2012 academic year. The reason for the preference of the first
semester is the presence of the beginner group as the study also tries to find out
whether LI is more needed in the beginner level or not. The questions in the
questionnaires were prepared in accordance with the following research questions
of the study:

1. In what ways are METU NCC, the School of Foreign Languages instructors'
and students' perceptions of the use of LI in class similar or different?
1.1 What are instructors' perceptions of the use of LI in class?
1.2. What are students' perceptions of the use of L I in class?

2. Why do instructors and students prefer or not prefer the use of LI in

class?
2.1 Why do instructors prefer to use LI in class?
2.2 Why do instructors not prefer to use LI in class?
2.3 Why do students prefer to use LI in class?
2.4 Why do students not prefer to use of LI in class?

3. In what particular situations do instructors and students prefer the use of L I ?

3.1 When do instructors prefer the use of LI in class?
3.2 When do instructors not prefer the use of LI in class?
3.3 When do students prefer the use of LI in class?
3.4 When do students not prefer the use of LI in class?
 41

4. Does the level (beginner-elementary-intermediate) influence the percentage of

the use of LI in the classroom?
4.1. Does the level of the students affect their use of LI in the classroom?
4.2. Does the level the instructors teach in affect the percentage of the use
of L I ?

5. Does the instructors' teaching experience affect the amount of LI used in the
classroom?

The first questionnaire (see, Appendix 3) consists of 18 questions to

present the perceptions of the 27 instructor participants regarding the use of LI in
the English classrooms at METU NCC, SFL. The questionnaire for the instructor
participants was prepared in English.

The first ten questions in the instructor questionnaire pertain to the

frequency of the preference of LI by the instructor when explaining complex
grammar structures, explaining the meanings of new words, helping students
understand the reading text better, explaining what is said in a listening practice,
explaining the speaking task and explaining what and why students are going to
write before they start writing. The next two questions are concerned with the
frequency of the use of LI during pair or group work to guide the students into
the task. The following four questions are related to the frequency of the use of LI
when giving feedback, checking understanding, giving instructions, giving a
rationale for a task, giving instructions in an exam, explaining class rules and
focusing on the differences in terms of grammar between LI and the target
language. The last question requires a percentage of the teacher's use of LI in the
classroom for beginner, elementary and intermediate level in order to find out
whether the percentage of the use of LI varies in accordance with the level of the
 42

students and to compare with the percentages that the student participants state in
their own questionnaire.

The second questionnaire (see, Appendix 2) consists of 18 questions

aiming to get the views of the 140 student participants concerning the use of L I in
English classrooms at METU NCC, SFL. The questionnaire for the student
participants was prepared in Turkish, the students' mother tongue, in order to
make sure that all the questions were understood and taken into consideration and
to prevent any misunderstandings.

The first ten questions in the student questionnaire pertain to the frequency
of the preference of LI by the student when leaming grammar, practicing
vocabulary, reading a text, practicing listening and speaking and writing. The next
two questions are concerned with the frequency of the use of L I during pair or
group work. The following four questions are related to the frequency of the use of
LI when giving feedback to the teacher, when the student needs to ask questions if
s/he faces difficulties understanding a topic, when the instmctions are not clear
and the student needs to ask for a clarification, and when the instmctions in an
exam are complicated and the student asks for a clarification. The last two
questions require a percentage of the student's and his/her teacher's use of LI in
the classroom.

However, questionnaires are insufficient for analyzing the real opinions of

the participants, and they give relatively less room for information exchange with
comprehension checks, or paraphrasing, and due to their stmctured nature they
lack the personal touch. Moreover, there is no direct conversation between the
researcher and the participants, where participants can express themselves freely
(McDonough and McDonough, 1997). In order to compensate for such drawbacks
of questionnaires, the study required another instrument.
 43

3.4.2 Interviews

As a data collection tool, interview is highly favored by educational

researchers to investigate participants' identities, experiences beliefs and attitudes
(Mills, 2001). In this study, unstructured focus group interviews (see Appendices
5,7,9 and 11) with both student and instructor participants were employed in order
to cross-check the questionnaire data as well as to collect more detailed
explanations for the instructors' and students' attitudes conceming the use of the
mother tongue in English lessons. The focus groups comprise participants from
each level (beginner, elementary and intermediate) in order to be able to compare
and contrast the opinions of the instmctors and the students from different levels.

Unlike one-to-one interviewing, focus group interviewing is a research

technique where researchers gather data through group interaction based on a topic
specified by the researcher (Morgan, 2001). In this sense, researchers do not
collect data from their interaction with participants but out of the interaction
among participants, so the findings are collective rather than individual. Focus
group interviewing is less time consuming, allowing in-depth discussion of the
topic in a shorter time, which is the main reason for the choice of focus group
interviewing as another tool for data collection. However, there is the possibility
that group dynamics may cause some not to participate or some to dominate the
discussion.

A pilot interview was conducted with two instmctors and two students in
order to prevent any unforeseen and unexpected situations during the interviews.
The interviews with the student participants were conducted in Turkish to avoid
any misunderstandings on the part of the students and to make them feel more
comfortable during the interview. The interviews with the instmctor participants
were also conducted in Turkish. The reason for the choice of Turkish as the
 44

medium of the interviews is that all of the interviewees were Turkish speakers of
English and although all the instructors are competent speakers of English, when
asked whether they would prefer to use Turkish or English in the interview, they
preferred Turkish, which made them feel comfortable as well as creating a sincere
environment, which obviously had a positive impact on the interview as well as
the interviewees.

The interviews were conducted with randomly selected 6 students

representing different levels (3 students from beginner level, 2 students from
elementary level and 1 student from intermediate level) and 8 instructors from all
three levels (4 from beginner, 3 from elementary and 1 from intermediate level)
with different teaching experiences. The first interview was conducted with 4
beginner level instructors. The second interview included 3 instructor participants
from elementary and one from intermediate level. 3 beginner level students
participated in the third interview, and finally, 2 elementary and one intermediate
student were interviewed. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and translated
into English (see Appendices 5,6,7,8,9,10 and 11). Prior to the interview, the
participants were asked for their consent for being interviewed and recorded.

3.5 Data Collection

The data were collected in 2011-2012 academic year, fall semester at

METU NCC during regular class hours in the classrooms. The reason for the
preference of the first semester is the presence of the beginner group as the study
also tries to find out whether LI is more needed in the beginner level or not. A
total of 140 copies of the questionnaire were distributed to students from three
different levels: beginner, elementary and intermediate, and a total of 27
questionnaires were distributed to instructors from the same levels as students.
After the questionnaires were returned, focus group interviews were conducted
 45

with student participants sampled randomly from three different levels: 3 students
from beginner level (two males and one female), 2 students from elementary level
(two females) and 1 student from intermediate level (male). The participants'
explanations were recorded. The interviews were conducted in Turkish with both
student and instructor participants to make sure that they comprehended the
questions and responded without feeling unconfident about the language being
used. Other focus group interviews were conducted with eight instructors from
different levels: 4 instructors from beginner level (two male and two female), 3
instructors from elementary level (all female) and 1 instructor from intermediate
level (male).

3.6 Data Analysis

This study employed two approaches of data analysis: quantitative and

qualitative. The quantitative approach was applied when analyzing the responses
in the questionnaires. The data collected through the questionnaires were analyzed
statistically by using the SPSS program.

The qualitative approach was employed for analyzing the explanations of

the respondents. The data collected via the interviews were analyzed qualitatively
according to emerging themes.
 46

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

4.1 Presentation

This chapter addresses itself to the presentation of the findings of the study
obtained by means of the instruments mentioned in the previous chapter. The
questions in the questionnaires are enumerated and the answers to those questions
are provided based on the statistical findings and numbers are assigned to each
frequency: always-1, usually-2, sometimes-3, seldom-4 and never-5. In the first
part, the total findings of the student questionnaires of three levels (beginner,
elementary and intermediate) are presented, and then, the findings from these
levels are presented individually to make a comparison among them. In the second
part, the total findings of the instructor questionnaires of three levels are given.
Afterwards, the findings obtained from each level are given. In the last part, the
findings obtained from the interviews are presented.

4.2 Results of the Questionnaires

4.2.1. Total Results of the Student Questionnaires

The first question in the student questionnaire aims to find out whether
students use Turkish to understand the concepts in English grammar.
 47

Figure 4.1. When leaming English, I prefer to use Turkish to understand the
grammar concepts.

As seen in the figure above, 41.43% of the students, which is 58 students

out of 140, usually and 32.14% (45 students) sometimes use their mother tongue
when they are dealing with the grammar concepts while only 2 (1.43%) students
indicated that they never use their mother tongue with the grammar concepts. This
indicates that the mother tongue has an important role in understanding the
grammar concepts better.

Figure 4.2. When learning English, 1 prefer to use my mother tongue to

understand the grammatical differences between English and Turkish.

1500%

45.71%
 48

This question aims to find out whether students refer to their mother tongue
to understand the grammatical differences between English and Turkish.
According to the figure above, 45.71% (64 students) 'usually', 22.14% (31)
'sometimes' and 12.14 % (17) of students 'always' switch back to their mother
tongue whereas 15% (21) 'seldom' and 5% (7) of them 'never' use Turkish to
compare the two languages in terms of their grammatical structures. This shows
that Turkish is useful for students in comparing their mother tongue and English to
understand the grammatical differences.

Figure 4.3. When studying reading, I prefer to use Turkish to translate the text to
understand it better.

The aim of this question is to find out whether students use their native
language to translate the text while they are doing reading to understand it better.
As the figure above shows, out of 140 students, 58 of them 'usually', 27 of them
'always' and 22 of them 'sometimes' while 23 of them 'seldom' and 10 of them
'never' use Turkish to translate the reading text. This supports students' general
tendency towards translating a text to understand it better.
 49

Figure 4.4. When doing reading, I prefer to use Turkish to understand the content
of the text.

This question is parallel to the previous question in that they both try to
find out the general opinions of students regarding a better understanding of
reading texts. The results of the figure reveal that 42.14% of students 'usually',
20% 'sometimes' and 14.29% 'always' need Turkish for better comprehension a
text. When the results of the previous item are also taken into consideration, the
conclusion that most of the students tend to turn to their mother tongue when
doing reading can be drawn.

Figure 4.5. When doing listening in the class, I prefer to use Turkish to translate
what is said in order to help me understand what 1 listen to.
 50

Although listening is one of the more difficult skills in leaming a language

as it is difficult to catch up with what the native speakers say, the results of this
figure reveal that almost half of the students (41.43%) 'seldom' or 'never' use
Turkish to translate what they listen to. On the other hand, 27.14% 'usually',
21.43% 'sometimes' and 10% 'always' use Turkish when doing listening in the
classroom.

Figure 4.6. When doing listening in the class, I ask the instructor to translate the
dialogues into Turkish if I have difficulty in understanding what I listen to.

10.57%
31.43%

$.00%

22 14%

This question is parallel to the previous one as the purpose of both is to

find out the general tendency among students for a better understanding of
listening tasks. As can be seen in the figure, 75 of students' answers range from
'seldom' (22.14%) to 'never' (31.43%), whereas only 4 students 'always' need
their instructors' assistance by translating the dialogues into Turkish. As a result of
these two questions, it can be concluded that students do not refer to their mother
tongue when they are dealing with listening.
 51

Figure 4.7. When doing speaking in the class, I prefer to use Turkish to translate
what my friends and the instructor aim to tell me so that I can speak to them
correctly.

This question aims to reveal the percentage of the use of LI in

understanding and speaking to the teacher and the classmates. The figure above
reveals that more than half the students (56.42%) tend to use Turkish at a
frequency varying from 'always' to 'sometimes' (7.14% 'always', 28.57%
'usually 'and 20.71% 'sometimes').

Figure 4.8. Before answering a question, I prefer to note what I am going to say in
Turkish first, and then I translate it into target language and give answer to the
question.

2.14%
14.29%

45.00%

18 5 7 %

2000%
 52

As students are not native speakers of English, they need a waiting time to
answer a question. This question aims to find out to what percentage students need
this time to translate their responses into English before they are ready to answer.
The findings reveal that a significant number of the students 'never' or 'seldom'
note and then translate what they are going to say into English: 63 students 'never'
and 28 students 'seldom' do this. However, only 3 students 'always', 20 students
'usually' and 26 students 'sometimes' note and translate their answers into
English.

Figure 4.9. When doing writing in the class, I prefer to use Turkish to ask the
instructor why and what I am going to write before I start writing.

The aim of this question is to find out the percentage of the use of Turkish
in the classroom to leam about the rationale behind a writing task. The results of
the figure indicate that a majority of students prefer to use Turkish to ask their
instmctor about the reason why they are writing before a writing task as 31.43% of
the students 'usually', 29.29% 'sometimes' and 10% 'always' prefer their native
language.
 53

Figure 4.10. When studying vocabulary, I prefer to use Turkish to understand the
meaning of new words.

11.43%

When leaming new words in a foreign language, students tend to refer to

their mother tongue looking for an equivalent of the target word most of the time.
This is supported by the results of the question above. According to the figure, out
of 140, 58 students 'usually', 43 students 'always' and 16 students 'sometimes'
while only 8 students 'never' and 15 students 'seldom' use Turkish to understand
the meaning of new words.

Figure 4.11. When doing pair-work in the classroom, I prefer to use Turkish to
discuss what we are going to do.
 54

It is often a difficult job to make students speak English especially during

pair-work tasks. The results of this question support this in that a majority of the
students prefer to use Turkish in a pair-work (37.14% 'usually', 28.57%
'sometimes' and 20.71% 'always').

Figure 4.12. When doing a group-work in the classroom, I prefer to use Turkish to
discuss what I am going to do.

3.57%

15.00% 1'.86>

27.86%

The preference of LI is a general tendency among students especially when

they work in a group, which is also pointed out by researchers like Al-Nofaie
(2010), whose research revealed that 73% of the students preferred LI during
group or pair work. The findings of this item also support this. According to the
figure above, 25 students 'always', 50 students 'usually' and 39 students
'sometimes' use Turkish in a group discussion.
 55

Figure 4. 13. When leaming English, I prefer to use Turkish to give feedback to
the instructor.

26.43%

41.43%

This figure reveals that nearly half of the students (n=58 - 41.43%) prefer
to use Turkish when they are giving feedback to their instructors. An additional 37
(26.43%) 'sometimes' and 27 (19.29%) 'seldom' while 11 (7.86%) students never
give feedback in Turkish.

Figure 4. 14. When learning English, I prefer to use Turkish to ask questions to
the instmctor if I have difficulty in understanding a point.

9.29%

15.00%

40 7 1 %

:9.29%
 56

The figure above reveals that a majority of the students (n=57 - 'usually',
n=41 - 'sometimes', n=13- 'always') preferred Turkish to ask questions about the
problematic things while only 8 students 'never' used it in such situations. This
shows that students generally tend to use their mother tongue to ask questions for
clarification.

Figure 4.15. When the instructor gives instructions, I prefer to ask him/her to tell
them in Turkish if I have difficulty in understanding them.

Instructions are an important part of the lesson as they act as guides for
students to know what to do and how to do it. Unless they understand the
instructions clearly, they may fail to complete the task. This might be the reason
why many of the students in this figure (out of 140 students, n=47 - 'usually',
n:=41 -'sometimes', n= 13 - 'always') ask their instructor to use Turkish when
giving instructions. The number of the smdents who 'seldom' prefer their
instructor to give the instructions in Turkish is 23 while 16 'never' prefer this.
 57

Figure 4.16. When 1 have difficulty in understanding the instructions given in the
exams, I prefer to ask the instructor to tell them in Turkish.

42.14%

At METU NCC, the policy regarding the instructions in the exams is very
strict and the instructors train students to understand the instructions in an exam
clearly so as to be successful in it. That is why the instructors refrain from
translating the instructions in an exam into Turkish. This is the reason why 59
students out of 140 stated that they 'never' ask their instructor to tell the
instructions in their mother tongue. An additional 29 students 'seldom' do this.

Figure 4.17. Please indicate as a percentage to what extent you prefer to use
Turkish in the classroom.
 58

The aim of this question is to find out to what percentage students prefer
Turkish in the classroom. The results show that out of 140, 13 students use
Turkish between 100-80%. 30 use their native language between 80-60% while 54
make use of it between 60-40%. 36 students prefer to use Turkish 40-20% and
finally 7 of them use it between 20-0%. As a result, a majority of the students use
their mother tongue between 60-40%.

Figure 4.18. Please indicate as a percentage to what extent your instructor prefers
to use Turkish in the classroom.

iJe.57%

According to the figure above, a majority of the students (68) stated that
their instructor use Turkish between 20-0%. 44 of the students claimed that their
instructors use their mother tongue between 40-20% while 15 students stated that
the instructor's use of Turkish is between 60-40%. 7 students claimed that the
instructor prefers LI between 80-60% whereas only 6 students stated that the
instructor's use of their native language is between 100-80%. These results show
that according to what the students claim, most of the instructors use Turkish
between 20-0%.
 59

4.2.2 Results of the Student Questionnaires of Beginner,

Elementary and Intermediate Groups

In Beginner Group 80, in Elementary Group 40 and in Intermediate Group

20 students completed the questionnaire. The results of each question will be
analyzed by comparing the three groups.

The first question aims to find out whether students use Turkish to
understand the concepts in English grammar. The figure below reveals the
similarities and differences between the three groups (Beginner, Elementary and
Intermediate).
 60

Figure 4.19. When leaming English, I prefer to use Turkish to understand the
grammar concepts

Beginner Elementary

5 DOS

Intermediate

According to the figure above, 93% of the Beginner students and 84.5% of
the Elementary students 'most of the time' and 45% of the Intermediate students
'sometimes' prefer LI to understand the grammar concepts better. No intermediate
student gave "always" as a response, unlike Beginner (16.25%) level, which
proves the fact that the amount of LI needed when leaming grammar decreases as
the level goes up.
 61

Figure 4.20. When leaming English, I prefer to use my mother tongue to

understand the grammatical differences between English and Turkish.

5:5-0%

Beginner Elementary

Intermediate

The figure above reveals that the Beginner level students use LI the most
(87.5%) to compare the two languages in terms of their grammatical structures,
while only 45% of the Intermediate level students stated this. Additionally, 82.5%
of the Elementary students use LI to understand the differences between Turkish
and English. The percentage of the students who stated that they 'never' use LI in
this way is 2.5% in Beginner, 7.5% in Elementary and 10% in Intermediate level,
which displays the decrease in the need for a comparison between LI and the
target language in upper levels.
 62

Figure 4.21. When studying reading, / prefer to use Turkish to translate the text to
understand it better.

