Pre-Service Teachers' Beliefs and Practices Regarding L1 Use in ELT Primary Classroom

1. International Language SymposiumBrno, 1-3 June 2017 L1 use in the foreign language primary classroom – pre-service teachers beliefs and practices Małgorzata Tetiurka John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin

2. Presentation outline Background to study Justification of research Aims of the research project Design of the study Research findings and discussion

3. Contextualizing the problem • interest in TEYL growingrapidly • 1991 - 'Young learnersareonlyjustbeginning to be socialisedinto the internationalworld of formaleducation’ (Brumfit in Kennedy, C.& Jarvis, J. Ideas and issues in primary ELT) • 2014 - English villages(Butler 2014) • early start policy in Poland as part of a global trend (from 2008 to 2017)

4. Contextualizing the problem • concerns about quality of teaching (Eneverand Moon 2009: 10, Nikolov 2000: 36) • insufficienttheoreticalframework for TEYL – combiningprimaryeducation with mainstream ELT methodologies(Brumfit, Moon and Tongue 1991, Kennedy and Jarvis 1991) • ’a hybrid and somewhat ad hoc framework’ (Cameron 1994:28) • “teachers of language and teachers of children” (Brewster, Ellis and Girard 2002) • children as active recipients of instruction

5. Contextualizing the problem • concerns about quality of training - theory vs practice = teacher beliefs vs classroom reality and practices • pre-service teachers’ pre-conceptions of teaching

6. Uniqueness of language classroom • linguisticformsare the aim of a lesson and the means of achievingthoseaims(Walsh 2006: 3) • 'the vehicle and object of instruction' (Long 1983:9) • 'Learning arises not throughinteraction but ininteraction' (Ellis 2000) • choice of languagemayconstructorobstruct learning opportunities(Walsh 2002, 2011)

7. On L1 • since the Great Reform in the 19th centurysecond most debatedissue in ELT (Butzkamm 2003) • 'a neglectedresource' Atkinson (1987, 1993) – restricted and principleduse in accuracyorientedtasks • 'a skeleton in the closet' (Prodromou 2000) • 'a bone of contention' (Gabrielatos 2001) • 'there is little point in trying to stamp it out completely' (Harmer2001) • death of dogma (Butzkamm 2003) • callfor judicioususe of L1 (Ferrer 2008) • Translation in Language Teaching (Guy Cook 2010) • Translation and Own-languageActivities (PhillipKerr 2014)

8. The undebatable • using L2 for routine classroom procedures, uncomplicated instructions and classroom small talk generally perceived as being beneficial to foreign language acquisition, especially in low-exposure contexts (Atkinson 1993, Butzkamm 2003, Cook 2001, Enever 2011, Ferrer 2011, Grim 2010, Hall and Cook 2012, Macaro 2001, Nikolov 2007, Nikolov and Curtain 2000, Nikolov and Djigunovic 2006, 2014, Rixon 2000, Walsh 2006)

9. Research on L2 use • Researchshowsthatgreateruse of the target language by the treacherresults in higher L2 proficiencylevels in the pupils (e.g. Curtain 2000: 101) BUT • IBE (EducationalResearchInstitute) reports • 2015 – 25% Polish lowersecondarystudentsclaimtheirEnglish lessonsareconductedmainly in Polish (does not matchnumbersreported by teachers)

10. Research on L2 use in Polish primary schools BENJA (Muszyński, Campfield, Szpotowicz, IBE 2015) • communicationmonopolised by teachers • mainly in Polish, despiteteachers' reportinglimiteduse of L1 • variedpatterns ( form almostentirely in L1 to almostentirely in L2) • not dependent on the level • qualityanissue

11. Justification of research • little data on the extent and purpose of own-languageuse in ELT primaryclassrooms • a potential gap between mainstream ELT literature and teachers’ practices on the ground (Hall and Cook, 2013) • lack of understanding of the attitudespractisingteachersholdtowardsown-languageuse

12. Research questions RQ1 Whataretraineeteachers' views on L1/L2 classroom language use ?(T1 & T2) RQ2 (How)Aretraineeteachers’ beliefsreflected in theirownteaching? RQ3 How do traineeteachers' views on L1/L2 classroom language usedevelop/change with time?

