1

Use of MT in EFL Classes ofSecondary Schools in Jadetabek:

Students and Teachers’ Perception

Group Research Proposal

Researchers:

Parlindungan PardedeSelvy Aveline (NIM 0912150024)Olga Regina (NIM 0912150031)

Tio Masa E.S. (NIM 0912150042)

English Teaching Study ProgramFaculty of Education and Teachers Training

Christian University of IndonesiaJakarta2013

0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents i

Chapter I: Introduction

A. Background

B. Research Problems

C. Research Objectives

D. Significance of the study

E. Scope of the study

F. Operational Definitions

1

4

5

6

6

7

Chapter II: Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

A. Literary Review

1. History of language teaching methods focusing on MT use in

FL teaching

2. The Use of MT in the EFL classroom

3. Teachers’ Attitudes towards MT Use in the EFL Classroom

4. Reasons for Using MT in the EFL Classroom

5. The Amount of L1 Use in the EFL Classroom

B. Conceptual Framework

8

8

10

13

14

16

17

Chapter III: Research Methodology

A. Specific Research Purposes

B. Research Method

C. Participants

D. Time and Place

E. Data Collection Techniques and Instruments

F. Data Analysis Techniques

19

20

20

20

20

21

References22

1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

A. Background

In the field of second language (SL) and foreign language (FL) teaching in

general and English as a second language (ESL) or English as a foreign language

(EFL) teaching in particular, the role of the students’ mother tongue (MT) and its

influence on the target language (TL) has long been a controversy. Based on his

review of the literature related to language teaching methods, Stern (1992, p. 279)

stated that the role of MT in SL teaching is “one of the most long-standing

controversies in the history of language pedagogy”. One the one hand, those

supporting the prohibition of MT use in SL/FL classrooms, later becomes popular

as the monolingual approach, suggest that the target language should be the only

medium of communication, because SL/FL is best learned and taught through the

language itself (Richards and Rodgers 2001). For them, the avoidance of the MT

would maximize the effectiveness of learning the TL, because maximum exposure

to TL and least exposure to MT are of crucial importance, and the use of MT may

obstruct TL learning process (Cook, 2001 and Krashen, 1981).

On the other hand, the advocates of MT use believe MT can be helpful in

most classroom activities, such as learning new vocabulary items, explaining

complex ideas, studying grammatical rules, or studying cultural elements. They

assert that the monolingual approach seems to be only partially implemented in

SL/FL teaching practice, and, as a matter of fact, most ESL/EFL teachers and

2

students often resort to MT during the learning and teaching process. Nation

(2003) and Larsen-Freeman (2012), for instances, argued that students’ MT

should not completely eliminated from a SL or FL classes and reiterated that a

judicious and well–planned use of the students’ MT can give positive results.

Despite the continuous debates over the role of MT, empirical studies

during the last three decades have suggested that it is likely to be unavoidable in

SL/FL classrooms, especially when students speak the same MT and when

teachers know the MT of their students. Auerbach (1993) for example, lists

several different positive uses of L1 in L2 classrooms, i.e. classroom

management, language analysis, presenting grammar rules, discussing cross-

cultural issues, giving instructions or prompts, explaining errors, and checking for

comprehension. Macaro’s (2001) study on six student teachers in England

revealed that the participants use their MT up to 15.2% in their teaching. Based on

their study on 13 Korean teachers of English in high schools, Liu et al (2004)

reported their use of Korean ranged from 10% to 90% of class time. Kim and

Elder’s (2005) study on seven teachers who taught foreign languages in New

Zealand revealed that the proportion of target language use among these teachers

varied from 23% to 88%.

Kim Anh (2010) study on the attitudes of Vietnamese university teachers

towards using Vietnamese in teaching English indicated that judicious use of MT

is found to be necessary in some situations in teaching English. In addition, Al-

Nofaie’s (2010) study showed that the students and teachers’ attitudes towards

using the Arabic in EFL classroom were positive and the students preferred MT to

3

be used in certain situations. However, the teacher participants claimed that the

untimely and excessive use of MT should be avoided because it may obstruct

learning English. In the Chinese context, Tang’s (2002). study revealed that

students supported the use of Chinese in English classes because it makes English

learning more effective and less time-consuming.

Though researches on the use of MT in FL classrooms have increased

dramatically in many places in the world, in Indonesian public schools, very little

attention has given specifically to this issue and only few studies have been

carried out to investigate the role of Indonesia in English classes. To the present

writers’ knowledge, there are only two accessible studies carried out concerning

this issue in Indonesian context so far. Zacharias’ (2003) study revealed tertiary

education English teachers’ account about what Indonesian is used for in their

English classes: explaining the meaning of new words and grammatical points,

giving instructions, checking learners’ understanding and giving feedback to

individual learners. The second work, Usadiati’s (2009) action research, revealed

that the use of Indonesian interchangeably with English in the explanations of

concepts and rules for teaching students to write English sentences in Present

Perfect Tense improved the students’ achievement.