IOC
. C%

\750%

'Am

Beginner Elementary

Intermediate

According to the figure above, the percentage of the students in the

Beginner level who use LI to translate the text when practicing reading most of
the time is 88.5%; this percentage is 75% in Elementary and 30% in Intermediate
levels. On the other hand, the percentage of the students who stated that they
almost never use LI in this situation is 11.25% in Beginner, 29% in Elementary
and 70% in Intermediate levels. This supports the fact that the students become
more reluctant to use LI to translate a text in reading practice as the level goes up.
Additionally, no Intermediate student gave "always" as a response here, similar to
the first two figures.
 63

Figure 4.22. When doing reading, I prefer to use Turkish to understand the
content of the text.

t
Beginner Elementary

Intermediate

This figure shows that most of the Beginner and Elementary level students
need and use L I in reading to understand the text (Beginner - 91.5% and
Elementary - 67.5%). Only 35% of the Intermediate students agreed that they use
LI in this situation, while 65% of them stated that they almost never use Turkish
to understand a text better. Here, no intermediate student chose 'always' as an
option.
 64

Figure 4.23. When doing listening in the class, I prefer to use Turkish to translate
what is said in order to help me understand what I listen to.

Beginner Elementary

50 . X %

Intermediate

According to the figure above, when doing listening, most of the Beginner
students (71.75%), nearly half of the Elementary students (55%) and only a few
Intermediate students (15%) use Turkish in listening. Here, no intermediate
student chose either 'always' or 'sometimes' as an option. This shows that there is
a huge difference between the Beginner and Intermediate levels in terms of the
need for LI in listening comprehension as almost all the students in Beginner level
use Turkish in listening, while almost none of the Intermediate students prefer
their mother tongue when practicing listening.
 65

Figure 4.24. When doing listening in the class, I prefer to ask the instructor to
translate the dialogues into Turkish if I have difficulty in understanding what I
listen to.

2G.25%

SOO
. CS'

Beginner Elementary

15X0%

0O
, D*/«

Intermediate

This figure reveals that almost no Intermediate student (85%) asks the
instructor to translate what s/he listens to into Turkish, unlike Beginner (53.75%)
and Elementary (47.5%) level students. However, no Elementary level student
preferred "always" as an alternative here, like the Intermediate level, which shows
the difference between the low and high levels. When analyzed together with the
previous item, it is clear that hardly ever do the upper level students prefer LI in
listening, while the lower levels inevitably refer to their mother tongue.
 66

Figure 4.25. When doing speaking in the class, I prefer to use Turkish to translate
what my friends and the instructor aim to tell me so that I can speak to them
correctly.

10.00%

25.00%

20^%
16

Beginner Elementary

20XC%

45,00%

Intermediate

The figure above reveals that a majority of the Intermediate students (80%)
do not prefer LI to translate what they hear when doing speaking, while this
percentage drops down to 35% in Beginner level. Almost half of the Elementary
level students (42.5%) stated that they do not use LI to translate what their
classmates or instructor says in a speaking practice. It is worth mentioning that in
this item, no Intermediate student gave either 'always' or 'usually' as a response.
 67

Figure 4.26. Before answering a question, I prefer to note what I am going to say
in Turkish first, and then / translate it into target language and give answer to the
question.

2,50%

32,50%

15.00%

1525%

Beginner
Elementary

5.C0%

30.00%

Intermediate

According to the figure above, the great majority of the Intermediate

students (95%) stated that they do not refer to their mother tongue to note down
the things they want to say in LI and translate into English before they answer a
question. However, this percentage is 56.25% in Beginner level and slightly higher
in Elementary level (67.5%). Similar to the previous item, here, no Intermediate
student chose either "always" or "sometimes" as a response; however, only 5% of
the students gave "usually" as a response. These two successive figures clearly
 68

show that the need for L I when doing speaking decreases as the level of the
students goes up.

Figure 4.27. When doing writing in the class, I prefer to use Turkish to ask the
instructor why and what I am going to write before 1 start writing.

1500%

20.00%

30.00%

Beginner Elementary

30,00%

Intermediate

This figure demonstrates that the two levels, Beginner and Elementary, are
similar in that most of the students in both levels (Beginner- 76.5% and
Elementary - 72.5%) stated that they use LI to ask their instructors the content
and the purpose of a writing task. In contrast, nearly half of the students in
Intermediate level (45%) agreed with those in the two levels with the exception of
 69

choosing "always" as a response. Here, it can be concluded that no matter what the
level is, students do need LI as a resource to help them guide in a writing task.
Not to mention that the percentage is lower in the upper level (Intermediate - 45%).

Figure 4.28. When studying vocabulary, I prefer to use Turkish to understand the
meaning of new words.

10.00%

Beginner Elementary

Intermediate

According to the figure above, the need to use LI to understand new words
increases as the level goes up (e.g. Intermediate - 60%, Elementary - 82.5% and
Beginner - 90%). It is a noteworthy fact that 15% of the Intermediate students
chose "always" as an option for this item. This shows that even in upper levels, it
is not uncommon that students require their mother tongue as a resource to help
 70

them understand the meanings of new words, especially when the increasing
complexity of the new vocabulary items in upper levels is taken into consideration.

Figure 4.29. When doing pair-work in the classroom, I prefer to use Turkish to
discuss what we are going to do.

200.?%

Beginner
Elementary

10.00%

25,03%

Intermediate

This figure shows that most of the students at all levels refer to their
mother tongue in pair-work (e.g. Intermediate - 65%, Elementary - 92.5% and
Beginner - 88.75%). However, it is unusual that this percentage is higher in
Elementary level than in Beginner level. This might be due to the fact that the
beginner students are pushed a lot more than the other levels to practice English in
every chance they get in the classroom as they need to practice more to catch up
 71

with the other levels at the end of the academic year as all levels take the same
exam (English Proficiency Exam) after studying one year at Preparatory School
(see Chapter III).

Figure 4.30. When doing group-work in the classroom, I prefer to use Turkish to
discuss what I am going to do.

17.50% 17.50%

:£0%

Beginner Elementary

35.00%

Intermediate

According to the figure above, exactly half of the Intermediate students

(50%) stated that they never use LI in group work, while the other half claimed
that they generally discuss what they are going to do in Turkish. It is noteworthy
that none of the students in Beginner and Elementary levels stated that they
 72

'neve'r use Turkish in a group-work, which shows that in lower levels, students do
require their mother tongue especially in a group discussion. Additionally, 82.5%
of the Elementary and 88.75% of the Beginner students refer to LI in group-work.

Figure 4.31. When learning English, I prefer to use Turkish to give feedback to the
instructor.

28,75%

4125

Elementary
Beginner

30,00'A

Intermediate

The figure above reveals that a majority of the students in Beginner (74.5%)
and Elementary (82.5%) levels prefer to respond to their instructors in Turkish.
Interestingly, here the percentage of Beginner students who facilitate their mother
tongue when giving feedback to their instructors is lower than that of Elementary
students, which, as mentioned before, might be due to the fact that they are
 73

pressurized to speak English more than the other levels. The percentage of the
Intermediate students who generally use LI as a feedback tool is higher than
expected (45%).

Figure 4.32. When leaming English, I prefer to use Turkish to ask questions to the
instructor if I have difficulty in understanding a point.

10 00%

3.75% IM

Beginner Elementary

30 00%
T

Intermediate

According to this figure, 60% of the Intermediate, 80% of the Elementary

and, finally, 83.75% of the Beginner students stated that they generally prefer
Turkish to ask questions for clarification, which supports the idea that students
refer to their mother tongue less as their level goes up. In addition, while 40% of
 74

the Intermediate and 7.5% of the Beginner students stated that they never use LI
to ask questions, none of the Elementary students chose "never" as a response.

Figure 4.33. When the instructor gives instructions, I prefer to ask him/her to tell
them in Turkish if I have difficulty in understanding them.

2.50%Bi1-2£% 100,0% •1LiC%

lc^%

. •- s

32,50%

,JOI>J%

Beginner Elementary

15.00%
SO .00%

20,00%

Intermediate

This figure demonstrates that the need for mother tongue to help students
understand the instructions better decreases as the level goes up (e.g. Beginner -
82.5%, Elementary - 72.5% and Intermediate - 30%). The gap between the
percentages of the Beginner and Elementary levels is small, which might be owing
 75

to the fact that the students placed in these levels had very close results from the
placement exam, which is implemented in the beginning of every academic year.

Figure 4.34. When / have difficulty in understanding the instructions given in the
exams, I prefer to ask the instructor to tell them in Turkish.

2,50%
12.50%

32.50%
40 0 0 %

30.00%

Beginner Elementary

15.00%

70.00% 10P0%

Intermediate

The figure above reveals that those who need LI for clarification of the
instructions in an exam most of the time are the Elementary level students with a
percentage of 45%. Surprisingly, when the same question was asked to the
Elementary level instructors, 100% of them stated that they never use Turkish to
give instructions in an exam. Following this, 62.5% of the Beginner level students
almost never need LI in this situation; similarly, 80% of the instructors in
 76

Beginner level stated that they almost never use Turkish when giving instructions
in an exam. Finally, 80% of the Intermediate level students stated that they hardly
ever facilitate Turkish in an exam; in the same way, their instructor stated that s/he
seldom made use of LI in this situation.

Figure 4.35. Please indicate as a percentage to what extent you prefer to use
Turkish in the classroom.

1230%

20.00%

2625%

40.00%
40.00%

Beginner Elementary

:>5.oo%

30^0%

O
i xC%

Intermediate

The results of the figure above, like almost all the results of the items in
this questionnaire, support the idea that the higher the level gets, the less the
students facilitate Turkish in the classroom. 35% of the intermediate students use
LI between 80-40%. Additionally, 67.5% of the Elementary students use their
 77

mother tongue 100-40% of the time. Lastly, 78.75% of the Beginner level students
make use of Turkish 100-40% when leaming English in the classroom.

Figure 4.36. Please indicate as a percentage to what extent your instructor prefers
to use Turkish in the classroom.

5,00%

135,00%
13,75%
22.50%

Beginner Elementary

10,00%

25011%
55,00%

Intermediate

According to the figure above, more than half of the Intermediate (65%)
and Elementary (67.5%) students claimed that their instmctors use Turkish
between 20-0% of the time, whereas 73.5% of the Beginner students stated that
their instmctors use Turkish 60-20% of the time. These results are consistent with
what the instmctors stated in terms of the amount of Turkish they use in the
classroom except for the Beginner level. The Intermediate level instmctor stated
 78

that he uses Turkish between 20-0% and 66.67% of the elementary level
instructors facilitate Turkish between 20-0%. On the other hand, 51.25% of the
Beginner level instructors make use of Turkish between 60-20 of the time, which
shows that there is a discrepancy in the two parts' results.

4.2.3 Total Results of the Instructor Questionnaires

From beginner level 20, from elementary level 6 and from intermediate
level 1, in total 27 instructors completed the questionnaire.

The first question aims to find out whether teachers use Turkish to explain
the concepts in English grammar.

Figure 4.37. When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to explain grammar
concepts.

1451%

2.96%

This figure reveals that more than half of the instructors (77.77%)
generally use Turkish to explain the grammar concepts, which is similar to the
results of the first question in the student questionnaire (73.57%). Only one of the
instructors stated that s/he uses LI 'always' when teaching grammar while no
 79

instructor stated that they 'never' use LI in this situation, which shows that the
mother tongue is a necessary tool when teaching grammar concepts.

Figure 4.38. When teaching reading, I prefer to use Turkish to help students
understand the text better.

According to the figure above, more than half of the instructors (59.53%)
stated that most of the time, they use Turkish to help students understand the text
better, while 40.74% of them stated that they almost never used LI in reading. For
the same question, a majority of the students (76.13%) stated that they use LI to
understand a text better (see Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.39. When teaching reading, I prefer to use Turkish to explain the content
of reading texts.
 80

The figure above shows that less than half of the instructors (10 out of 27)
usually prefer to use L I to explain the content of a text, whereas most of the
instructors (17 out of 27) hardly use LI in this situation. Here, like the item before,
no instructor stated that s/he always uses LI when doing reading in the classroom.
When the same question was asked to the students, a majority of them (76.43%)
stated that they use LI to understand a text better (see Figure 4.4). The results of
these two items related to the reading skill reveal an inconsistency within the
respondents as while according to the first item a majority of the instructors (16)
use LI most of the time when doing reading to help with the text, only 10 of them
stated that they usually prefer LI to help with the content of the text.

Figure 4.40. When doing listening in the class, I prefer to use Turkish to explain
what is said in order to help them catch what they listen to.

1431%

51.85%

This figure displays a 'seldom' preference of LI by the instructors in

listening practice to help students follow what they listen to. To illustrate, 33.33%
of the instructors 'never', 51.85% of them 'seldom' and only 14.81% 'sometimes'
use Turkish in this situation. This percentage is 75.57% in the student respondents
(see Figure 4.6). Additionally, no instructor uses LI 'almost all the time' as the
figure reveals.
 81

Figure 4.41. When doing speaking in the class, I prefer to use Turkish to explain
what I aim to tell them.

1852%

2553%

According to this figure, out of 27 respondents, 7 instructors never, 15

instructors seldom and finally 5 sometimes use Turkish in speaking activities.
Similarly, more than half of the students (an average of 54.29%) prefer to use LI
in speaking activities rarely (see Figures 4.8 and 4.9).

Figure 4.42. When doing writing in the class, I prefer to use Turkish to explain
why and what they are going to write before they start writing.
 82

The figure above shows that while 51.85% of the instructors do not prefer
LI much to help students understand why and what they are going to write,
47.88% occasionally prefers L I . On the other hand, 70.72% of the students stated
that they generally need LI in writing (see Figure 4.9).

Figure 4.43. When teaching vocabulary, I prefer to use Turkish to explain the
meaning of new words.

The above figure reveals that majority of the instructors (70.37%) prefer to
use Turkish to explain the meanings of new words most of the time, whereas only
a small percentage (29.63%) almost never uses LI when teaching vocabulary. This
result is parallel to that of the students, according to which 72.14% stated that they
generally use LI when leaming new words (see Figure 4.10).
 83

Figure 4.44. When I ask students to do p a i r work or group work, I prefer to use
Turkish if they have difficulty in understanding what they are going to do.

44.44%

The figure above puts forward that 55.55% of the instructors generally
switch to Turkish to help the students with the instructions when doing a group or
pair work, while 44.44% seldom does this. Here, no instructor chose "always" or
"never" as an option and an average of 87.85% of the student respondents prefer
LI in group or pair work (see Figures 4.11 and 4.12), which shows that LI is a
necessary tool to help students with the activities including group and pair work.

Figure 4.45. When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to check their
understanding.
 84

The figure above points out that most of the instructors (66.67%) uses
Turkish to check the students' understanding most of the time, while 33.34%
states the opposite. Here, the necessity of the use of LI in checking understanding
can be seen clearly.

Figure 4.46. When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to give feedback to
them.

3.70%
14,81%

48,15%

According to this figure, there is a small gap between the percentages of

the instructors who usually switch to Turkish to give feedback (48.14%) and who
seldom does this (51.85%).

Figure 4.47. When teaching English, [ p r e f e r to use Turkish to give instructions.

 85

This figure points out that a majority of the instructors (70.37%) do not
prefer Turkish when giving instructions, while only 29.63 occasionally use
Turkish to give instructions. On the other hand, 72.15% of the students expect
their instructors to explain the instruction in Turkish (see Figure 4.15), which may
create a tension in classrooms where the two parts (the instructor and the students)
disagree in such a situation.

Figure 4.48. When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to explain why the
students are doing something.

The above figure shows that there is a small gap between the percentages
of the respondents who 'usually' use Turkish to explain the rationale behind an
activity (48,15%) and the ones who 'rarely' do this (51,85%).
 86

Figure 4.49. When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to explain class rules.

14,81% i @11,11%

25,93%

44.44%

According to the figure above, more than half of the instructors (59.25%)
stated that they switch to Turkish to explain the class rules. Here, one of these
instructors stated that s/he always uses LI when explaining the class rules. This
instructor may explain the rules in the students' mother tongue to make sure that
they are fully understood. On the other hand, 40.75% of the respondents hardly
use Turkish in this situation.

Figure 4.50. When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to give instructions in
an exam.

3,70%

3,70%

2,96%
 87

The figure above puts forward that a great number of the instructors do not
prefer the use of LI to give instructions in an exam at all (85.18%), while only
14.82% uses LI occasionally. The percentage of the student respondents is very
close to that of instructors who avoid Turkish when giving exam instructions
(62.85%) (see Figure 4.16). As stated before, the reason for this might be the fact
that the policy of METU NCC regarding the instructions in the exams is very strict
and the instructors train students to understand the instructions in an exam clearly
so as to be successful in it.

Figure 4.51. When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to explain differences,
in terms of grammar, between Turkish and English.

According to this figure, only 33.33% of the instructors do not use LI to

compare Turkish with English in terms of grammar, while 60.67% indicated that
they generally refer to Turkish in this situation. Similarly, 79.99% of the students
also use their mother tongue to leam about the differences in the grammar
stmctures of the two languages.
 88

Before analyzing the results of the three successive figures below, it is

worth mentioning that all 27 instructors have taught in all three levels (beginner,
elementary and intermediate) throughout their career at METU NCC, SP7L.

Figure 4.52. Please indicate as a percentage to what extent you prefer to use
Turkish in ELT classrooms (for beginner students).

3.70%

According to the figure below, 55.55% of the instructors stated that they
rarely use Turkish in beginner level, while 44.45% stated that they occasionally
use Turkish in beginner level.

Figure 4.53. Please indicate as a percentage to what extent you prefer to use
Turkish in ELT classrooms (for elementary students).
 89

The figure above reveals that more than half of the instructors (51.85%)
never, 40.74% 'seldom' and only 7.41% (2 instructors) 'sometimes' use Turkish in
elementary level.

Figure 4.54. Please indicate as a percentage to what extent you prefer to use
Turkish in ELT classrooms (for intermediate students).

18.52%

According to the figure above, out of 27, 22 of the instructors 'never', and
5 of them 'seldom' use Turkish in intermediate level. The results of these last three
figures (see Figures 4.53, 4.54 and 4.55) support the idea that the amount of LI
used in the classroom decreases as the level goes up.

4.2.4 Results of the Instructor Questionnaires of Beginner,

Elementary and Intermediate Groups

In Beginner Group 20, in Elementary Group 6 and in Intermediate Group

1 instructor completed the questionnaire. The results of each question will be
analyzed by comparing the three groups.
 90

The first item in the questionnaire focuses on the use of the mother
tongue to explain grammar concepts.

Figure 4.55. When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to explain grammar
concepts.