13. Teachers' beliefs – a 'messy construct' (Fives & Buehl 2012) • Complex, multifaceted, varied • Implicit and explicit • Deep-rootedbeliefsmay be strongerthanmethodologiesadvocated by coursesorcoursebooks • Frequentincongruence of belief and practice • Inconsistenciesbetweenbeliefs and classroompracticespossiblycaused by contextualfactors (Borg 2006) • Teachers' beliefscloselyconnected to contextorschool'sculture (Sato and Kleinsasser, 2004)

14. THE STUDY: participants • 34Polish pre-service teachers (28female, 6male) • age: 21-23 • BA students working towards their degree in English literature, linguistics or applied linguistics • TEYL instruction: 90h input classes, 30hlecture, 30h observation, 120h teaching practice

15. THE STUDY: data collection • data collection continued over a period of one academic year • source of data: questionnaires, lessonobservation notes and reports, lesson video-recordings and lessontranscripts

16. TEYL BA programme

17. Traineeteachers on L1 Grammar (tenses, rules) Vocabulary (translating, explaining) Tellingstudents off Explaningdifficulttasks Housekeeping Explaininghomework Dealing with problems Introducingnewmaterial Test rubrics/instructions Taking register Justifyingmarks Comparing L1 to L2 Correctingmistakes Culture Encouraging to speak Creatingpositiveatmosphere 34 22 25 23 16 9 8 8 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 1

18. Traineeteachers on L2 Simple instructions Small talk/routines Praising S for theirwork Revision of material Introducingnewstage in a lesson Definitions of easierwords/synonyms Taking register Warm-up Disciplinigstudents Checkinghomework/classwork Correctingmistakes Providingexamples Elicitation/activation of knowledge Culture Explaininggrammar 29 15 13 13 9 9 8 8 4 3 3 3 2 2 1

19. L1 functions discussed in literature • All functions mentioned by trainee teachers participating in the study have also been discussed in literature (Atkinson 1988, Collingham 1988, Hall and Cook 2012, Harbord 1992, Kafes 2011, Piasecka 1988)

20. Trainee teachers' feedback after observation practice Primary teachers use too much L1 in situations where L2 would work

21. L2 classroom modes (Walsh 2006) • Managerial mode • Materials mode • Skills and systems mode • Classroom context mode

22. Managerial mode • To transmitinformation • To organize the physical learning environment • To referlearners to specific materials • To introduceorconcludeanactivity • To change from one mode of learning to another (from lockstep to pairworkorgroupork, orindividual) Characterised by: single, extendedteacherturn, explanations, instructions, transitionalmarkers, confirmationchecks, absence of learnercontributions

23. Materials mode • To providelanguagepracticearound a piece of material • To elicitresponses in relations to the material • To check and display answers • To clarify • To evaluatecontributions • To extendlearnercontributions Characterised by: IRF pattern, closely manager by the teacher, extensiveuse of display questions, form-focusedfeedback, correctiverepair, the use of scaffolding

24. Skills and systems mode • To enablelearners to producecorrectforms • To enablelearners to manipulate the target language • To providecorrectivefeedback • To providelearners with practice in sub-skills (skimming, listening for gist) • To display correctanswers Characterised by: directrepair, scaffolding, extendedteacherturns, dispalyquestions, teacher echo to display responses, clarificationrequests, form-focusedfeedback

25. Classroom context mode • To enablelearners to talk aboutfeelings, emotions, experience, attitudes, reactions, personalrelationships • To establish a context • To activatementalschemata • To promoteoralfluency Characterised by: Extended learnerturns, frequentlymanaged by learnersthemselves, relativelyshortteacherturns, directrepair to fix a breakdown in the interaction, contentfeedback, referentialquestions, scaffolding to helplearners express theirideas, confirmationchecks, asking for clarification