Beginner Elementary

Intermediate Q1

Mean
3,00
N 1

Mean 3,00
Total
N 1

According to the results of this figure, the three levels are similar in that a
majority of the instructors sometimes use LI to explain grammar concepts
(beginner- 60%, elementary- 66.67%, and the instructor in the intermediate level
chose "sometimes"). On the other hand, no instructor stated that s/he "never" uses
Turkish to explain grammar concepts, which shows that at METU NCC SFL, LI
is facilitated as a useful tool when teaching grammar regardless of the level
instructors teach.
 91

Figure 4.56. When teaching reading, I prefer to use Turkish to help students
understand the text better

m m

Elementary
Beginner

Intermediate Q2

Mean 4,00
N 1

Mean 4,00
Total
N 1

According to the figure above, when asked whether they use Turkish
when they teach reading to help students understand the text better, 70% of the
beginner level instructors stated that they 'sometimes', while 5% of them said they
'never' refer to the mother tongue. This situation is different in elementary and
intermediate levels as most of these instructors (83.33% in elementary level and
the intermediate instructor) stated that they 'seldom' use Turkish when teaching
reading.
 92

Figure 4.57. When teaching reading, I prefer to use Turkish to explain the content
of reading texts.

t ^ i %

Beginner Elementary

Intermediate Q3

Mean 4,00

N 1

Mean 4,00
Total
N 1

The figure above shows an increase in the percentages of using Turkish in

reading in elementary level compared to the previous item (see Figure 4.56). To
exploit, 33% of the elementary level instructors 'sometimes' prefer Turkish to
explain the content of reading texts while in the previous item only 16.675 of them
'sometimes' preferred LI to help students understand the text better. This may
show that the elementary level instructors are reluctant to use LI when guiding the
students into the text, whereas they are more eager to use it to explain the content
of the text. Beginner level has a reverse situation; that is, here, the percentage of
the instructors who 'sometimes' use LI in reading falls down from 70% to 37%.
 93

Additionally, 55% of the beginner instructors stated that they 'seldom' prefer
Turkish in reading to explain the content of the texts. The intermediate level
instructor is stable in that similar to the previous item (see Figure 4.56), s/he
seldom uses L I .

Figure 4.58. When doing listening in the class, I prefer to use Turkish to explain
what is said in order to help them catch what they listen to.

16.67%

66.67% 16.67%

Beginner
Elementary

Intermediate Q4

Mean 4,00

N 1

Mean 4,00
Total
N 1

In this item regarding whether the instructors use Turkish to explain what
is said in listening, there is a consensus among the instructors from all three levels
in that they hardly prefer LI when doing listening (beginner- 60% seldom,
elementary- 66.67% never and intermediate level instructor- seldom). This shows
that the instructors tend to use Turkish at a minimum rate particularly when doing
 94

listening, which plays an important role in exposing the students to the target
language.

Figure 4.59. When doing speaking in the class, I prefer to use Turkish to explain
what I aim to tell them.

Beginner Elementary

Intermediate Q5

Mean 4,00

Mean 4,00
Total

According to the results of the figure above, 50% of the beginner, 66.67%
of the elementary and the intermediate level instructor stated that they 'seldom'
use LI when doing speaking in the classroom. The only level whose instructors
'sometimes' use Turkish (25%) in speaking to clarify the task is beginner level.
This supports the idea that the need for the mother tongue increases as the level
goes up, which is parallel to the results of the student questionnaires (see parts
4.2.1 and 4.2.2).
 95

Figure 4.60. When doing writing in the class, I prefer to use Turkish to explain
why and what they are going to write before they start writing.

16 6 7 %

33.33%

50.00%

Beginner Elementary

Intermediate Q6

Mean 4,00

N 1

Mean 4,00
Total
N 1

This figure reveals that Turkish is used to explain the instructions of a

writing task more in beginner level than the others (60%). In the elementary level,
it is 'seldom' used by 50% of the instructors and 'never' used by 33.33%, while in
the intermediate level it is 'seldom' used by the instructor. In the same way as the
previous figure (see Figure 59), here the use of LI increases as the level goes
down.
 96

Figure 4.61. When teaching vocabulary, I prefer to use Turkish to explain the
meaning of new words.

Beginner Elementary

Intermediate Q7

Mean 4,00

N 1

Mean 4,00
Total
N 1

The above figure points out that in the upper levels, the use of Turkish
when teaching vocabulary is lower. To illustrate, in elementary level, Turkish is
'never' used by 66.67% of the instructors, while it is 'seldom' preferred by the
intermediate level instructor. These results may show that the beginner students
need more help of the mother tongue particularly with new vocabulary items.
While in upper levels, as students have already got used to leaming new
vocabulary, there is almost no need for Turkish.
 97

Figure 4.62. When I ask students to do p a i r work or group work, I prefer to use
Turkish if they have difficulty in understanding what they are going to do.

/,v f - i

Beginner Elementary

Intermediate Q8

Mean 3,00

N 1

Mean 3,00
Total
N 1

According to the figure above, the use of Turkish to clarify the

instructions before a pair or group work is less in beginner and elementary levels
(beginner- 40% 'seldom' and 35% 'never' and elementary- 16.67% 'seldom' and
83.33% 'never') than in intermediate level, whose instructor uses sometimes uses
LI to help students understand the instructions in a pair or group work, which may
be due to the time restrictions or the preference of the instructor when giving
instructions.
 98

Figure 4.63. When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to check their
understanding.

Beginner Elementary

Intermediate Q9

Mean 4,00

N 1

Mean 4,00
Total
N 1

The figure above shows that most of the instructors in beginner level
(65%) uses Turkish most of the time to check the students' understandings,
whereas a great number of the elementary level instructors (83.33%) 'seldom'
prefer LI in this situation. The intermediate instructor agrees with the elementary
instructors in that s/he seldom facilitates Turkish to check whether students
understand the topic. Here, it might be possible that the beginner level instructors
want to guarantee the students' understanding of a topic more. Moreover, the
results of this item also support the idea that the use of the mother tongue
increases as the level goes down.
 99

Figure 4.64. When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to give feedback to
them.

4k
40.00%

Beginner EJementary

Intermediate Q10

Mean 3,00

N 1

Mean 3,00
Total
N 1

This figure shows that instructors from all three levels use Turkish to give
feedback to the students (beginner- 55%, elementary- 16.67% and intermediate
instructor- 'sometimes'). The level in which LI is used to give feedback the least
is elementary with a percentage of 83.33%.
 100

Figure 4.65. When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to give instructions.

20 00%

30.00%

51'00%

Beginner Elementary

Intermediate Q11

Mean 4,00

N 1

Mean 4,00
Total
N 1

According to the results of this figure a decrease in the percentages which

reveal an occasional use of Turkish to give instructions as the level goes down can
be observed. To illustrate, 35% of the beginner and 16.67% of the elementary
level instructors 'sometimes', while the intermediate level instructor 'seldom' uses
Turkish to give instructions. On the other hand, the general tendency in all three
levels towards the use of LI in this situation is negative (beginner- 65%,
elementary- 83.33% and intermediate- 'seldom').
 101

Figure 4.66. When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to explain why the
students are doing something.

Beginner Elementary

Intermediate Q12

Mean 4,00

N 1

Mean 4,00
Total
N 1

According to the figure above, there is a common negative attitude

towards the use of LI to explain why the students are doing something among the
instructors from all three levels. To exploit, 40% of the beginner, 83.33% of the
elementary level and the intermediate instructor 'hardly ever' use Turkish to
explain the rationale behind a task.
 102

Figure 4.67. When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to explain class rules.

10c.0% 1
1657%

33.33%
20.00%

16.67%

55.00%

Beginner Elementary

Intermediate Q13

Mean 4,00

N 1

Mean 4,00
Total
N 1

The figure above reveals that most of the beginner level instructors
generally refer to Turkish to explain the class rules (70%). This might be due to
the fact that the class rules are introduced in the beginning of the semester, and the
students are new to the target language in contrast to the upper levels, where the
students are already accustomed to the target language. This is why 66.66% of the
elementary instructors together with the intermediate instructor stated that they
'hardly ever' facilitate LI in this situation.
 103

Figure 4.68. When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to give instructions in
an exam.

100,00%

Beginner Elementary

Intermediate Q14

Mean 4,00

N 1

Mean 4,00
Total
N 1

The figure above points out that 55% of the beginner, 100% of the
elementary and the intermediate level instructor never uses Turkish to give
instructions in an exam. As stated before, the reason for this might be the fact that
the policy of METU NCC regarding the instructions in the exams is very strict and
the instructors train students during class time to understand the instructions in an
exam clearly so as to be successful in it. Exceptionally, some of the beginner level
instructors (20%) might have to refer to LI in this situation depending on the
needs of their students.
 104

Figure 4.69. When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to explain differences,
in terms of grammar, between Turkish and English.

15.00%

2003%

0Li m

Beginner Elementary

Intermediate Q15

Mean 3,00

N 1

Mean 3,00
Total
N 1

The results of this figure show that a majority of the beginner level
instructors (75%) use LI to compare the two languages with regards to grammar.
This might be because the students in this level need to take their mother tongue as
a basis to compare it to the target language and thus leam it better. Like beginner,
in the intermediate level, Turkish is sometimes used by the instmctor, which may
be due to the complex advanced grammar stmctures taught in this level. In
contrast, 66.67% of the elementary instmctors 'seldom' use LI for this purpose.
 105

Figure 4.70. Please indicate as a percentage to what extent you prefer to use
Turkish in ELT classrooms

66.67%

Beginner Elementary

Intermediate Q18

Mean
5,00
N 1
Mean 5,00
Total
N 1

This figure reveals that the intermediate level instructor uses Turkish
between 20 and 0 percent of the time, which is consistent with what most of the
students (65%) in this level stated (see Figure 4.36). A majority of the elementary
level instructors stated that they use Turkish between 20-0%. This is also
consistent with most of the elementary level students' response (67%) for the same
item (see Figure 4.36). Finally, less than half of the beginner level instructors
(40%) stated that they prefer Turkish between 60-40%, for which the percentage
of the students is only 13.75 (see Figure 4.36). This might be a sign of discrepancy
within this item. Similarly, while 15% of the beginner instructors stated that they
use LI between 20-0%, this percentage is 37.5% according to the students'
 106

questionnaire. Another 40% of the beginner instructors stated that they use
Turkish between 40-20%, which is similar to the students' response (36%).

4.3 Results of the Interviews

In this study, unstructured focus group interviews (see Appendices 5,6,9

and 11) with both student and instructor participants were employed in order to
cross-check the questionnaire data as well as to collect more detailed explanations
for the instructors' and students' attitudes concerning the use of the mother tongue
in English lessons. The focus groups comprise participants from each level
(beginner, elementary and intermediate) in order to be able to compare and
contrast the opinions of the instructors and the students from different levels.

4.3.1 Results of the Interviews Conducted with Instructor

Participants

Two focus group interviews were conducted with a total of 8 instructors.

The first interview was carried out with 4 instructors (two males and two females)
teaching in beginner level who had different teaching experiences varying from 2
to 10 years. The second interview was conducted with 3 instructors teaching in
elementary and 1 instructor in intermediate level (one male and three females)
whose teaching experiences vary from 5 to 10 years. As it was a focus group
interview, and there was only one instructor in intermediate level, the instructor
participants from the two upper levels (elementary and intermediate) were
interviewed within one group. These instructors' names were changed for privacy.
The results of the two focus group interviews will be given under certain themes
which recurred during the interviews.
 107

4.3.1.1 Results of the Interviews Conducted with Beginner Level

Instructors

The first recurring theme during the interview conducted with 4 beginner
level instructors was the perceptions of the teachers regarding the use of LI in the
classroom. A general attitude of these four teachers (2 males (Taner and Ersin) and
2 females (Zeliha and Gorkem) towards the use of Turkish in the classroom was
positive; however, they clearly suggested a judicious use of it depending on the
level of the students. They also made it clear that as the level goes up, so does the
amount of English:

Ersin: It is OK to use Turkish in specific situations such as when checking

understanding especially after teaching vocabulary, but it certainly should not be
used 100% of the time.

Taner: I think it is necessary to use Turkish f o r lower levels. Particularly with

zero beginners, we have to use Turkish. Turkish is needed f o r beginner level
students especially when teaching vocabulary. Here, the level is an important
factor. For example, when teaching vocabulary to intermediate or high elementary
levels, Turkish is needed less.

Zeliha: I think it is necessary in general. I mean in all levels but f o r beginner

levels we need it more. However, as the level gets higher, the amount of Turkish
gets lower.

Gorkem: ... Plus, I think comparing the two languages in the classroom is as
important as checking understanding so that the student can notice the differences
between his/her mother tongue and the target language. ... Even when 1 teach
grammar in English, there are some high achievers who translate the things I have
 108

just said to their peers and sometimes they get me wrong and I need to intervene
and explain the whole thing in Turkish to prevent any misunderstanding.

As a sub-theme of these instructors' perceptions about the use of LI in the

classroom, another important theme they brought up was the guilt they felt when
using Turkish in the classroom. While one of them (Gorkem) stated how she got
rid of her feeling of guilt after speaking to her colleagues about it, another one
(Zeliha) referred to her own experiences as a learner of French:

Zeliha: I have been using Turkish in a certain amount f o r all these years, but then
I felt guilty about it until last year because we had been strictly told not to use it.
Last year, when I was learning French (by the way I am an intermediate level
student), I realized how my teacher's use of Turkish made me f e e l comfortable and
made everything easy and this changed my point of view and made me realize that
the use of Turkish is definitely necessary.

Gorkem: When I started teaching here, our trainers used to pressurize us not to
use Turkish in the classroom. That meant using 100% Turkish in the classroom. I
felt just like Zeliha did, guilty, and started to talk to my colleagues about it. 1
asked them whether they used Turkish, too or was it me only who used it in the
classroom. I felt like I was doing something wrong. But then I realized that I was
not alone.

Ersin: I do feel guilty especially when 1 teach grammar using Turkish more than I
should upon the request of my students.

Taner: I don't f e e l guilty at all. But I think there is a contradiction here. If the
students get used to being taught in Turkish, then they can be addicted to it and
ask f o r the Turkish explanation all the time even when they could understand the
 109

subject in English. Despite this, I don't feel guilty using Turkish no matter what
level 1 teach since sometimes you look f o r a shortcut. I mean it is just easier to
teach something in 10 minutes instead of being stuck at a certain point f o r half an
hour.

Zeliha: / remember reading about a native teacher of English complaining not

knowing the students' native language desperately wanting to save time by means
of their mother tongue.

How these four instructors perceived using Turkish in the classroom is

parallel to the results of the beginner instructor questionnaires (see Figure 4.70).
They have a positive attitude towards using LI in the classroom to a certain degree.
Moreover, they agree on the fact that level does matter in determining the amount
of LI to be used in the classroom. Finally, they all felt guilty particularly
especially during the first years of their teaching experience except for Taner, who
underlined the tendency of the students towards an addiction to LI in the
classroom when used excessively.

Another recurring theme during the interview was the situations where
Turkish is used by the instructors in the classroom. There are three situations in
which these teachers use Turkish most: when teaching writing, when building
rapport and when drawing attention for classroom management:

Zeliha: / use Turkish especially when doing writing and if the students write non-
sense, the best way f o r me to warn them and make them see their mistakes is to
translate what they have written into Turkish. In this way, they understand their
mistakes better.
 110

Ersin: I use Turkish especially when I want to add some humor to whatever I
teach. I believe this helps me build better rapport between me and my students.

Gorkem: I use Turkish in classroom management a lot. When I need to warn the
students or draw their attention, using Turkish is definitely more effective than
English as it makes it easier to catch the students' attention in a very short time.

Still another theme was the situations where the students tend to use
Turkish most. Three of the instructors (Taner, Zeliha and Ersin) agreed on
"grammar" as the situation in which students use Turkish most. Other common
situations are vocabulary and checking understanding, which can also be seen in
the results of the beginner student questionnaire (see Figures 4.19, 4.28, 4.32 and
4.33):

Gorkem: When they want to check their understanding.

T a n e r , Zeliha a n d Ersin: Grammar.

Taner: The vocabulary items can be taught using only English as the students'
corpus improves, but when it comes to grammar, especially beginner students ask
f o r the Turkish explanations after being taught in English.

Ersin: Beginner students have trouble in understanding the explanations of the

abstract words, so I believe we need to use Turkish particularly f o r abstract or
complex words.

The situations where teachers allow their students to use Turkish in the
classroom were one of the recurring themes during the interview. Here, the
common belief among the instructors was to encourage the students to use English
 Ill

in the classroom as much as possible and to make them understand that they can
only use their mother tongue at a minimum level as a tool, not as an end itself:

Ersin: I think when we teach a sufficient amount of classroom language to the

students, they can use English whenever it is necessary. Maybe we need to get our
students used to it. There are some places where they get stuck and switch back to
Turkish f o r help. Actually the students use their mother tongue as a tool in such
situations and I think this is very effective. / think we need to encourage our
students to use more English in the classroom.

Taner: I agree with Ersin in that we need to use Turkish, but in a minimum
amount. I push my students into using English most of the time. It might be a waste
of time but sometimes they need to be pushed.

Finally, the instructors stated some useful strategies for encouraging the
use of English in the classroom. These strategies include making the student draw
what s/he needs to say on the board, ignoring whatever the student says in Turkish
and motivating the student:

Taner: I ask my students to come up to the board and draw what they need to say
instead of using Turkish. However, there are some times when the students create
chaos in the classroom and at these times I give up and allow the student to use
Turkish to solve the problem, but then I ask them to switch back to English.
Otherwise, both the students and the teacher depend on Turkish. Then, you realize
that the amount of Turkish in the beginning has increased from 30% to 50%.

Zeliha: I mostly pretend that I don't understand what the student is saying if s/he
speaks Turkish.
 112

Gorkem: Encouraging also works a lot. I tell that I will not respond to their
questions unless they try to ask it in English.

Ersin: If I have some students with a high level of intrinsic motivation in my

classroom, I try to make them speak as they can be good models f o r the other
students to envy and get motivated. Sure, this is a matter of chance. I mean, if one
has a majority of demotivated low-level students, then these students may affect
the others too.

4.3.1.2 Results of the Interviews Conducted with Elementary and

Intermediate Level Instructors

The recurring themes during the focus group interview with elementary and
intermediate instructors (1 male from intermediate (Eren) and three females from
elementary level (Lale, Pelin and Giilin) were similar to the ones which recurred
during the interview with beginner level instructors. The first recurring theme was
the perceptions of the teachers regarding the use of Turkish in the classroom. The
upper level instructors also have a positive attitude towards the use of the mother
tongue in the classroom. However, like the beginner level instructors, all of them
strictly pointed out that there should be some limits to it, which can also be seen in
the results of the elementary and intermediate instructors questionnaire (see Figure
4.70):

Lale: There are mixed level students in my classroom. To check and guarantee my
students' understanding, I need to use Turkish...
 113

E r e n : I also have a positive attitude towards it as long as it is used as a technique.