26. L2 classroom modes (Walsh 2006)

27. L1 as used by observed teachers”Native talk”, ”unjustified” (Majer 2003: 393) Dziś nauczymy się nowego słownictwa.[todaywe'regoing to learnnewvocabulary] Proszę o spokój.[please be quiet] Posłuchaj, potem powiedz tak lub nie.[listenthensay: yesor no] Czy wszyscy rozumieją? [doeseverybodyunderstand?] Popatrzcie na tablicę.[lookat the blackoboard] Dziś poznamy kolejne zagadnienie do naszego ostatniego tematu.[todaywe'llstudyanother problem connetcted with ourlasttopic] Zapiszcie prace domową.[write down yourhomework]

28. RQ1 Trainees’ beliefs (through comments) It is important to introduce as much foreign language as it is possible from the very beginning. Surprisingly in younger classes the teacher used English for almost every time and mother tongue was used only when something really needed to be explained. The teacher used Polish to coordinate the classes, which is harmful for learners, because they do not get used to English.

29. RQ1 Trainees’ beliefs (through comments) I think the teacher uses too much Polish during the lesson. She doesn’t even try to speak English while introducing a new topic or when she speaks to the children. This class has very weak knowledge of English. The students can’t say basic sentences, they make a lot of mistakes which are not corrected by the teacher. Also, I’ve noticed that the children don’t even try to speak English, they use Polish almost in all situations and while completing tasks. Such an overuse of L1 makes children unable to switch into English.

30. RQ2 Trainees’ practices (recorded lessons) Over 80% students replicated observed lessons with respect to L1 use

32. RQ2 Trainees’ practices (recorded lessons)Switched talk (Majer 2003: 402) 71. T bardzo ładnie długie czarne włosy i broda prawda ok (4) maybe the last one (3) maybe the last one (4) ostatnie już he’sgot (3) he’sgot (2) he’sgot a moustache and (2) and a beard (2) Krzysiu dobrze tak Dawid dobrze i Natalka dobrze to było dość trudne ma brodę i wąsy ok thankyouwystarczy tej zabawy (4) so (8) możecie sobie te kartki gdzieś na bok odłożyć prawda (8) ok sotoday we aregoing to learnsomenewvocabulary (2) czyli dzisiaj poznamy sobie kilka nowych słówek (3) związanych z domem z wyposażeniem domu 72. L yes 73. T ok wszyscy już uwaga wszyscy patrzą na mnie wszyscy patrzą na mnie i powtarzamy nowe słówka (3) wardrobe 74. LL wardrobe

33. RQ2 Trainees’ practices (recorded lessons) T: Mhm great. Kto jeszcze? Jeszcze jedna para. Kto chce być Marcusem? Mateusz. I Ella? Chcesz być Ellą? Chodź. 8 T Czyli trzeba było dopasować nagłówki do poszczególnych części tekstu. Ok., wszyscy mają? Tak? Super, ok.

34. ctnd 69 Uwaga, będziecie potrzebować 3 kolory do tego zadania, co będziemy robić: red, green and blue. (teacherusesflashcards to show the colours) 70 L Proszę Pani, 3 kolory? 71 T Tak, red, green and blue. (childrenaregettingready) (20) Uwaga, będziemy robić to zadanie, które jest na dole (teacherpointsat the rightexercise in the book). To co jest na dole ten obrazek. Tego na górze nie możemy, tylko ten kolorowy. 72 L2 Proszę Pani (2) zielony, czerwony, niebieski. 73 T No zobacz (2) ( teacherisshowing the colours in the book) Te 3 kolory. Będziecie musieli zaznaczać. = 74 L =Wszystkie= 75 T = Będziecie musieli zaznaczać odpowiednimi kolorami. Na czerwono -red, drewno, przedmioty z drewna, czyli (3) wood. Rzeczy zrobione z drewna. Na niebiesko?