Turning using Turkish into a habit would create a serious problem, though.
Instead, Turkish should be used as a solution to some problems...

Pelin: I don't have a strict policy about this issue and I also have a positive
attitude towards it. I already use Turkish in my classroom. This is inevitable
especially when 100% of the students and the teacher are native speakers of
Turkish. However, we need to decide on the limits...

Giilin: It is unrealistic not to use Turkish. Instead of spending too much time, we
can use Turkish in certain situations. However, if students get accustomed to using
Turkish, there might be some problems...

Another theme that recurred during the interview was the situations in
which LI can be used or should be avoided. Some of the situations where Turkish
can be used according to these instructors can be sunmiarized as when doing
writing (especially in the brainstorming stage), when teaching the meaning of a
complicated word or a subject in grammar to save time, and when warning the
students:

Lale: I use Turkish mostly when doing writing, especially in the brainstorming
stage. I think this stage should be in Turkish as this is something related to
creativity. It is difficult to develop ideas in English particularly f o r elementary
level students. I think they can talk to each other in Turkish to decide on what to
write about. I ask my students to discuss before we start writing. They do it in
Turkish and I don't intervene... F o r instance, I use Turkish when I notice that
students did not really understand the meaning of a word or a subject in grammar.
 114

E r e n : I use Turkish when I tell my students off. You switch to Turkish when you
are angry anyway as you are not a native speaker of English. This is also true f o r
the students and it is not something we can restrict... F o r example, it can be used
to explain a word which would take too much time to explain in English or to
check students' understanding.

Pelin: You try to explain a word and it takes 10 mins. , but it may take just a
second when you give the Turkish meaning of the word. It is a waste of time trying
to explain the words in English most of the time, but of course, we should know
our limits and try not to go extreme with using Turkish.

As for the situations in which Turkish should be avoided as it might create

certain problems, the instructors agreed upon defining a policy in the beginning of
the academic year and adhering to it throughout the year to prevent the students
from getting addicted to using LI. Some of the situations in which LI should be
avoided are when teaching words whose Turkish meanings may cause
misunderstanding, and when teaching vocabulary particularly in upper levels;

E r e n : ... However, in order to make students practice what they learn, it should be
avoided. The students can only use Turkish under certain circumstances given by
the teacher. I mean if you define a policy about using Turkish in the classroom at
the beginning and the students can have the general rules about when and when
not to use Turkish in the classroom, there will not be any problems. Otherwise,
students would want to use Turkish most of the time and when you ask them to
switch to English, you may get a reaction against it.

Giilin: ... F o r example, sometimes there is no equivalent of the words in Turkish

or you just cannot remember the Turkish equivalent of a word. F o r instance
"phenomena" has a different meaning in Turkish and teaching the Turkish
 115

meaning may cause misunderstanding. That's why vocabulary should be taught in

English and the students should check the word in a dictionary when they don't
understand what it means. ... Still, using Turkish when teaching vocabulary
creates some problems. In beginner levels, I think it might be OK to use Turkish
when teaching vocabulary, but as the level goes up, the amount of English should
also increase because in high levels like intermediate, giving the Turkish meanings
of the words makes it more difficult f o r both the teacher and the students. That's
why I am against using Turkish when teaching vocabulary especially in upper
levels.

Lale: Students ask f o r confirmation anyway. They want to confirm the Turkish
meanings of the words, as well, but as some words have a different meaning in our
language, giving the Turkish meanings might cause negative transfer.

E r e n : ... Plus, there is something that the students should know about leaming
vocabulary: Knowing the Turkish equivalent of a word is only 5% effective in
using that word. Actually, there is no point in knowing the Turkish equivalent of a
word. If students are aware of this, then I think there is no problem in giving the
Turkish meaning of a word.

Giilin: ... When explaining the word in English, you also create a context. F o r
example, you can use a child's insistence on ice cream to explain "insist". Using a
context when teaching vocabulary makes leaming more permanent. I cannot
create a context f o r every word I teach, but I try to use English as much as I can.

Yet another recurring theme was the situations where the students tend to
use Turkish most. According to what they stated during the interview, although
they have a general positive perception of using LI in the classroom, these upper
level instructors are very strict when it comes to the students' use of LI. Except
 116

for one instructor (Eren), they prefer not to allow their students to use Turkish
when doing pair of group work, when doing speaking, and when doing grammar.

On the other hand, the results of the elementary and intermediate student
questionnaires contradict what these instructors maintain about allowing students
to use LI in the classroom except for speaking (see Figure 4.26). For example, for
pair and group work, the intermediate instructor (Eren) says "/ definitely don't
allow my students to use Turkish when doing p a i r or group work no matter what
skill we are practicing. This is something related to the level of the students. If I
know that the students have enough knowledge of target vocabulary items, I don't
allow Turkish, or if necessary, I pre-teach the words. However, I allow Turkish
when the students want to check their understanding." According to the student
questionnaire results, more than half of the students (65%) claim that they use
Turkish in pair or group work (see Figure 4.29). As for grammar, one of the
elementary level instructors stated that (Lale) "/ don't allow Turkish when doing
grammar because they translate the structures wrongly. For instance I taught the
past perfect tense and they immediately f o u n d out a similar tense in Turkish. Now,
they all use the past perfect tense wrongly because they don't know how to use the
similar tense in Turkish, either". However, the results of the student questionnaire
show that a majority of the elementary students (84.5%) uses LI in grammar most
of the time (see Figure 4.19). except for these discrepancies, finally, what the other
elementary instructors stated about speaking is in parallel to the results of the
student questionnaire (see Figure 4.26):

Pelin: I don't allow Turkish when doing speaking....

Giilin: I don't allow Turkish in the discussion parts of the lesson. I ask the ones
who want to participate to speak in English and I am successful at doing this in my
 117

current classroom. When they cannot really say what they want to say in English, I
let them speak at the very end of the discussion.

It is worth mentioning here that most of these instructors agree on one

problem in managing the students' use of LI in the classroom: No matter how
hard they try to limit the use of LI, it is not always possible to prevent students
from facilitating it, which might explain the discrepancy between the results of the
student questionnaire and the interview. One of the elementary level instructors
pointed this out as:

Pelin: ..., but I hear them using it when doing grammar or vocabulary even if I
don't let them.

The last recurring theme during the interview was the strategies about
preventing the use of LI in the classroom suggested by the upper level instructors.
Similar to the beginner level instructors, here, encouraging or motivating the
students can be observed as one of the useful strategies:

Lale: I used to punish the ones who speak Turkish by making them put a very
small amount of money into the money-box, but I cannot do this anymore. I think
this is because of our hectic programme. When you f a l l behind the programme,
you cannot apply such tactics systematically. That's why, as Eren said, we need to
decide on some rules at the beginning and stick to them.

Giilin: I think praising the students is a useful strategy when not used so often. I
use well-done, but very rarely: when really deserved by the student and it works
really well.
 118

4.3.2 Results of the Interviews Conducted with Student

Participants

Two focus group interviews were conducted with randomly selected 7

students representing different levels (3 students from beginner level, 2 students
from elementary level and 1 student from intermediate level). The first interview
was carried out with 3 beginner level students (two males and one female). The
second interview was conducted with 3 students; 2 elementary and 1 intermediate
level student (two females and one male). As it was a focus group interview, and
there was only one student in intermediate level, the student participants from the
two upper levels (elementary and intermediate) were interviewed within one group.
These students' names were changed for privacy. The results of the two focus
group interviews will be given under certain themes which recurred during the
interviews.

4.3.2.1 The Total Results of the Interviews Conducted with

Beginner Level Students

The first recurring theme during the interview with three beginner level
students (two males (Bekir and Ismail) and one female (Seda) was their use of
Turkish in the classroom. All three agreed on the fact that they used Turkish most
of the time, which supports the results of the student questionnaire, which show
that the beginner level students use Turkish more than the upper levels (see Figure
4.35). One of the students stated that the amount of Turkish she used decreased
towards the end of the semester, which shows the improvement in this student's
competence in speaking:
 119

Bekir: Most of the time, I use Turkish in the classroom.

Ismail: I often feel the need to use Turkish in the classroom, which is very normal.

Seda: The amount of Turkish I use in the classroom has decreased towards the
end of the semester.

While agreeing on the fact that Turkish is needed in the classroom, like
their instructors (see Part 4.3.1.1.), these beginner level students also stated that
there should be a judicious use of Turkish in the classroom:

Bekir:... However, I think that using Turkish is not beneficial in that it not only
hinders our improvement in listening, but also prevents us f r o m speaking English
fluently. Even when the students cannot understand something in the lesson, they
can work on it and ask the teacher to explain it in Turkish outside the classroom,
but the classroom is the only place where we can practice English, let alone
outside.

Seda:... I think using Turkish f r o m time to time is not a problem because we need
Turkish to understand especially complicated subjects. I also think that using
Turkish excessively is not beneficial as it can prevent us to learn English.

Another recurring theme was the situations and the reasons why these three
students preferred Turkish in the classroom. The common situation they stated was
the one in which they needed a detailed explanation for a new subject or they
wanted to express their opinions about something too complicated to express in
English:
 120

Ismail: I feel like saying the things which I want to say about that subject in
Turkish unintentionally.... The reason why I use Turkish is that it has become a
habit f o r me and I believe that I can get rid of this habit and everything will be
better f o r me.

Seda: I only use Turkish to ask f o r a detailed explanation f o r something or to

explain something in the classroom.

Here, one of the students expressed his being affected by his class mates
negatively when he wanted to speak English in the classroom:

Bekir: The reason why I use Turkish is that my classmates also use Turkish and I
think that if I am the only one who speaks English, it will be weird as all my
friends speak Turkish in the classroom.

Moreover, one of the students (Ismail) agreed with a beginner level teacher
who was also interviewed (see Part 4.3.1.1) on that there is a risk in using too
much Turkish, which may turn into a habit by stating that "The reason why I use
Turkish is that it has become a habit f o r me and I believe that I can get rid of this
habit and everything will be better f o r me." This student also supported the
beginner level teachers' opinions (see Part 4.3.1.1) about motivation: "...when my
teacher asks me and pushes me to switch to English and when I realize that I can
also say the same things in English, I get motivated more".

Finally, these three students from beginner level brought up the issue of the
teacher's language. Although they were beginner level students who find English
more difficult to understand compared to the upper levels, they were aware of the
fact that the more English they are exposed to, the better their improvement will be:
 121

Bekir: I think the teacher should speak English all the time. This might cause the
lesson to move more slowly, but it will be more beneficial f o r the students.
Ismail: I don't like the teacher's using Turkish in the classroom. The medium of
education in our university is English and we have to listen to it and understand it.
Of course this does not happen with a flick of the fingers, but the more the teacher
uses Turkish, the more I get to use it too and this affects my fluency in English

Seda: I think, our teacher should sometimes use Turkish but the amount of English
should be at maximum level.

4.3.2.2 Results of the Interviews Conducted with Elementary and

Intermediate Level Students

The recurring themes during the focus group interview with elementary and
intermediate students (1 male from intermediate (Barkm) and two females from
elementary level (Belma and Ilkin) were similar to the ones which recurred during
the interview with beginner level students. The first theme was related to their use
of Turkish in the classroom. The common opinion of these upper level students
was that they use Turkish especially when they did not know the English
counterpart of a word or when they were not able to express themselves in the
target language:

Belma:...when I try to explain the things which are difficult f o r me to express in

English, I refer to Turkish.

B a r k m : When I speak English, and if I don't know a word, I use its Turkish
counterpart.
 122

ilkin: I feel the need to switch back to Turkish when I cannot remember a word in
English or when I cannot express my opinions.

Another theme that recurred during the interview was the reasons why
these students used Turkish in the classroom. Here, two of the students from both
levels indicated that Turkish provided them with a comfort zone especially when
they had difficulty in expressing themselves.

Barkin: The reason why I don't express myself in English is being too lazy to do it;
plus, having an impatient conversation partner while I am trying to f i n d the right
words.

Ilkin: I can say that it is comfortable to switch to Turkish when we have difficulty
in expressing ourselves.

Still another recurring theme was the effects of using Turkish in the
classroom. Here, the students agreed with their teachers (see Part 4.3.1.2) on the
fact that there should be some limits to using Turkish in the classroom. The
students also demonstrated a positive attitude towards utilizing Turkish in the
classroom like the beginner level students (see Part 4.3.2.1):

Ilkin:... I cannot say it is beneficial or harmful. It does not affect us much, neither
does using English. Sometimes we feel reluctant to speak English because of the
atmosphere of the classroom. That's why speaking Turkish is easier and makes me
feel more comfortable.

Belma: Actually, I think Turkish doesn't affect us badly if we use it as a tool to

learn something. However, using Turkish excessively affects the improvement of
our English negatively.
 123

B a r k m : I don't think using Turkish in the classroom is beneficial, but as long as

there aren 't too many exceptions and it doesn 't turn into a habit, I don't think it is
going to be harmful, either.

The last recurring theme was their teachers' use of Turkish in the
classroom. Here, the students supported both what their instructors and their peers
in beginner level stated in the interviews (see Parts 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.1.2). According
to these upper level students, Turkish should not be used excessively by the
instructor. It can also be seen here that as the level goes up, the amount of Turkish
decreases.

Belma: I think the teacher shouldn 't use Turkish a lot as this decreases the level of
motivation to speak English. However, s/he can utilize Turkish when s/he realizes
that the students do not seem to understand a topic.

Ilkin: Our teacher switches f r o m Turkish to English or vice versa at times, but we
don't notice his code-switching much in the classroom. Frankly, his using Turkish
is Ok. with me.

B a r k m : Our teacher uses English as much as possible and he warns us whenever

we switch to Turkish. Except f o r some small talks, there is not much Turkish in our
classroom.
 124

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Presentation

In the previous section, the data collected was presented and summarized.
This last chapter of the study presents discussion of the findings, limitation of the
study and implications and suggestions regarding both pedagogical and research
issues.

This study investigated the attitudes of both students and instructors at

METU NCC, SFL English preparatory classes towards the use of the mother
tongue, in this case Turkish, in the classroom. First, two questionnaires for both
instructors and students from three different levels (beginner, elementary and
intermediate) were implemented. Then, two focus group interviews with a limited
number of students and instructors from all three levels were conducted in order to
get a deeper insight into the perceptions of the both sides of the participants
regarding the use of LI in the classroom.

5.2 Discussion

This study aimed to find out the METU NCC, the School of Foreign
Languages instructors' and students' perceptions of the use of LI in class, the
reasons why they prefer or avoid LI in class, the situations in which LI is
preferred most, and finally whether the proficiency level affects the amount of LI
used in class. To achieve these aims, two questionnaires (one for the students and
one for the instructors) were implemented to three different levels (Beginner,
Elementary and Intermediate). Triangulation was ensured by means of four
 125

interviews conducted with both instructor and student participants from different
levels.

Table 5.2.1 Results of T-test Regarding the Relationship between Beginner Level

Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-

95% Confidence tailed)

Interval of the
Difference

Upper

Pair Instructors -
1,2736558 2,857 26 ,008
1 students

Table 5.2.2 Results of T-test Regarding the Relationship between Elementary Level
Instructors and Students' Perceptions of LI

Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-

95% Confidence tailed)

Interval of the

Difference

Upper

Pair Instructors -
1,95173 6,476 26 ,000
1 Students

Table 5.2.3 Results of T-test Regarding the Relationship between Intermediate

Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-

95% Confidence tailed)

Interval of the

Difference

Upper

Pair Instructors -
1,46437 3,866 19 ,001
1 Students
 126

The findings of the questionnaires and the interviews (see Parts 4.2 and 4.3)
for the first research question pointed out that both instructors and students
regardless of their levels (beginner, elementary or intermediate) have a positive
attitude towards the use of the mother tongue in the classroom. As the results of
the T-tests above implemented for all three levels suggest, despite not being vital,
there is a small difference between the attitudes of the students and the
instructors, which naturally results from the instructors' feeling more obliged to
use L2 to provide the input (Beginner-Sig.=, 008<P.05; Elementary- Sig.=,
000<P.05; Intermediate- Sig.=, 001<P.05). Moreover, as the findings of the
interviews indicate (see Part 4.3), like most researchers in the field of ELT
(Ferrer, n.d.; Harbord, 1992; Cook, 2001; Butzkamm, 2003; Burden, 2000), both
the student and the instructor participants in this study supported a systematic
and judicious use of the mother tongue worrying that when used excessively, it
might turn into a habit. This shows that like many other different contexts, LI is
seen as a necessary tool to leam the target language at METU NCC, SFL, too. A
shift from the strict policies of certain methods regarding the banishment of the
mother tongue in the classroom to the policies of modem methods rooted in the
Communicative Approach which accepts the need for a systematic utilization of
LI in the classroom can be seen in the findings of this study like various studies
conducted in different parts of the world varying from Iran to Puerto Rico
(Mahmoudi, 2011; Al-Nofaie, 2010; Tang, 2002; Schweers, 1999; Anh, 2010;
Sharma, 2006).

The second research question aimed at finding out the reasons why
instmctors and students prefer or not prefer LI in the classroom. The focus group
interviews (see Part 4.3) provided this question with certain findings. According
to the interviews conducted with instmctors from three different levels (see Part
4.3.1), the primary reason for the preference of LI by the instmctors was to
check and guarantee students' understandings. This concem of the instmctor
 127

participants in this study is also shared by many researchers in the field of ELT
(Guest and Pachler, 2001; Macaro, 2001; Butzkamm, 2003; Pan and Pan, 2010).
According to these researchers, the target language may create a barrier to
understanding and to leaming at some points. As Butzkamm (2003) states, when
language leamers come across a new piece of language, they would immediately
like to know its precise meaning and want to make use of it by comprehending it
in every aspect. Another reason was that L I could be a solution to certain
problems in the classroom. This purpose of using L I as a problem-solution tool
is also supported by researchers like Wells (1999) and Anton and DiCamilla
(1999), who agree on the fact that use of the mother tongue helps problem
solving to be constmcted more easily and naturally. The last reason mentioned by
the instmctors during the focus group interviews was that using LI saved time. A
systematic use of the mother tongue in foreign language classrooms can actually
be a very useful tool in managing the time efficiently especially when explaining
complex concepts or subjects (^elik, 2008). To illustrate, Wilkins (1974)
proposes that LI use facilitates the lesson when checking on comprehension,
explanations and instmctions informally and quickly especially in classrooms
with students at lower levels. Many other researchers agree with Wilkins and
^elik. For example, Prodromou (2000), within his descriptions of the portrait of
LI in the classroom, makes a resemblance between LI and a lubricant in that
"...it keeps the wheels of a lesson moving smoothly; it thus saves time" (p. 8).