35. 76 L Niebiesko. 77 L Red. 78 L Z gumy. 79 T Na niebiesko zaznaczamy to, co jest zrobione z gumy. Czyli? Jak była guma? 80 LL Rubber. 81 T Tak, rubber. A na zielono? 82 LL Paper. 83 T Paper. I na żółto ((3)). Na czerwono, niebiesko lub zielono. (teacher comes to 1 child and explains what to do)Te sześć, które są ponumerowane. One, two, three, four, five, six. Te przy których nic nie ma, to nic nie trzeba. 84 L6 Proszę Pani (2). Proszę Pani, a co mam pokolorować na czerwono?

36. Mixed teacher talk input Researchers who have studied the interdependency between input quality and second language acquisition (e.g. Krashen, 1985; Wong-Fillmore, 1985) have reported a decidedly negative effect exerted on learning by mixed teacher talk input. (Majer 2003: 406)

37. RQ3 Trainees’ reflection on their L1 use I think I used too much Polish but I wanted children to understand everything. I tried to use more English but I was afraid they don’t understand. Their teacher used Polish so they wouldn’t understand me if I used more English.

38. RQ3 Trainees’ reflection on their L1 use I didn’t want to stress them. I didn’t realise I used so much Polish. I am embarrassed at my language when I read the transcript. I was afraid I could make a mistake.

39. Conclusions (1) • Traineeteachersbeliefsare not alwayscompatible with theirclassroompractices • Trainee teachers are mostly unaware of those (good orbad) practices • Possibly, the same is true about practising teachers

40. Conclusions (cntd) ”As theoretical knowledge fails, they tend to revert to the models of teaching known to them, their own teachers at different levels of their education. Even though these models were often criticised by them, they now seem to offer a safe way to keep the face and ’survive’.” (Gabrys-Barker 2010)

41. Conclusions (ctnd) • Some of these practices are not constructive to learning opportunities • Awareness-rising activities are helpful in identifying teachers' areas for improvement in classroom interaction • Reflection on classroom discourse should be essential part of every teaching practice

42. Conclusions • Trainee teachers beliefs are not always compatible with their classroom practices • Some of these practices are not constructive to learning opportunities • Trainee teachers are unaware of most of these (good and bad) practices • Possibly, the same is true about practising teachers • Awareness-rising activities are helpful in identifying teachers' areas for improvement in classroom interaction • Reflection on classroom discourse should be essential part of every teaching practice

44. References • Atkinson, D. (1987). The mothertongue in the classroom: a neglectedresource? ELT JournalVol 41/4 pp.241-247 Oxford University Press. • Atkinson, D. (1993). TeachingMonolingualClasses.Harlow: Pearson English Language Teaching. • Butler, Y. G. (2014). The role of parental socio-economic status in young Learners’ English learning: the case of South Korea. Keynote lecture presented at Early Language Learning: Theory and Practice Conference, Umeå University, Sweden. [Video file].Retrieved from http://www.mos.umu.se/ell2014/yuko_goto_butler2.mp4 • Butzkamm, W. (2003). We onlylearnlanguageonce.The role of mothertongue in FL classroom: Death of dogma. Language Learning Journal 28, 29-39 • Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching: An argument for reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Crystal, D. (2003).English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Curtain, H. (2000). Time as a factor in early start programmes. In J. Moon & M. Nikolov (Eds.), Researchintoteaching English to younglearners (pp. 87-120). Pecs: University Press Pecs. • Ellis, G., Brewster, J., & Girard, D. (2002). The primary English teacher's guide. Penguin English. • Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English.London: British Council. • Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: British Council.

45. References ctnd • Hall, G and Cook, G. (2012). Own-languageuse in languageteaching and learning: state of the art. Language Teaching, 45(3). pp.271-308 downloaded from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/SO261444812000067 • Kennedy, C., & Jarvis, J. (Eds.). (1991). Ideas and issues in primary ELT. Nelson. • Li, L. & Walsh. S. (2011).‘Seeing is believing’: looking at EFL teachers’ beliefs through classroom interaction, Classroom Discourse, 2:1, 39-57, DOI:10.1080/19463014.2011.562657 • Nikolov, M. (2000). Issues in researchintoEarlyForeign Language Programmes in Moon, J. & Niolov. M. (eds.). ResearchintoTeaching English to Young Learners. Pecs:University of Pecs Press • Prodromou, L. (2002). The liberating role of the mother tongue. In S. Deller & M. Rinvolucri (eds.),Using the mother tongue: Making the most of the learner’s language. London: ETP and DELTA Publishing, 5. • Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse, London: Routledge