As for the reasons why student participants preferred LI in the classroom,

the findings of the focus group interviews show that the common reason for
using LI was to understand complicated concepts and to ask for detailed
explanations, which is parallel to the reason stated by the instmctor participants.
The same reason has also been stated by other student participants in different
studies such as Sharma (2006) and Tang (2002). Another reason was that LI
provided students with comfort in situations where they had difficulties in
 128

expressing themselves. The most popular reason of the student participants in

Schweers's (1999) and Tang's (2002) studies was also that using LI gave them
some confidence and led to better understanding of difficult concepts. As
mentioned before, the student participants also underlined the importance of
avoiding LI when they realized that it was used excessively, which is also
supported by the findings of other studies (Al-Nofaie, 2010; Mahmoudi, 2011).

Table 5.2.4 Situations where students and instructors prefer LI.

Understanding
Pair/ Group

Instructions
Vocabulary
Situations

Grammar

Listening

Feedback

Checking
Speaking
Reading

Writing

Giving
Work

2,5 2,5 3,5 3,5 2,8 2 2,5 3 2,5 3,5

(Students)
Averages

3 3,5 4 4 3,5 3 3 3,5 3 4

(Instructors)
Averages

The third research question aimed to leam about the particular situations
where students and instmctors preferred LI. As the table above, which is based
on the results of the questionnaires, shows, overall, students preferred to use LI
mostly when practicing vocabulary. This is also supported by the interviews
conducted with the students from different levels (see Part 4.3.2). Other
researchers also found similar results (Sharma, 2006; Tang, 2002). For instance
in Al- Nofaie's study (2010), 86.6% of the students utilize LI to leam vocabulary.
Other common situations where the students in this case preferred LI include
 129

grammar, reading, pair or group work and writing, during which students stated
that they usually used L I .

The situations stated by the students are compatible with the ones stated by
the instructors. When the averages are taken into consideration, it can be seen that
one of the most common situations where LI is preferred by the instructors is
teaching vocabulary, which was also stated as the most popular situation by the
students. This is also the conclusion in other research studies. To illustrate, in
Anh's study (2010), more than half of the teachers (67%) utilized LI to introduce
new vocabulary. Another situation in which LI is utilized more is grammar. In
this study, 62.96% of the instructors stated that they sometimes used LI to teach
grammar concepts. This situation is one of the most frequent situations in other
studies like Anh (2010) and Tang (2002). Checking understanding is among the
common situations where the mother tongue, in this case Turkish, is made used of.
66% of the instructors stated that they used Turkish to check students'
understanding, which was also supported by the interviews (see Part 4.3.2). Apart
from these top situations the questionnaires reveal, the instructors who participated
in the interviews stated some other situations worth mentioning such as managing
the classroom and building rapport. Schweers (1999) in his study advocates the
use of LI to build rapport in the classroom by stating that he observed how easily
he could connect with his students by means of the mother tongue.

Table 5.2.6 The effects of Level on the Use of LI

Levels Averages of the Averages of the
Use of Ll- Use of LI-
Instructors Students
Beginner 3.5 (60-40%) 2.7 (70-60%)
Elementary 4.4 (40-20%) 3 (60-40%)
Intermediate 4.8 (20-0%) 3.6 (30-10%)
 130

Another research question of this study was related to the effects of the
level on the use of LI in the classroom. In this case, there were three different
levels: Beginner, Elementary and Intermediate. The results of the questionnaires
were analyzed by comparing the three levels on both the part of the student and the
instructor participants. The overall results of the questions in the questionnaires
showed that level did matter in the amount of LI use in the classroom by both the
instructors and the students (see Part 4.2.2 and 4.2.4). According to the table above
(see Table 5.2.2), which demonstrates how level influences the amount of the
mother tongue used by the instructors and the students, a slightly steady decrease
in the percentages of the use of LI in the classroom as the level goes up in both
groups of participants. While in lower levels both the instructors and the students
prefer LI more, in upper levels, the need for LI decreases, which is also supported
by the interviews conducted with instructors and students from all three levels (see
Part 4.3.1 and 4.3.2). Researchers like Franklin (1990), Al- Nofaie (2010) support
this finding by pinpointing the need for the mother tongue especially with lower
level students. The findings of Franklin's research support this in that when asked
why they use students' mother tongue in the classroom, 79% of the teachers put
forward the low level students as a reason. Moreover, in a study conducted by Anh
(2010), several teacher interviewees suggest that the use of the mother tongue
should vary according to the levels of the students; in other words, the higher the
level of the students is, the less the use of the mother tongue should be.
 131

Table 5.2.7 Results of One-way ANOVA regarding the Relationship between Experience
and the Use of LI in Beginner Level
Perception Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig

Between
3,163 3 1,054 1,380 ,274
Groups
Within
17,578 23 ,764
Groups
Total 20,741 26

Table 5.2.8 Results of One-way ANOVA regarding the Relationship between Experience

Perception Sum of df Mean F Sig

Squares Square
Between
1,339 3 ,446 1,100 ,369
Groups
Within
9,328 23 ,406
Groups
Total 10,667 26

Table 5.2.9 Results of One-way ANOVA regarding the Relationship between Experience
and the Use of LI in Intermediate Level
Perception Sum of df Mean F Sig
Squares Square
Between
,080 3 ,027 ,153 ,927
Groups
Within Groups 3,994 23 ,174
Total 4,074 26

The last research question aimed to find out whether experience in teaching
affects the use of LI in the classroom. The teaching experience of the 27
instructors participating in the study ranged from one to fifteen years and more.
As the results of the tables above indicate, it was found out that no matter what
level the instructors teach, experience does not affect the instructors' attitudes
 132

towards the use of LI in the classroom (Beginner-Sig.=, 274>P.05; Elementary-

Sig.=, 369>P.05; Intermediate- Sig.=, 927>P.05).

5.3 Limitations

As this study is conducted with the participation of the students and the
instructors at METU NCC, SFL in Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (from now
on it will be referred to as the TRNC), its suggestions are only limited to this
institution. In other words, the results can only be used at METU NCC, SFL in the
TRNC. Moreover, suggestions are limited to the opinions of the instructors and
students who have answered the questionnaire distributed and have participated in
the interviews conducted at METU NCC, SFL in TRNC. However, the results
could be enlightening for other leamers and teachers who are in a similar
environment. In order to generalize the findings, the study needs to be repeated at
different universities' English preparatory classes.

Although the results of the student and instmctor questionnaires (see

Appendices 2&3) are supplemented by the interviews conducted with both groups
of participants, the percentage of the amount of LI used in the classroom reflects
the participants' opinions; therefore, they may not reflect the real amount of LI in
the classroom. Although the percentages of the amount of LI in the classroom the
instructors and the students stated were compared in order to find out whether
there were any discrepancies, doing observations might have enabled the study to
draw more realistic results, which was not feasible due to administrative factors
and time limitations.
 133

5.4 Pedagogical Implications and Suggestions

Being a current and controversial issue in the field of foreign language

teaching, this study concerning the use of the mother tongue in the classroom has
important implications which may contribute to the teaching profession of many
foreign language teachers; particularly the ones who feel guilty about using LI in
the classroom or the ones who feel the need to use LI, but do not know whether it
affects the students positively or negatively or whether to use it or not in the
classroom.

The first implication is that the mother tongue can be a useful tool when
teaching a foreign language. The findings of the questionnaires as well as the
interviews point out that teachers teaching in different level do utilize LI in the
classroom in various situations such as when teaching vocabulary, explaining a
complex grammar structure, managing the classroom, building rapport, checking
understanding, etc. Some scholars, who support the idea that LI is a useful tool,
pinpoint that the avoidance of LI deprives target language leamers of a valuable
educational tool. For example, Anton and DiCamilla (1999) argue that LI benefits
leamers at a cognitive level; providing them with scaffolding during their attempt
to accomplish leaming tasks, which promotes L2 leaming. Additionally, Swain
and Lapkin (2000) suggest that LI helps leamers understand the necessities and
the content of a task, focus on language form, improve vocabulary use and overall
organization, and form the tone and nature of their collaboration. According to
them, without LI, the task given to leamers may not be achieved as effectively, or
might not be accomplished at all.

Another implication is the practicality of the use of LI in the classroom.

The findings of the interviews conducted with both the instmctors and the students
show that LI is practical in various ways which include saving time especially
 134

when teaching complex or abstract vocabulary items. Similar to this study, in

some recent studies (Anh, 2010; Sharma, 2006; Tang, 2002), the researchers also
found out that teachers preferred LI when teaching complex structures and
abstract words stating the reason that it saves time. This shows that it would be
impractical to completely exclude LI from the classroom. According to Mattioli
(2004), an EFL teacher, a teacher researcher and non-native speaker of Italian, li It
is unrealistic and impractical to insist that leamers refrain f r o m native language
use altogether, when by exchanging briefly in the LI (instead of struggling in
English) they can move f o r w a r d in the task and comprehend a point much more
quickly" (p.25). Here, it is important to emphasize the significance of a judicious,
systematic and principled use of LI, which is stated by not only the instructor but
also the student participants in this study as well as many researchers in this area
(Ferrer, n.d.; Harbord, 1992; Mahmoudi, 2011).

As for the guilt teachers may feel owing to using LI when teaching a
foreign language, the findings of study imply that as long as the mother tongue is
used within a systematic and controlled way, and using it does not become a habit
among the students, they can be flexible regarding the use of LI. This is also
supported by many scholars such as Gabrielatos (2001), who maintains that
"teachers should not treat the use of LI by themselves or leamers as a sin...LI
does have a place in ELT methodology" (p.6).

To conclude, this study along with other previous studies underlines the
importance of the mother tongue as an indispensable part of a foreign language
classroom. Excommunication of LI from the classroom would be impractical and
the use of it is inevitable since as Prodromou (2000) describes, it is a "a reservoir",
a resource from which we draw. Harbord (1992) states that "the mother tongue is
the womb f r o m which the second language is b o m " (p.355). As it is the only
 135

source that students bring to the classroom to form a basis for another language, it
would be unfair to ban it from the classroom.

5.5 Suggestions for Further Research

This study was conducted at Middle East Technical University-Northern

Cyprus Campus-School of Foreign Languages with 27 instructors and one 140
students at three proficiency levels; beginner, elementary and intermediate. As this
study was limited to the participants and the context mentioned above, the results
cannot be generalized for all English preparatory school students at universities in
the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) or Turkey (TR). Moreover, as
the interviews were conducted with only a limited number of representatives of
both group of participants from different levels, which means that more data could
be needed for a more extended research. Therefore, this research can be conducted
in other universities in TRNC and TR since the results are only specific to this
study. Moreover, as the findings of this study showed, LI is an inevitable tool in
the classroom. In the light of this, other studies can be conducted focusing on how
to utilize LI to have an effective leaming environment and what methods can be
implemented to do this.

5.6 Conclusion

This study was conducted with the participation of 27 English instmctors

and one hundred forty students at METU NCC, SFL. There were 80 students from
beginner level, 40 students from elementary level and 20 students from
intermediate level. The instmctor participants were 20 from beginner level, 6 from
elementary level and 1 from intermediate level. The study aimed to describe and
compare the perceptions and attitudes of instmctors and students related to use of
 136

LI in the classrooms during foreign language teaching and leaming process. In

addition, it attempted to discover whether foreign language instmctors suggest use
of LI in ELT classrooms and whether the students support the use of the mother
tongue in the classrooms.

In order to achieve these aims, both qualitative and quantitative approaches

ensuring the triangulation through two questionnaires and four focus group
interviews were utilized. The data collected through the questionnaires were
analyzed statistically by using the SPSS program and the data collected via the
interviews were analyzed qualitatively according to emerging themes.

Taking the findings into consideration, it can be concluded that both the
students and the instmctors have a positive attitude towards the use of LI in the
classroom. They believe that a systematic use of their mother tongue, in this case
Turkish, without forming a habit, can be useful when both teaching and leaming
the target language, which is English in this case. Excessive use of Turkish is
condemned by both the instmctors and the students as 'comprehensible input' is
essential to leam the target language.

The results of the questionnaires and the interviews showed that both the
instmctors make use of LI in certain situations for various purposes and they use it
more as the level of the students goes down, which brings out the conclusion that
there is no exclusion of Turkish from the classroom and that its use is supported

When the results of the interviews regarding how LI helps the students
feel confident are taken into consideration, it can be concluded that the most
effective methods to be used in the classroom should be leamer-centered.
Therefore, the Communicative Approach, which supports a systematic use of LI
 137

for communicative purposes, would be effective in teaching L2 in classes where

one of the main concerns is to boost the learners' confidence.

Overall, the results of this research showed that LI is a useful tool when
teaching and leaming a foreign language. It is a resource that both teachers and
students recommend. It is an indispensable part of leaming a foreign language as it
is used as a base to build unfamiliar items of another language on. To sum up,
apparently, the use of the mother tongue when teaching a foreign language is
inevitable; therefore, language teachers should look for the best techniques and
methods to utilize it in a principled and systematic way.
 138

REFERENCES

Ahmad, B. H. (2009). Teachers' Code-Switching in Classroom Instructions for

Low Enghsh Proficient Leamers. English Language Teaching. 2 (2), 49-53.
http://ccsenet.org/ioumal/index.php/elt/article/view/2363. (Retrieved, 12
April 2011).

Al-Noifaie, H. (2010). The Attitudes of Teachers and Students Towards Using

Arabic in EFL Classrooms in Saudi Public Schools - A Case Study.
Novitas Royal Research on Youth and Language. 4{\), 64-95.
http://www.novitasroval.org/Vol 4 1/al-nofaie.pdf . (Retrieved , 20 March
2011).

Anh, K.H.K. (2010). Use of Vietnamese in English Language Teaching in

Vietnam: attitudes of Vietnamese University Teachers. English Language
Teaching. 3(2), 119-128.
http://www.ccsenet.org/ioumal/index.php/elt/article/view/5015. (Retrieved,
10 March 2011).

Anton, M. & DiCamilla, F. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of LI collaborative

interaction in the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal. 83(2),
234-247. doi: 10.1111/0026-7902.00018

Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource?.

ELT Journal. 41(A), 241-247. doi: 10.1093/elt/41.4.241

Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching Monolingual Classes. Longman Group UK Limited.

 139

Auerbach, E., R. (1993). Reexamining english only in the ESL classroom. TESOL
Quarterly.27(1), 9-32.
www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/rcd/.../Reexamining_English_Only.pdf-
(Retrieved, 15 April 2011).

Brooks, N. H. (1964). Language and language learning: Theory and practice.

New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Principles of language leaming and teaching. New York:

Pearson Education.

Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child's Talk: Leaming to use language. New York: Norton

Burden, P. (2000). The Use of 'Only English' in a Leamer-Centred University

Classroom in Japan. RELC Joumal. i 7 ( l ) . 139-149. doi:
10.1177/003368820003100107

Butzkamm, W. (2003). We only leam language once. The role of the mother
tongue in FL classrooms: death of a dogma. Language Leaming Joumal.
2S(1), 29-39.

www.fremdsprachendidaktik.rwthaachen.de/Ww/.../pachl.html - (Retrieved,
15 April 2011).

Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native Speaker in Language Teaching. TESOL
Quarterly. 33 (2), 185-209. http://www.istor.org/stable/3587717.
(Retrieved, 13 March 2011).
 140

Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom The Canadian Modem
Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes. 57(3), 402-
23. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402

^elik, S. (2008). Opening the door: An examination of mother tongue use in

foreign language classrooms. Hacettepe University Journal of Education.
34, 75-85.
http://ktu.academia.edu/ServetCelik/Papers/544247/Opening the Door A
n Examination of Mother Tongue Use in Foreign Language Classroo
ms (Retrieved, 8 April 2011).

Duff, P. A. and Polio, C. G. (1994). Teachers' language use in university foreign

language classrooms: a qualitative analysis of English and target language
alteration. The Modem Language Journal. 78(3), 313-326. doi: v78 n3
p313-26.

Dujmovic, M. (2007) The Use of Croatian in the EFL Classroom. Methodological

Horizons. 2(3), 91-101.
http ://hrcak. srce. hr/index .php?lang=en&sho w=clanak&id_clanak_j ezik= 19
437. (Retrieved, 13 March 2011).

Dulay, H. D. and Burt, M. K (1972). Goofing: an indicator of children's second

language leaming strategies. Language Leaming. 22(2), 235-252. doi:
10.1111/j. 1467-1770.1972. tb00085.x

Eckman, F.R. (2006). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis.

Language Leaming. 27(2), 315-330. doi: 10.1111/j.l467-
1770.1977.tb00124.x
 141

Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ferrer, V. The Mother Tongue in the Classroom: cross-linguistic comparisons,

noticing and explicit knowledge.
http://www.teachenglishworldwide.com/Articles/Ferrer_mother%20tongue
%20in%20the%20classroom.pdf (Retrieved, 10 May 2011).

Finocchiaro, M., and Brumfit, C. (1983). The functional-notional approach: f r o m

theory to practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gabrielatos, C. (2001). LI Use in ELT: Not a skeleton, but a bone of contention.

TESOL Greece Newsletter. 6-9. http://www.gabrielatos.com/LlUseInELT-
TGNL.pdf. (Retrieved, 24 May 2011)

Guest, R. and Pachler, N. (2001). Teaching in the Target Language: A critical

Appraisal. In Learning to Teach Modem Foreign Languages in the
Secondary School, (eds. Pachler, N and Field, K.) New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.

Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal,
Vol, 46(4), 30-55. doi: 10.1093/elt/46.4.350

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. England: Pearson

Educated Limited.

Howatt, A.P.R. (2004). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
 142

Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley

& E. Ingram (Eds.), Language acquisition: models and methods. New
York: Academic Press.

Krahnke, K. J. (1985). Teachers of English to speakers of other languages. TESOL

Quarterly. 79(3), 591-603.

Krajka, J. (2004). Your mother tongue does matter! Translation in the Classroom
and on the Web. Teaching English with Technology, 4(4), 1-9.
http://www.iatefl.org.p1/call/j_reviewl9.htm#webl. (Retrieved, 24
September 2011)

Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: additional

evidence for the Input Hypothesis. The Modem Language Joumal. 73(4),
440-464. http://www.istor.org/stable/326879 (Retrieved, 20 May 2011)

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lewis, K.A.B. (2009). Adult Learners' Perceptions of the Incorporation of their LI

in Foreign Language Teaching and Leaming. Applied Linguistics. 30(2),
216-235. doi: 10.1093/applin/amn051.

Liao, P. (2006). EFL Leamers' Beliefs about and Strategy Use of Translation in
English Leaming. RELC Joumal. 37(2), 191-215. doi:
10.1177/0033688206067428.

Macaro, E. (2001). Issues in target language teaching. In: K. Field (Ed.) Issues in
Modem Foreign Language Teaching, (pp. 171-189). London: Routledge.
 143

Mahmoudi, L. (2011). Use of Persian in the EFL Classroom- The case of English
Teaching and Leaming at Pre-university Level in Iran. English Language
Teaching. 4(1), 135-140
http://wwvy.ccsenet.org/ioumal/index.php/elt/article/view/9674. (Retrieved,
10 March 2011).

Macdonald, C. (1993) Using the target language. Cheltenham, England: Mary

Glasgow.

McDonough, J. and McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods f o r English

language teachers. UK: Hodder Amold.

Mattioli, G. (2004). On Native Language Intmsions and Making Do with Words:

Linguistically Homogeneous Classrooms and Native Language Use.
English Teaching Forum. 42 (4), 20-25.
http://exchanges.state.gov/englishteaching/fomm/archives/docs/04-42-4-
h.pdf (Retrieved. 20 March 2011').

Mills, J. (2001). Self-constmction through conversation and narrative in interviews.

Educational Review. 53 (3), 285-301.

Morahan, M. (2000). The Use of Students' First Language in the Second

Language Classroom. RELC Journal. 37 (1), 191-215. doi;
10.1177/0033688678998658

Morgan, D. L. (2001). Focus group interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A.

Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and Method
(pp. 141-160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
 144

Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language leaming.
Asian EFL Joumal. 5(2), 1-8. http://www.asian-efl-
ioumaI.com/iune 2003 PN.php (Retrieved, 25 May 2011).

Oflaz, O. (2009). Teachers a n d Students' Views on Using Mother Tongue in ELT

Classrooms (A Case Study at Gaziantep University), MA Thesis, Gaziantep
University, 112p (unpublished).

Oxford, R. (1990). Language leaming strategies: what every teacher should know.
Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Pan, Y. & Pan, Y. (2010). The Use of L I in the Foreign Language Classroom.
Colombian Applied Linguistics Joumal. 12 (2), 87-96.
http://revistas.udistrital.edu.co/ois/index.php/cali/article/view/85/125
(Retrieved, 20 October 2011)

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Prodromou, L. (2000). From Mother Tongue to Other Tongue.

TeachingEnglish/British Council/BBC.
http://www.teachingenghsh.org.Uk/print/4 nfRetrieved, 24 May 2011).

Richards, J. C., and Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language

teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schweers, W. Jr. (1999). Using LI in the L2 classroom. English Teaching Fomm.

37 (2), 6-9. http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/usia/E-USIA/forum/acrobat/P6.pdf
(Retrieved, 15 March 2011).
 145

Seng, G. H., & Hashim F. (2006) Use of LI in L2 reading comprehension among

tertiary ESL leamers. Reading in a Foreign Language. 18(1), 29-54.
http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/april2006/goh/goh.pdf (Retrieved, 25 May 2011).

Sharma, B.K. (2006). Mother Tongue Use in the English Classroom. Journal of
NELTA. 11 (1-2), 80-87.doi: 10.3126/nelta.vllil.3132.

Shoji, N. (2006). Teaching in English only...Begging to differ : in search of

cultural & communicative competence development.
http://libir.iosai.ac.ip/infolib/meta pub/G0000002repositorv JOS-
18801919-0201 (Retrieved, 14 October 2011).

Stem, H. H (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language leaming: The uses
of the first language. Language Teaching Research. 4, 251-274. doi:
10.1177/136216880000400304

§im§ek, M.R. (2010). The Effects of LI Use in the Teaching of L2 Grammar

Concepts on the Students' Achievement. Journal of Theory and Practice in
Education. 6 (2), 142-169. http://eku.comu.edu.tr/index/6/2/mrsimsek.pdf
(Retrieved, 12 October 2011).

Tang, J. (2002). Using LI in the English Classroom. English Teaching Forum. 40

(1), 36-43. http://eca.state.gov/fomm/vols/vol40/nol/p36.htm (Retrieved,
10 March 2011).
 146

Terrell, T. D. (1977). A natural approach to second language acquisition and

leaming. The Modem Language Joumal. 67(7), 327-335.
http://www.istor.org/stable/324551 (Retrieved, 18 May 2011).

Tumbull, M. (2001). There is a Role for the LI in Second and Foreign Language
Teaching, But... . The Canadian Modem Language Review. 57(4), 531-
540.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailniini.isp? nfpb=tme
& &ERICExtSearch SearchValue 0=EJ628039&ERICExtSearch Search
Tvpe 0=no&accno=EJ628039. (Retirieved, 23 March 2011).

Von Dietze & Von Dietze (2007). Approaches to LI Use in the EFL Classroom.
The Language Teacher. 31 (8), 7-10. A von Dietze... - Language Teacher,
2007 -jalt-publications.org. (Retrieved, 20 September 2011).

Wells, G. (1999). Using LI to Master L2: A Response to Anton and DiCamilla's

"Socio-Cognitive Functions of LI Collaborative Interaction in the L2
Classroom". The Modem Language Journal. 83(2), 248-254.
http://www.istor.org/stable/330339 (Retrieved, 22 May 2011).

Widdowson, H., G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Wilkins, D.A. (1974). Second-language leaming and teaching. London: Edward

Arnold Ltd.

Wilkins, D. A. (1976). National syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 147

Appendix 1- Student Questionnaire - Turkish

Sevgili ogrenci arkada$larim,
Bu anket Lefke Avnipa Universitesi, Ingiliz Dili Egitimi Boliimii'nde hazirlanmakta
olan "Ortadogu Teknik Universitesi Kuzey Kibris Kampusu Yabanci Diller
Okulu'ndaki ogrencilerin ve okutmanlarm ingilizce smflannda ana dil kullammiyla
ilgili gorii^leri hakkinda bir ara^tirma" konulu Yiiksek Lisans Tezinin bir
bdliimiidur. Liitfen ciimleleri dikkatli bir ^ckilde okuyarak sorulan cevaplaymiz. Bu
ara$tirmaya olan katdimmizdan ve degerli katkilarmizdan dolayi tejekkiir ederim.
Okutman §eyda Giindiiz
ODTU KKK, Yabanci Diller Yiiksekokulu
Gdnulii Katilim Formu
Bu ?ali§ma, $eyda Giindiiz tarafmdan yiiriitiilen, bir yiiksek lisans tez ^alifmasidir. Bu
5ali§manin amaci, Ortadogu Teknik Universitesi Kuzey Kibns Kampusu Yabanci Diller
Okulu'ndaki ogrencilerin ve okutmanlarm ingilizce smflannda ana dil kullanimiyla ilgili
goriijierini almaktir. (^abjmaya katihm tamamiyle gonulluliik temelinde olmalidir.
Ankette, sizden kimlik belirleyici hi^bir bilgi istenmemektedir. Cevaplariniz tamamiyle
gizli tutulacak ve sadece ara^tirmaci tarafmdan degerlendirilecektir; elde edilecek bilgiler
bilimsel yayimlarda kullamlacaktir.
Anket, genel olarak kijisel rahatsizlik verecek sorulan i^ermemektedir. Ancak, katilim
sirasmda sorulardan ya da herhangi ba§ka bir nedenden otiirii kendinizi rahatsiz
hissederseniz cevaplama i§ini yanda birakip ijikmakta serbestsiniz. Boyle bir durumda
anketi uygulayan ki§iye, anketi tamamlamadigmizi soylemek yeterli olacaktir. Anket
sonunda, bu 9ali§mayla ilgili sorulanniz cevaplanacaktir. Bu ^ali^maya katildiginiz igin
§imdiden te§ekkur ederiz. ^ali§ma hakkinda daha fazla bilgi almak i^in YDO
okutmanlanndan §eyda Giinduz (Ofis Tel: 661 28 33; E-posta; sgunduz@metu.edu.tr) ile
ileti§im kurabilirsiniz.
Bu galipnaya tamamen goniillU olarak katiliyorum ve istedigim zaman yanda kesip
gikabilecegimi biliyorum. Verdigim hilgilerin bilimsel amagh yayimlarda kullamlmasim
kabul ediyorum.
isim Soyad Tarih imza
— / — - /
 148

A. O G R E N C t P R O F i L i
I. Cinsiyet: [ ]Bay [ JBayan
II. Hangi seviyede ogrenim goriiyorsunuz?
[ ]Beginner [ ]Elementary [ Jlntermediate
B. O G R E N C i G O R U ^ L E R i
1) ingilizce ogrenirken, dil bilgisi ile ilgili kavramlan anlamak i9in Turk9e
kullanmayi tercih ederim.
a) her z a m a n b) genellikle c) bazen d) nadiren e) hig

2) ingilizce ogrenirken, Turk9e ile ingilizce arasindaki dil bilgisi farklihklarini

anlamak i9in anadilimi kullanmayi tercih ederim.
a) h e r z a m a n b) genellikle c) bazen d) nadiren e) hi^

3) Okuma 9ali§masi yaparken, okudugum metni daha iyi anlamak i9in Turk9e
kullanarak kendi dilime 9evirmeye 9ali§inm.
a) h e r z a m a n b) genellilde c) bazen d) nadiren e) hig

4) Okuma 9ah§masi yaparken, okudugum metnin i9erigini anlamak i9in Turk9e

kullanmayi tercih ederim.
a) her z a m a n b) genellikle c) bazen d) nadiren e) hi?

5) Sinif i9erisinde dinleme gali^masi yaparken, dinledigimi daha iyi anlamama

yardimci olmasi i9in dinlerken Turk9e kullanarak ayni anda dinledigimi kendi
dilime 9evirmeye 9ali§inm.
a) h e r z a m a n b) genellikle c) bazen d) nadiren e) hi?

6) Simf i9erisinde dinleme 9ali§masi yaparken, dinledigimi anlamakta gu9luk

ya§arsam ogretmenimden diyaloglan Turk9e' ye 9evirmesini isterim.
a) h e r zaman b) genellikle c) bazen d) nadiren e) hi?
 149

7) Sinif i^erisinde konu§ma pratigi yaparken, arkada§larimla ve ogretmenimle

sorunsuz bir §ekilde konu§abilmek i9in arkada§lanmin ve ogretmenimin bana
soylemeye ^alijtiklanni Turkic' ye gevirmeyi tercih ederim.
a) her z a m a n b) genellikle c) bazen d) nadiren e) hi?

8) Sorulan bir soruya yanit vermeden once, soyleyeceklerimi Tiirkge not etmeyi ve
daha sonra Ingilizce'ye gevirerek soruya cevap vermeyi tercih ederim.
a) her z a m a n b) genellikle c) bazen d) nadiren e) hi?

9) Smif i?erisinde yazma pratigi yaparken, yazmaya ba§Iamadan once ni^in ve ne

yazacagimi ogretmenime sorarken Tiirkge kullanmayi tercih ederim.
a) her zaman b) genellikle c) bazen d) nadiren e) hi?

10) Kelime ?ali§masi yaparken, yeni sozciiklerin ne anlama geldigini daha iyi
anlamak igin Turk§e kullanmayi tercih ederim.
a) h e r z a m a n b) genellikle c) bazen d) nadiren e) hi?

11) Sinif i^erisindc arkada§imla ikili gali§ma yaparken, ne yapacagimizi tarti§mak

i^in Tiirk^e kullanmayi tercih ederim.
a) her zaman b) genellikle c) bazen d) nadiren e) hi?

12) Sinif igerisinde arkada§lanmla grup galijmasi yaparken, kendim ne

yapacagimi tarti§mak i?in Turkic kullanmayi tercih ederim.
a) h e r zaman b) genellikle c) bazen d) nadiren e) hi?

13) ingilizce ogrenirken, ogretmenime geri doniit vermek i^in Turk?e kullanmayi
tercih ederim.
a) h e r zaman b) genellikle c) bazen d) nadiren e) hi?
 150

14) Ingilizce ogrenirken, herhangi bir noktayi anlamakta giigltik ya§arsam

ogretmenime sorular sormak i^in Turk^e kullanmayi tercih ederim.
a) her z a m a n b) genellikle c) bazen d) nadiren e) hig

15) Ogretmenimiz yapilmasi gerekenler konusunda bize talimatlarda

bulundugunda, anlamakta gu9luk ya§adigim herhangi bir husus olursa talimatlari
Tiirk^e soylemesini isterim.
a) her z a m a n b) genellikle c) bazen d) nadiren e) hi^

16) Sinavlarda verilen talimatlari anlamakta giigliik ya§arsam ogretmenimden

Turk9e a9iklama yapmasini isterim.
a) h e r z a m a n b) genellikle c) bazen d) nadiren e) hi9

17) Liitfen sinif i9erisindeki Turk9e kullaniminizi yuzdelik olarak belirtiniz.

a)100-80 b)80-60 c)60-40 d)40-20 e)20-0

18) Lutfen ogretmeninizin sinif i9erisindeki Turk9e kullanimini yuzdelik olarak

belirtiniz.

a)100-80 b)80-60 c)60-40 d)40-20 e)20-0

 151

Appendix 2- Student Questionnaire - English

Dear Student,
This questionnaire is a section of Master of Arts thesis named 'Research on the
attitudes and views of the students and instructors at Middle East Technical
University Northern Cyprus Campus School of Foreign Languages on the use of L I
in ELT classrooms'. The questionnaire is designed to determine teachers' views
concerning the use of mother tongue in ELT classrooms. Please read the statements
carefully and answer them. Thank you very much for your participation and
valuable contributions to this research.
Instructor §eyda Giindiiz
Middle East Technical University, School of Foreign Languages
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
This study is a Master of Arts thesis named 'Research on the attitudes and views of the
students and instructors at Middle East Technical University Northern Cyprus Campus
School of Foreign Languages on the use of LI in ELT classrooms' conducted by §eyda
Giindiiz . The purpose of the study is to gain insight into the views of the students and the
instructors at METU NCC SFL on the use of LI in ELT classrooms.Participation in the
study must be on a voluntary basis. No personal identification information is required in
the questionnaire. Your answers will be kept strictly confidential and evaluated only by
the researcher; the obtained data will be used for scientific purposes.
The questionnaire does not contain questions that may cause discomfort in the participants.
However, during participation, for any reason, if you feel uncomfortable, you are free to
quit at any time. In such a case, it will be sufficient to tell the person conducting the
survey (i.e., data collector) that you haven not completed the questionnaire.
After all the questionnaires are collected back by the data collector, your questions related
to the study will be answered. We would like to thank you in advance for your
participation in this study. For further information about the study, you can contact §eyda
Giindiiz from SFL (Office No: 661 28 33; E-mail: sgunduz@metu.edu.tr)
I am participating in this study totally on my own will and am aware that I can quit
participating at any time I want/1 give my consent f o r the use of the information I
provide f o r scientific purposes.
Name Surname Date Signature
 152

A. S T U D E N T P R O F I L E

I. G e n d e r : [ ]Male [ ]Female
II. W h a t is your level ?
[ JBeginner [ JEIementary [ ]Intermediate
B. S T U D E N T V I E W S
1) When leaming English, I prefer to use Turkish to understand grammar concepts,
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

2) When leaming English, 1 prefer to use Turkish to understand differences, in

terms of grammar, between my native language and English.
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

3) When studying reading, I prefer to use Turkish to translate the text in order to
understand it better.

a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

4) When studying reading, 1 prefer to use Turkish to understand the content of

reading texts.

a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

5) When doing listening in the class, 1 prefer to use Turkish to translate what is
said in order to help me understand what I listen to.
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

6) When doing listening in the class, 1 prefer to ask my teacher to translate the
dialogues into Turkish if I have difficulty in understanding what I listen to.
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never
 153

7) When doing speaking in the class, I prefer to use Turkish to translate what my
friends and teacher aim to tell me so that I can speak to them correctly.
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

8) Before answering a question, I prefer to note what I am going to say in Turkish

first, and then I translate it into English and give answer to the question.
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

9) When doing writing in the class, 1 prefer to use Turkish to ask my teacher why
and what I am going to write before I start writing.
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

10) When studying vocabulary, I prefer to use Turkish to understand the meaning
of new words.

a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

11) When doing a pair-work in the classroom, I prefer to use Turkish to discuss
what we are going to do.

a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

12) When doing a group-work in the classroom, I prefer to use Turkish to discuss
what 1 am going to do.
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

13) When leaming English, I prefer to use Turkish to give feedback to my teacher,
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

14) When leaming English, I prefer to use Turkish to ask questions to my teacher
if I have difficulty in understanding a point.
 154

a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

15) When my teacher gives instructions, I prefer to ask him/her to tell them in
Turkish if I have difficulty in understanding them.
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

16) When I have difficulty in understanding the instructions given in the exams, I
prefer to ask my teacher to tell them in Turkish.
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

17) Please indicate as a percentage to what extent you prefer to use Turkish in
ELT classrooms.

a)100-80 b)80-60 c)60-40 d)40-20 e)20-0

18) Please indicate as a percentage to what extent your teacher prefers to use
Turkish in the classroom.
a)100-80 b)80-60 c)60-40 d)40-20 e)20-0
 155

Appendix 3 - Teacher Questionnaire - English

Dear Colleague,
This questionnaire is a section of Master of Arts thesis named 'Research on the
attitudes and views of the students and instructors at Middle East Technical
University Northern Cyprus Campus School of Foreign Languages on the use of L I
in ELT classrooms'. The questionnaire is designed to determine teachers' views
concerning the use of mother tongue in ELT classrooms. Please read the statements
carefully and answer them. Thank you very much for your participation and
valuable contributions to this research.
Instructor §eyda Giindiiz
Middle East Technical University, School of Foreign Languages
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
This study is a Master of Arts thesis named 'Research on the attitudes and views of the
students and instructors at Middle East Technical University Northern Cyprus Campus
School of Foreign Languages on the use of LI in ELT classrooms' conducted by §eyda
Giindiiz . The purpose of the study is to gain insight into the views of the students and the
instructors at METU NCC SFL on the use of LI in ELT classrooms.Participation in the
study must be on a voluntary basis. No personal identification information is required in
the questionnaire. Your answers will be kept strictly confidential and evaluated only by
the researcher; the obtained data will be used for scientific purposes.
The questionnaire does not contain questions that may cause discomfort in the participants.
However, during participation, for any reason, if you feel uncomfortable, you are free to
quit at any time. In such a case, it will be sufficient to tell the person conducting the
survey (i.e., data collector) that you haven not completed the questionnaire.
After all the questionnaires are collected back by the data collector, your questions related
to the study will be answered. We would like to thank you in advance for your
participation in this study. For further information about the study, you can contact §eyda
Giindiiz from SFL (Office No; 661 28 33; E-mail: sgunduz@metu.edu.tr)
I am participating in this study totally on my own will and am aware that I can quit
participating at any time I want/ I give my consent f o r the use of the information I
provide f o r scientific purposes.
Name Sumame Date Signature
— / — / . —
 156

A. T E A C H E R P R O F I L E
I. G e n d e r : [ ]Male [ JFemale
II. Years as a teacher: l-5[ ] 5-10[ ] 10-15[ ] M o r e than 15 years[ ]