46. References • Atkinson, D. (1987). The mothertongue in the classroom: a neglectedresource? ELT JournalVol 41/4 pp.241-247 Oxford University Press. • Atkinson, D. (1993). TeachingMonolingualClasses.Harlow: Pearson English Language Teaching. • Butzkamm, W. (2003). We onlylearnlanguageonce.The role of mothertongue in FL classroom: Death of dogma. Language Learning Journal 28, 29-39 • Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching: An argument for reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Crystal, D. (2003).English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English.London: British Council. • Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: British Council. • Hall, G and Cook, G. (2012). Own-languageuse in languageteaching and learning: state of the art. Language Teaching, 45(3). pp.271-308 downloaded from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/SO261444812000067 • Li, L. & Walsh. S. (2011) ‘Seeing is believing’: looking at EFL teachers’ beliefs through classroom interaction, Classroom Discourse, 2:1, 39-57, DOI:10.1080/19463014.2011.562657 • Prodromou, L. (2002). The liberating role of the mother tongue. In S. Deller & M. Rinvolucri (eds.),Using the mother tongue: Making the most of the learner’s language. London: ETP and DELTA Publishing, 5. • Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse, London: Routledge

47. Extract 1 T ok let's look at the picture (circles the picture in the book) ok so look at page 18 look at the picture (circles it in the book) and I will say a sentence and if it's true shake hands with your friend and if it's false click your fingers do you know? shake hands? please shake hands (children shake hands) T so let's try again shake hands (children shake hands in pairs) and click your fingers (children click fingers) czyli jeżeli zdanie jest prawdziwe podajecie sobie ręce, jeżeli jest fałszywe klikacie palcami [so if the sentence is true you shake hands if it is false you click fingers](teacher demonstrates) L zabadoo says? T no look at the picture at page 18 ok are you ready? LL yes! T ok so let's start there's a bath in the kitchen (students click fingers)

48. Extract 2 T today's subject is at the market countable and uncountable nouns rzeczowniki policzalne i niepoliczalne to jest nowa rzecz bardzo ważna więc= L = to łatwe T łatwe być może też ale bardzo bardzo ważne więc przyłóżmy się ekstra ekstra ciężko i zapamiętajmy to co dziś pojawi się na lekcji L 1 (writing down the subject) tam jest a? T at the market L1 countable T o u countable L1 tam jest a? znaczy nie tam dalej T tutaj jest a i tutaj jest a (pointing to the letters) L2 a tam? T c o u

49. ctnd T do you help your parents with shopping? Do you prepare your own shopping lists? LL yes T yes and what do you put on those lists? what items do you buy?jakie rzeczy kupujecie? co umieszczacie na swoich listach z zakupami (LL raise hannds) L1 ummm … milk T milk mhm ok proszę (pointing to another student) L2 I always go to shopping with my dad. T mhm and what do you buy? what do you put on your shopping list? L2 milk T yes milk (students mention a few more products)

50. ctnd T spójrzcie uważnie na tabelkę w ćwiczeniu 1 exercise 1 read the rules ja może ją przeczytam głośno a waszym zadaniem będzie przepisać tę tabelkę do zeszytu ponieważ to jest definicja tego jak rozdzielamy rzeczowniki na policzalne i niepoliczalne i w jaki sposób je rozpoznawać L1 ja wiem T umm może proszę bardzo spróbuj opowiedzieć L1 ja? policzalne to są te, które możemy powiedzieć ile ich jest na przykład 3 jajka a niepoliczalne to są wtedy gdy nie wiemy ile ich jest na przykład mleko T mleko trzeba dodać jakiś specjalny sposób określania na przykład butelka L2 trzy butelki mleka T verygood teraz może przeczytam (reads a lengthyrule)