B. T E A C H E R V I E W S

1) When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to explain grammar concepts,

a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

2) When teaching reading, I prefer to use Turkish to help students understand the
text better.

a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

3) When teaching reading, I prefer to use Turkish to explain the content of reading
texts.

a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

4) When doing listening in the class, I prefer to use Turkish to explain what is said
in order to help them catch what they listen to.
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

5) When doing speaking in the class, I prefer to use Turkish to explain what I aim
to tell them.

a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

6) When doing writing in the class, I prefer to use Turkish to explain why and
what they are going to write before they start writing.
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never
 157

7) When teaching vocabulary, I prefer to use Turkish to explain the meaning of

new words.
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never
8) When I ask students to do pair work or group work, I prefer to use Turkish if
they have difficulty in understanding what they are going to do.
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

9) When teaching English, 1 prefer to use Turkish to check their understanding,

a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

10) When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to give feedback to them,
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

11) When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to give instructions.

a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

12) When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to explain why the students are
doing something.

a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

13) When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to explain class rules.
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

14) When teaching English, I prefer to use Turkish to give instructions in an exam,
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never

15) When teaching English, 1 prefer to use Turkish to explain differences, in terms
of grammar, between Turkish and English.
a) always b) usually c) sometimes d) seldom e) never
 158

16) Please indicate as a percentage to what extent you prefer to use Turkish in
ELT classrooms (for beginner students).
a)100-80 b)80-60 c)60-40 d)40-20 e)20-0

17) Please indicate as a percentage to what extent you prefer to use Turkish in
ELT classrooms (for elementary students).
a)100-80 b)80-60 c)60-40 d)40-20 e)20-0

18) Please indicate as a percentage to what extent you prefer to use Turkish in
ELT classrooms (for intermediate students).
a)100-80 b)80-60 c)60-40 d)40-20 e)20-0
 159

Appendix 4 - The Transcript of the Interviews Conducted with Beginner

Level Instructors (Turkish)

Ersin: Kullanilmasmda belli yerlerde sorun yok tamaminda kullanilmasm: belli

yerler: kelime anlatimindan sonra anla§ilip anla§ilmamasiyla ilgili feedback almak
i9in what is X in Turkish §eklinde.
T a n e r : bence bu ozellikle du§uk seviyelerde gerekli. Ozellikle zero beginner lar
da mecbur tiirk^e kullanilmaya. En 90k beginner diizeyde ozellikle kelime i9in
gerekli. Diizey etkili mesela intermediate da veya ileri diizey elem de gerek yok
ozellikle vocabulary ogretirken.
Zeliha: bence genel olarak gerek var. Biitiin level larda ama tabi ki beginner level
da 90k daha fazla olur. Ama level arttik9a Turk9e kullammi azahr. Ben bunca
yildir bir miktar kullaninm ama kendimi SU9IU hissederdim. ^unkii hep aman
kullanmaym dendi ta ki ge9en seneye kadar. Ge9en sene Fransizca ogrenirken ki
seviyem beginner degildi hocanm turk9e kullanmasinin beni ne kadar rahatlattigmi
ve her§eyi ne kadar kolayla§tirdigmi farketmemle i§te dedim kullanilmasi
gerekiyormu§.

G o r k e m : Ben burda ilk ogretmenlige ba§ladigimda teacher trainerlarmuz da

siirekli bu konuda uzerimize gelirlerdi. Yani derste yuzde yiiz ingilizce kullmlmasi
ana dilin kullanilmamasi gerektigi yonunde ve ayni duyguyu Zeliha gibi ben de
hissederdim ve meslekta§lanma da sorardim acaba siz kullamyor musunuz sadece
ben miyim kullanma ihtiyaci hisseden acaca bir §eyleri yanli§ mi yapiyorum
yeterli degil miyim. Aa sonradan farettim ki ger9ekten tek ba§ima degilim. Bence
meaning check onemli ama gramer ogretirken de ogrettgin §eyin ogrencinin ana
dilinde nerde kullanildigini gormesi i9in anadil onemli.
T a n e r : Ben SU9IU hissetmiyorum.
Ersin: Ben hissediyorum gramer de uzun uzun anlatnu§sam ozellikle ogrenciler
istemi§se.
 160

T a n e r : Ama orda bir §eli§ki var. Ogrenci ali§irsa nasi] olsa bana Tiirk^esi
anlatiliyor diye anlayabilecegi zaman bile kolaya kagtigi i^in anadil bagimlisi
olabiliyor ogrenciler. Buna ragmen hangi seviyede olursa olsun kullanmakta
su9luluk hissetmiyorum ben. ^unku bazen bir 9iki§ noktasi anyorsun orada takilip
U9 saat ugra§mkatansa 10 dakikada bitirmek var. Tek SU9IU hissettigim yer smifta
herkesin anadili Turk9e olmazsa diger ogrencilere haksizlik olugu i9in.
Zeliha: Onunla ilgili bir yazi hatirliyorum da yabanci bir hoca diyor ki ke§ke
bende Turk9e bilsem de bu kadar ugrajana kadar hop diye anlatabilsem.
G o r k e m : Cramer ogretirken sen Ingilizce olarak ogretmeye 9ali§irken smifta ki
ku9uk ogretmenler (high achievers) peer'larma translate ediyorlar ve bazen yanli?
aktarabiliyorlar. Bundan endi§e duydugum i9in 0 an benim de Turk9e miidahale
etmem gerekebiliyor.

Zeliha: Writing de bazen purpose anlatrrken bazane de sa9maladiginda 9evirip

neyi yanli§ yaptigini anlatiyorum ve bu sefer daha iyi bir feedback almi§ oluyor
9unku ne kadar sa9maladigini daha net anliyor.
Ersin: Ozellikle bir konu anlatirken i§in i9ine humor katmak istedigim zaman
Turk9e kullaniyorum ve bu ogrencilerle daha giizel bir rapport kurmami sagliyor.
G o r k e m : Ben management sirasinda kullaniyorum ozellikle uyan yaparken
ingilizce uyanlar etkili olmuyor ama turk9eye dondiigun andac ogrencilerin
attention nunu yakalayip manage edebiliyorsun kolayca.
Ersin: Ogrenciye yeterince classroom language ogretildiginde smifta gerekli
durumlarda rahat9a kullanabiliyorlar. Belki biraz da ogrenciyi buna ali§tirmak
lazim. Takildiklan yerler oluyor tabi mesela konu§urken birden Turk9e ye doniip
hocam bubu demek istiyorum ama nasil soylenir ki gibi durumlar olabiliyor.
Aslmda boyle durumlarda ogrenci anadilini bir tool olarak kullamyor aslmda ve
bence bunu yapmasi gayet giizel. Aslmda belli konulan sadece ingilizce
anlatdigmda anlayabiliyorlar ancak yine de meaning check i9in high achiever
lardan birinin anlatilani Tiirk9e ozetlemesini isteyebiliyorum.
 161

Zeliha: Peki hepsinin anladigini du§unuyor musun? Sinifta bazi ogrenciler oluyor
genelde her smifta 3-4 tan (90k zayif ogrenciler) 90k kisa ve kolay instruction lari
bile anlayamiyorlar.
Ersin: i§te oyle ogrenciler zaten tiirk^e anlattiginda da extra attention a ihtiyag
duyanlar (office hour) ancak ben yinede smifta Ingilizce kullamlmasim
ozendirilmesi gerektigine inaniyorum.
T a n e r : Evet bence zaten tiirkge kullanilmali ama miimkiim olan en du§uk
seviyede olmali. Ben ^ogu zaman ogrencileri zorlarim vakit de kaybederim ama
b,ir §ekilde zorlanmalari da gerekiyor. Onun i9in mesela Turk9e kullanmak yerine
91k tahtaya resmini 9iz ama Turk9e kullanma diyorum. Ancak bir kriz ortaya
9ikacak kaos ortami olunca da bogrenciye tamam ne soracaksan Tiirk9esini soyle
mesele 90ziilssun ama sonra bu kadar yeter. Haydi Ingilizce ye doniiyoruz
diyorum. Obiir tiirlii ali§kanlik oluyor ve hoca i9in de boyle. Bir bakiyosun ki
ba§larda % 30 olan turk9e % 50 ye ula§mi§ bile.
G o r k e m : Ger9ekte ogrencinin ne kadar Turk9e degil ne kadar ingilizce konu§tugu
bir case.
Zeliha: Anlamamazliktan gelme.
G o r k e m : Cesaret verme. Bunu ingilizce e diyebilirsin bak ancak o zaman sana
cevap vericem.
Ersin: Eger smifimda iq motivasyonu yiiksek ogrenciler olursa bunlara miimkun
oldugunca konu§turmya 9ali§iyorum ki digerleri de gaza gelsin, omek alsinlar,
ozensinler. Tabi bu biraz da §ans meselesi. Ogrenci ogrenciyi 90k etkiliyor. Mesela
motivasyonu dii§iik olna ogrenciler 90gunluktaysa bu digerlerinin de kolay pes
etmesine neden olabiliyor.
G o r k e m : Dogru anlayip anlamadigim check etmek istediklerinde.
Taner + Ersin + Zeliha: Gramer
T a n e r : Ozellikle beginner larda gramer yapisini da kelimeyi de Tiirk9esini
mutlaka istiyor. Ancak bir miiddet sonra kelime hazinesi geli^tikge tiirk9e
 162

anlamlan yerine Ingilizcesi soylendiginde de anlayabiliyorlar. Ama grameri hala

kontrol etme ihtiyaci var ogrencilerin.
Ersin: Ozellikle beginner'lar i9in abstract kelimeler ogretilirken zorluk gekildigi
igin Tiirkge kullanilmasindan yanayim.
T a n e r : Okudugum birka? makaleye gore okuma 9ali§malannda ogrencinin
anadilinde cevap vermesi gerektigini du§unen ara§tirmacilar da var.
 163

Appendix 5 - The Translated Version of the Interviews Conducted with

Beginner Level Instructors

Ersin: It is OK to use Turkish in specific situations such as when checking

understanding especially after teaching vocabulary, but it certainly should not be
used 100% of the time.

T a n e r : I think it is necessary to use Turkish for lower levels. Particularly with

zero beginners, we have to use Turkish. Turkish is needed for beginner level
students especially when teaching vocabulary. Here, the level is an important
factor. For example, when teaching vocabulary to intermediate or high elementary
levels, Turkish is needed less.
Zeliha: I think it is necessary in general. 1 mean in all levels but for beginner
levels we need it more. However, as the level gets higher, the amount of Turkish
gets lower. I have been using Turkish in a certain amount for all these years, but
then I felt guilty about it until last year because we had been strictly told not to use
it. Last year, when I was leaming French (by the way I am an intermediate level
student), I realized how my teacher's use of Turkish made me feel comfortable and
made everything easy and this changed my point of view and made me realize that
the use of Turkish is definitely necessary.

G o r k e m : When I started teaching here, our trainers used to pressurize us not to

use Turkish in the classroom. That meant using 100% Turkish in the classroom. I
felt just like Zeliha did, guilty, and started to talk to my colleagues about it. I asked
them whether they used Turkish, too or was it me only who used it in the
classroom. I felt like I was doing something wrong. But then I realized that I was
not alone. Plus, I think comparing the two languages in the classroom is as
important as checking understanding so that the student can notice the differences
between his/her mother tongue and the target language.
Ersin : 1 do feel guilty especially when I teach grammar using Turkish more than 1
should upon the request of my students.
 164

T a n e r : I don't feel guilty at all. But I think there is a contradiction here. If the
students get used to being taught in Turkish, then they can be addicted to it and ask
for the Turkish explanation all the time even when they could understand the
subject in English. Despite this, I don't feel guilty using Turkish no matter what
level I teach since sometimes you look for a shortcut. I mean it is just easier to
teach something in 10 minutes instead of being stuck at a certain point for half an
hour.

Zeliha: I remember reading about a native teacher of English complaining not

knowing the students' native language desperately wanting to save time by means
of their mother tongue.

G o r k e m : Even when I teach grammar in English, there are some high achievers
who translate the things I have just said to their peers and sometimes they get me
wrong and I need to intervene and explain the whole thing in Turkish to prevent
any misunderstanding.
Zeliha: I use Turkish especially when doing writing and if the students write non-
sense, the best way for me to wam them and make them see their mistakes is to
translate what they have written into Turkish. In this way, they understand their
mistakes better.

Ersin: I use Turkish especially when I want to add some humor to whatever I
teach. I believe this helps me build better rapport between me and my students.
G o r k e m : I use Turkish in classroom management a lot. When I need to wam the
students or draw their attention, using Turkish is definitely more effective than
English as it makes it easier to catch the students' attention in a very short time.
Ersin: I think when we teach a sufficient amount of classroom language to the
students, they can use English whenever it is necessary. Maybe we need to get our
students used to it. There are some places where they get stuck and switch back to
Turkish for help. Actually the students use their mother tongue as a tool in such
situations and I think this is very effective. I think we need to encourage our
students to use more English in the classroom.
 165

T a n e r : I agree with Ersin in that we need to use Turkish, but in a minimum

amount. I push my students into using English most of the time. It might be a
waste of time but sometimes they need to be pushed.
T a n e r : I ask my students to come up to the board and draw what they need to say
instead of using Turkish. However, there are some times when the students create
chaos in the classroom and at these times I give up and allow the student to use
Turkish to solve the problem, but then I ask them to switch back to English.
Otherwise, both the students and the teacher depend on Turkish. Then, you realize
that the amount of Turkish in the beginning has increased from 30% to 50%.
Zeliha: I mostly pretend that I don't understand what the student is saying if s/he
speaks Turkish.

G o r k e m : Encouraging also works a lot. I tell that I will not respond to their
questions unless they try to ask it in English.
Ersin: If I have some students with a high level of intrinsic motivation in my
classroom, I try to make them speak as they can be good models for the other
students to envy and get motivated. Sure, this is a matter of chance. I mean, if one
has a majority of demotivated low-level students, then these students may affect
the others too.
G o r k e m : When they want to check their understanding.
Taner+ Zeliha + Ersin: Grammar.
 166

Appendix 6 - The Transcript of the Interviews Conducted with Elementary

and Intermediate Level Instructors (Turkish)

Lale: Smifimda ogrenciler ayni seviyede degil. Bazen biitiin ogrencilerimin anlyip
anlamadiklanm garanti altina almak i^in Tiirk^e gerekiyor. Mesela gramer ya da
kelimenin anlamini ger^ekten anlamadiklanm gordiigiim zaman Turkic
kullaniyorum.
E r e n : Benim de positif baki§im var bir teknik olarak kullandiginda sorun yok
bence. Yani grammar translation methodu olarak bir sakmcasi yok sadece bunu bir
ali§kanlik haline getirmemek lazim. Bir goziim olarak kullanmak lazim.
Afiklamasi uzun siirecek bir kelimenin kar§iligini vermek igin veya ogrencinin bir
konuyu anlayip anlamadipim gormek i^in kullanilabilir. Ancak ogrenciden
gelmesini engellemek ozellikle gerekebilir ogrettigimiz §eylerin pratik
edilebilmesi igin. Ogrenci de ancak sizin izin verdiginiz §artlar altmda kullanabilir.
Yani sene ba§inda ya da sene ba§indan ba§layarak ogrencide belli bir kiiltiir
oturtursamz Tiirk^e kullanimiyla ilgili, ogrenci nerde kullamp nerde
kullanmayacagmi ile ilgili bir kural biitiinii olu§turabilirse bir sorun gikmaz. Yoksa
ogrenci siirekli Tiirk9e kullanmak isteyecektir ve Ingilizce kullanmasmi
istedigimiz zaman tepki gosterebiir.
Pelin: Benim de kesin 9izgilerim yok bu konu da positif bakiyorum ve zaten
smifimda da kullaniyorum. Hele ki Sinifin 100 % e yakini ve hocalar da tiirkse
ka9inilmaz. ^iinkii §u anda bu interview i bile Tiirk9e yapiyoruz ama limitinin ne
olmasi gerektigi tarti§ilir. Bir 90k kelimeyi 10 dakikada anlatmaya 9ali§iyorsun
ama o 1 saniyede bitebilir. ^ogu kelimede zaman kaybi oluyor. Ama tabi limitini
koymak lazim 90k a§inya gitmemek lazim.
Giilin: Ger9ek9i degil zaten kullanmamak. Uzun uzun zaman kaybetmektense
gereken yerlerde Tiirk9e kullanilmali. Yalniz hocalar ogrencileri ali§tinrlarsa her
kelimenin Tiirk9esini vermeye bazen Turk9e kar§iligi olmayabiliyor. Ya da
akliniza gelmiyor mesela "phenomena" yi anlatirken Tiirk9e kar§iligini vermeye
 167

kalktiginizda bambajka bir anlam gikiyor. O yuzden once ingilizce anlatilmah

kelimeler ve anlamadiklannda sozliikten check etmeli ogrenciler. Gramer de zor
bir konu ise ve anla§ihnadiysa once ingilizce sonra Tiirkge anlatilabilir. Ama
kelimede ana dile ba§vurmasi sikinti yaratiyor. Beginner seviyesinde yine anadil
kullanilabilir kelime anlatilirken ama inter seviyesine dogru kelimelerin direk
anlamlanni vermek hem hoca yo hem de ogrenciyi zor durumda birakabiliyor. Bu
yiizden ben Turkic kullanimma kelime ogretirken kar§iyim ozellikle iist
seviyelerde ama gramer de yapilabilir.

Lale: Writing. Ozellikle brainstorming'i Tiirkfe yapmalan gerektigini

du§unuyorum giinkii bu yaraticilikla ilgili bir §ey. Ingilizce fikir geli§tirmek zor bir
§ey elem seviyesindeki bir ogrenci ifin. Arkada§iyla otursun Turk9e tarti§sm ne
yazabilirim. Writing e ba§lamadan once bir fikir ali§veri§i yapm diyorum onu da
zaten Turkic yapiyorlar ve ben de miidahale etmiyorum.
E r e n : Azarlarken Tiirk^e kullaniyorum. Zaten ister istemez kizdigmiz zaman
native olmadigmiz i9in Tiirk9e ye donuyorsunuz. Bu durum ogrenciler i9in de
ge9erli. Bu da kisitlanabilecek bir §ey degil. Kelime konusunda bir de ogrencin
bilmesi gereken bir §ey var. Kelimenin Turk9e kar§iligmi bilmek o kelimeyi
kullanmada sadece % 5 etkin. Aslmda tam kar§iligini bilmesinin pek bir kiymeti
yok. Ogrenci bunun farkindaysa bence Tiirk9e sinin verilmesinde bir sorun yok.
Lale: Sen zaten ingilizce sini anlatmak i9in 10 dakika harciyorsun ve ordan bir
ogrenci Tiirk9e sini soyleyiveriyor. §imdi telefonlann da bile sozliikler var oradan
bakip Tiirk9e sini soyleyip gerisini dinlemiyorlar bile.
E r e n : Aslmda kelimenin anlamini ingilizce veya Turk9e soylemek farketmez.
Tiirk9e soyleyip zamandan da kazanilabilir. Ama anlamim vermek en kolayi i§in.
Kelimenin collaocation lari, nasil bir context e kullanildigi formlari. Asil mesele
bunlar oldugu i9in anlamini Tiirk9e vermi§siniz ingilizce vermi§siniz farketmez.
Giilin: §6yle bir§ey var ama kelimenin anlamini ingilizce verirken bir context
olu§turuyorsunuz ister istemez. Mesela inisist e bir 90cugun annesine dondurma
i9in diretmesi. Ve kelime ogreniminde ogrencinin kafasinda bir context in
 168

olu§masi daha kahci ogrenime sebep olur. Her kelime de bu olmuyor ama elimden
geldigince ingilizce anlatiyorum.
Lale: Yine de "confirmation" istiyorlar ama. Mutlaka Tiirkfesini de "confirm"
etmek istiyorlar. Ancak bazi kelimeler bizim dilimzde farkli oldugu i^in negative
transfer e neden olabiliyor Tiirk9esinin verilmesi. Mesela "phenomena".
E r e n : Pair ve group work te hangi skill de olursa olsun brain storming de dahil
kesinlikle kullanmalarma izin vermiyorum. Ogrencinin seviyesiyle ilgili bi§ey. Ki
"task" i9in yeterli kelime bilgisine sahip olduklaruini biliyorsam kesinlikle izin
vermiyorum. Ya da gerekirse onceden kelimeleri ogretiyoruz. Ama bir kelimeyi
ogrenip ogrenmediklerini anlamak i9in kullanmalarma izin veriyorum.
Pelin: Speaking yaparken kullandirmiyorum. Ama "vocabulary" veya "writing"
yaparken kullandiklarjii duyuyorum veya gramer anlatirken kendi dillerine
aktarmaya gah^iyorlar ben izin vermesem de kendi aralannda konu§uyorIar
yapicak bi§i yok.

Lale: Ben de gramer de hi9 izin vermiyorum mesela Gulin de farkli o vocab
iizerinde daha 90k duruyor saninm ama bende farkli. Gramer de izin vermiyorum
9unku yanli§ kullaniyorlar Turk9e de de yanli§ biliyorlar. Mesela "past perfect" i
ogrettim Turk9e de ona kar§ilik gelen bir zaman buldular ve her yerde past perfect
kullanmaya ba§ladilar.

Giilin: Ama benim bahsettigim Turk9e ile kar§ila§tirmali degil 9iinku o zaman i§in
i9inden 9ikamayiz. Zaten Turk9eleri de zayif ogrencilerin. Ben sadece
anlattiklanmin iizerinden bir de Turk9e ge9iyorum yani grammer translation gibi
degil. iki dili kar§ila§tirmiyorum. Benim Turk9e sevmedigim bir yer daha LL m
giri§ kisimlarinda biraz awareness yaratmak i9in discussion yarattigimizda
katilmak isteyenlerin ingilizce katilmalanm istiyorum ve bunu smifimda ba§ardim.
Anlatmak istedikleri §eyleri ingilizce soyleyemedikleri zamansa en son izin
veriyorum.

Lale: Eskiden para toplayip 9ukolata ahyorduk ama artik oyle §eyler
yapamiyorum saninrm programin yogunlugundan kaynaklaniyor. Programda
 169

siki§inca bu taktikleri bu kadar sistemetik uygulayamiyorsun. O yuzden Eren in de

dedigi gibi en ba§ta kurallar koyup tutarli olmak lazim.
Giilin: Bence ogrencileri ovmek 90k kullanilmadigi siirece bir strateji. Well done
ama her zaman degil gergekten hak edildiginde soyledigim bir §ey ve ger^ekten de
i§e yanyor. Ogrenciler birbirlerine 00 "well done" aldm bravo diyorlar. Veya gaza
getiriyorum yapabilirsin Ingilizcen §ok iyi gibi.
 170

Appendix 7 - The Translated Version of the Interviews Conducted with

Elementary and Intermediate Level Instructors

Lale: There are mixed level students in my classroom. To check and guarantee
my students' understanding, I need to use Turkish. For instance, I use Turkish
when I notice that students did not really understand the meaning of a word or a
subject in grammar.

E r e n : I also have a positive attitude towards it as long as it is used as a technique.

Turning using Turkish into a habit would create a serious problem, though. Instead,
Turkish should be used as a solution to some problems. For example, it can be
used to explain a word which would take too much time to explain in English or to
check students' understanding. However, in order to make students practice what
they leam, it should be avoided. The students can only use Turkish under certain
circumstances given by the teacher. I mean if you define a policy about using
Turkish in the classroom at the beginning and the students can have the general
mles about when and when not to use Turkish in the classroom, there will not be
any problems. Otherwise, students would want to use Turkish most of the time and
when you ask them to switch to English, you may get a reaction against it.
Pelin: I don't have a strict policy about this issue and I also have a positive
attitude towards it. I already use Turkish in my classroom. This is inevitable
especially when 100% of the students and the teacher are native speakers of
Turkish. However, we need to decide on the limits. You try to explain a word and
it takes 10 mins. , but it may take just a second when you give the Turkish
meaning of the word. It is a waste of time trying to explain the words in English
most of the time, but of course, we should know our limits and try not to go
extreme with using Turkish.
Giilin: It is unrealistic not to use Turkish. Instead of spending too much time, we
can use Turkish in certain situations. However, if students get accustomed to using
Turkish, there might be some problems. For example, sometimes there is no
equivalent of the words in Turkish or you just cannot remember the Turkish
 171

equivalent of a word. For instance "phenomena" has a different meaning in

Turkish and teaching the Turkish meaning may cause misunderstanding. That's
why vocabulary should be taught in English and the students should check the
word in a dictionary when they don't understand what it means. As for grammar, if
the subject is difficult for students to understand, first, it should be introduced in
English and then in Turkish if still necessary. Still, using Turkish when teaching
vocabulary creates some problems. In beginner levels, I think it might be OK to
use Turkish when teaching vocabulary, but as the level goes up, the amount of
English should also increase because in high levels like intermediate, giving the
Turkish meanings of the words makes it more difficult for both the teacher and the
students. That's why I am against using Turkish when teaching vocabulary
especially in upper levels.

Lale: I use Turkish mostly when doing writing, especially in the brainstorming
stage. I think th§s stage should be in Turkish as this is something related to
creativity. It is difficult to develop ideas in English particularly for elementary
level students. I think they can talk to each other in Turkish to decide on what to
write about. I ask my students to discuss before we start writing. They do it in
Turkish and I don't intervene.

E r e n : I use Turkish when I tell my students off. You switch to Turkish when you
are angry anyway as you are not a native speaker of English. This is also true for
the students and it is not something we can restrict. Plus, there is something that
the students should know about leaming vocabulary: Knowing the Turkish
equivalent of a word is only 5% effective in using that word. Actually, there is no
point in knowing the Turkish equivalent of a word. If students are aware of this,
then I think there is no problem in giving the Turkish meaning of a word.
Lale: You spend 10 mins. trying to explain the word in English and suddenly one
of the students comes up with the Turkish meaning of that word. Now, they all
have a dictionary on their cell phones and they look the word up in like 10 sees,
not even bothering to listen to the explanation of the word from the teacher.
 172

E r e n : In fact, explaining the word in English or Turkish doesn't matter. We can

even save time by giving the Turkish meaning right away, but the meaning is the
easiest part. The collocations and the forms of the word, the context in which the
word is used... As these are the important things, whether you give the Turkish
meaning or English meaning doesn't matter.
Giilin: when explaining the word in English, you also create a context. For
example, you can use a child's insistence on ice cream to explain "insist". Using
context when teaching vocabulary makes leaming more permanent. I cannot create
a context for every word I teach, but I try to use English as much as I can.
Lale: Students ask for confirmation anyway. They want to confirm the Turkish
meanings of the words, as well, but as some words have a different meaning in our
language, giving the Turkish meanings might cause negative transfer.
Eren: I definitely don't allow my students to use Turkish when doing pair or
group work no matter what skill we are practicing. This is something related to the
level of the students. If I know that the students have enough knowledge of target
vocabulary items, I don't allow Turkish, or if necessary, I pre-teach the words.
However, I allow Turkish when the students want to check their understanding.
Pelin: I don't allow Turkish when doing speaking, but I hear the using it when
doing grammar or vocabulary even if I don't let them.
Lale: I don't allow Turkish when doing grammar because they translate the
stmctures wrongly. For instance I taught the past perfect tense and they
immediately found out a similar tense in Turkish. Now, they all use the past
perfect tense wrongly because they don't know how to use the similar tense in
Turkish, either.

Giilin: I don't allow Turkish in the discussion parts of the lesson. I ask the ones
who want to participate to speak in English and I am successful at doing this in my
current classroom. When they cannot really say what they want to say in English, I
let them speak at the very end of the discussion.
 173

Lale: I used to punish the ones who speak Turkish by making them put a very
small amount of money into the money-box, but I cannot do this anymore. I think
this is because of our hectic programme. When you fall behind the programme,
you cannot apply such tactics systematically. That's why, as Eren said, we need to
decide on some rules at the beginning and stick to them.
Giilin: I think praising the students is a useful strategy when not used so often. 1
use well-done, but very rarely: when really deserved by the student and it works
really well.
 174

Appendix 8 - The Transcript of the Interviews Conducted with Beginner

Level Students (Turkish)
Bekir: Smifta ^ogunlukla Tiirkge kullaniyorum.Tiirkse kullanmamin sebebi
arkada§lanmin da Tiirkse kullanmasi. (^iinku sadece ben Ingilizce kullanirsam
garip olucagmi du§unuyorum. Zararli oldugunu du§unuyorum. ^iinkii Turk§e
kullanmak hem bizim listening skill' imizin geli§mesini hem de akici
konu§abilmemizi engelliyor.
Ismail: Smifta dogal olarak Turk9e kullanma istegi duyuyorum sik sik. Ozellikle
her konu bajlangi^lannda, ^iinku konu hakkindaki fikrimi sebebini bilmedigim bir
§ekilde Tiirkse anlatmak istiyorum anlamadigim §eyleri, ama buna hocamm engel
olup beni ingilizce olarak anlatmaya zorlamasi ve sonunda da anlatmi§ oldugumu
gormek beni daha §ok derse motive ediyor. Tiirkse kullanmamin sebebi tamamen
ali§kanlik bu ali§kanligi yenebilirsem her§ey benim igin daha iyi olacaktir.
Seda: Donemin sonlanna dogru tiirkse kullanma oranim azaldi. Genellikle aynnti
denebilecek bir §eyi merak ettigimde sormak ya da agiklamak i^in tiirkse
kullaninm. Zaman zaman Tiirkge kullanmanin bir zaran olmadigini du§unuyorum
giinkii bazi onemli noktalan ingilizce soramayabiliyoruz.Siirekli tiirkse
konu§manmda zararli oldugunu du§unuyorum,ingilizceyle bu kadar iq igeyken
tiirkfc kullanmak ingilizceye ali§mamizi engelleyebilir.
Bekir: Bence smifta hoca tamamen ingilizce konu§mali.Ders biraz daha yava§
ilerleyebilir bu yolla ama ogrencilere daha verimli vakit gefirilebilir.
Ismail: Smifta ozellikle hocanm Tiirkse kullanmasi bana ters geliyor. Okul zaten
ingilizce dogal olarak biz bu dili dinleyip anlamak zorundayiz, tabiki bu pat diye
olacak bir §ey degil,ama hoca gogunluk olarak Turkic kullanirsa bende daha 90k
9eviri yapmaya ba§liyorum,buda bilmedigim bir kelimeyle kar§ila§tigimda ve
ileti§imdeki hizimi yava§latiyor bir yerden sonra.
Seda: Hocamiz zaman zaman TUkge kullanmali diye du§iinuyorum fakat yiiksek
oranda ingilizce kullanilmali.
 175

Appendix 9- The Translated Version of the Interviews Conducted with

Beginner Level Students
Bekir: Most of the time, I use Turkish in the classroom. The reason why I use
Turkish is that my classmates also use Turkish and I think that if I am the only one
who speaks English, it will be weird as all my friends speak Turkish in the
classroom. However, I think that using Turkish is not beneficial in that it not only
hinders our improvement in listening, but also prevents us from speaking English
fluently.

Ismail: I often feel the need to use Turkish in the classroom, which is very normal.
Especially when we start doing a new subject because I feel like saying the things
which I want to say about that subject in Turkish unintentionally. However, when
my teacher asks me and pushes me to switch to English and when I realize that I
can also say the same things in English, I get motivated more. The reason why I
use Turkish is that it has become a habit for me and I believe that I can get rid of
this habit and everything will be better for me.
Seda: The amount of Turkish I use in the classroom has decreased towards the end
of the semester. I only use Turkish to ask for a detailed explanation for something
or to explain something in the classroom. I think using Turkish from time to time
is not a problem because we need Turkish to understand especially complicated
subjects. I also think that using Turkish excessively is not beneficial as it can
prevent us to leam English.

Bekir:! think the teacher should speak English all the time. This might cause the
lesson to move more slowly, but it will be more beneficial for the students.
Ismail: I don't like the teacher's using Turkish in the classroom. The medium of
education in our university is English and we have to listen to it and understand it.
Of course this does not happen with a flick of the fingers, but the more the teacher
uses Turkish, the more I get to use it too and this affects my fluency in English
Seda: I think, our teacher should sometimes use Turkish but the amount of English
should be at maximum level.
 176

Appendix 10 - The Transcript of the Interviews Conducted with Elementary

and Intermediate Level Students (Turkish)

BelmarODTU'de egitim gormeye ba§ladiktan sonra ingilizce konu§malari

rahatlikla anlayabildigim i^in gogu zaman Turkge kullanma ihtiyaci
hissetmiyorum fakat 90k karma§ik bir§eyleri anlatmaya 9ali§tigimda kendimi
ingilizce ifade edemeyecegimi anladigimda Turk9e , ye ba§vuruyorum.
B a r k m : ingilizce konu§urken anlamini bilmedigim kelimelerin yerine Turk9e
kar§iliklanni kullaniyorum. Bunun haricinde arkada§lanmla speaking practice
haricinde Turk9e konu§uyorum. Kendimi ingilizce ifade etmememin nedeni
tamamen u§enge9lik. Bir de ben dogru kelimeleri bulmaya ^ali^irken kar§imdaki
insamn sabirsiz davranmasi.
ilkinringilizce bir kelimeyi hatirlayamadigimda veya ozellikle soyleyeceklerimi
kafamda toparlayamadigimda Turk9e'ye ge9me ihtiyaci hissediyorum. Ders di§i
konularda konu§urken Turk9e kullaniyorum, onun di§inda smifta, ders esnasmda
ingilizce konu§ulur. Tikandigimiz noktalarda Turk9eye ge9mek "rahatlatici"
oluyor diyebilirim. Yararli ya da zararli diyemem. ^ok etkilemiyor. Ayni §eyi
ingilizce de soyleyebiliyorum 9unku, diger arkada§larim da oyle. Sinif ortaminda
9ekingenlik olabiliyor, o yuzden Turk9e konu§mak daha kolay ve rahatlatici.
Belma:A§inya ka9madigimiz surece, eger bir§eyleri ogrenmek i9in Turk9e
kullaniyorsak aslmda pek de zarari yok. Ama ingilizcemizin tamamen geli§mesi
i9inTurk9e'yi a§in derecede kullanmak zararlidir.
B a r k m : Turk9e kullanmamn yararli oldugunu dU§unmuyorum ama istisnalar
a§inya ka9madik9a, ali§kanlik haline gelmedik9e zararli olacagmi da sanmiyorum.
Belma: Ogretmen Turk9e , ye 90k siklikla ba§vurmamalidir 9unku bu ogrencinin
derste ingilizce konu§ma motivasyonunu azaltir fakat bakti gordii ki ogrenci ba§ka
§ekilde anlayacak gibi gozukmuyor, o zaman Turk9e'ye ba§vurabilir.
ilkin: Hocamiz smifta konu§urken ingilizce'den Turk9e'ye ya da Turk9e'den
ingilizce'ye ge^i^ler yapiyor bazen ama bunu bir siire sonra fark ediyorum 9unku
 177

iki §ekilde de ayni derecede anla§ilir konu§uyor. Benim agimdan bir fark
yaratmiyor Turk9e konu§masi agikijasi.
B a r k i n : Bizim Hocamiz miimkiin oldugunca Ingilizce kullamyor, biz Tiirkse
konu§tugumuzda bizi de Ingilizce konu§mamiz §eklinde uyanyor zaten. Tenefus
havasindaki sohbetler di§mda Turk9e kullanilmaz pek.
 178

Appendix 11- The Translated Version of the Interviews Conducted with

Elementary and Intermediate Level Students

Belma: Since I started studying at METU NCC, I haven't felt the need to use
Turkish as I have been able to understand what is being said in English, but when I
try to explain the things which are difficult for me to express in English, I refer to
Turkish.

B a r k i n : When I speak English, and if I don't know a word, I use its Turkish
counterpart. Apart from this and the times when we do speaking practice, 1 use
Turkish in the classroom. The reason why I don't express myself in English is
being too lazy to do it; plus, having an impatient conversation partner while 1 am
trying to find the right words.

Ilkin: I feel the need to switch back to Turkish when I cannot remember a word in
English or when I cannot express my opinions. I use Turkish when I talk about
things not related to the lesson, but apart from that, English is spoken in our
classroom. I can say that it is comfortable to switch to Turkish when we have
difficulty in expressing ourselves. I cannot say it is beneficial or harmful. It does
not affect us much, neither does using English. Sometimes we feel reluctant to
speak English because of the atmosphere of the classroom. That's why speaking
Turkish is easier and makes me feel more comfortable.
Belma: Actually, I think Turkish doesn't affect us badly if we use it as a tool to
leam something. However, using Turkish excessively affects the improvement of
our English negatively.

Barkin: I don't think using Turkish in the classroom is beneficial, but as long as
there aren't too many exceptions and it doesn't turn into a habit, I don't think it is
going to be harmful, either.

Belma: I think the teacher shouldn't use Turkish a lot as this decreases the level of
motivation to speak English. However, s/he can utilize Turkish when s/he realizes
that the students do not seem to understand a topic.
 179

ilkin: Our teacher switches from Turkish to English or vice versa at times, but we
don't notice his code-switching much in the classroom. Frankly, his using Turkish
is OK with me

B a r k i n : Our teacher uses English as much as possible and he warns us whenever

we switch to Turkish. Except for some small talks, there is not much Turkish in
our classroom.