Since English has recently been taught in all levels of education, such lack

of attention to the use of Indonesian in English classrooms a great disadvantage.

Since both teachers and students have the same MT (most English teachers in the

public school are Indonesians) they must be apt to resort to Indonesian as a

support to survive or to make sense of whatever is going on in the English class. If

4

only we have appropriate empirical data on this issue, we will be able to raise our

awareness of where we are at present in our use of Indonesian in English classes

and to prepare the ground for a more reasoned use of Indonesian in the English

classroom. And this study is a trial to provide such necessitated data.

B. Research Problems

Based on the discussion in the background section above, the use of

Indonesian appears, in some ways, to be beneficial for learning and teaching

English. It has also been learned that little attention has been given to the use of

Indonesian in English classes. There is, therefore, a great urgency to study this

issue. By having appropriate empirical data concerning this issue, we will have

more solid basis to decide what methodology is best for our students. The

problem to be addressed in this study is students and English teachers’ perception

towards the use of Indonesian in English classrooms at senior high schools around

Jadetabek. More specifically, the study tries to seek answers to the following

questions.

1. What is the perception of teachers and students towards using Indonesian in

their English classroom?

2. To what extent do English teachers and students believe in the role of the

Indonesian?

3. How much Indonesian do teachers use in their English classroom?

4. How much Indonesian do students expect their teachers use in their English

class?

5

5. How much Indonesian do students want to use themselves?

6. What for do students and teachers employ Indonesian?

7. What is the relationship between years of English teaching experience and

teachers' use of Indonesian?

8. What is the relationship between years of English learning and students'

expectation in the use of Indonesian?

C. Research Objectives

Based on the discussions on the previous sections, this study will be

carried out to get empirical data about:

1. English teachers and students’ perception on the use of Indonesian in English

classroom.

2. the extent of English teachers and students’ belief in the role of the Indonesian

in English classroom.

3. the frequency of teachers use of Indonesian in English classroom.

4. Students’ expectation of the frequency of teachers’ use of Indonesian in their

English classes.

5. Students’ expectation of the frequency of their use of Indonesian in their

English classes.

6. The students and teachers objectives for employing Indonesian.

7. The relationship between years of English teaching experience and teachers'

use of Indonesian.

6

8. The relationship between years of English learning and students' expectation

in the use of Indonesian.

D. Significances of the study

The findings of this study are hopefully useful to the following four

groups:

1. English teachers can make use of the findings and become aware of the role

Indonesian plays in teaching and learning English.

2. Teacher educators-could make use of the findings to reexamine their foreign

language teaching methodology at the teacher training and development

centers.

3. Material writers and syllabus designers-may make them to consider

Indonesian while preparing teaching materials or designing the syllabus.

4. Researchers might be stimulated to conduct further research in the area which

may open the way to the development of a new ELT method and techniques

that work to incorporate the use of Indonesian in the EFL classroom.

E. Scope of the study

Due to budget and time constraint, the present study confined itself to

investigate the perception of students and English teachers towards the use of

Indonesian in English classes at senior high schools around Jadetabek (Jakarta,

Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi).

7

F. Operational Definitions Terms and Acronyms

1. SL refers to second language

2. FL refers to foreign language

3. MT refers to mother tongue, i.e. Indonesian in the context of this study

4. TL refers to target language, i.e. English in the context of this study

5. EFL refers to English as a foreign language

6. ELT refers to English Language Teaching

8

Chapter II

LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter presents two sections: In the first section, research findings,

arguments, and ideas relevant to the study are summarized and synthesized as a

mean to provide the study with relevant context. The second section relates the

background to the problems and shows how the present proposed research could

contribute to the literature of the use of MT in ELT classes.

A. Literary Review

1. History of language teaching methods focusing on MT use in FL teaching

A look at the history of MT use in the SL/FL classroom quickly reveals

periodic but regular changes in how it is viewed (Auerbach, 1993, p.12).

Therefore, Stern (1983) stated that “the role of first language in foreign language

teaching is one of the most longstanding controversies in the history of language

pedagogy.” Several hundred years ago bilingual teaching was the ‘norm’, with

students learning through translation, which is later well-known as the Grammar

Translation Method. The use of MT to study a SL/FL under the domination of this

method was almost universal and readily accepted, in part because language

teaching placed an emphasis on the written word above the spoken word. Under

the Grammar Translation Method, MT is freely used as “reference system” in the

9

process of foreign language acquisition (Stern, 1983). In other words, MT is used

as the main means of instruction.

In the 19th Century, this trend slowly reversed itself (towards a

monolingual approach), in part due to a shift towards an emphasis on the spoken

word. The shift of the emphasis was partly due to mass migration and colonialism

which caused people need to learn foreign languages in order to communicate

orally. This led to the emergence of the Direct Method, which is based on the

belief that FL learning should be an imitation of MT learning. In this light,

learners should be immersed in the target language through the use of that TL “as

a mean of instruction and communication in the language classroom”, and through

“the avoidance of the use of MT and translation as a technique” (Stern, 1983).

After its highest popularity during the period from the late nineteenth century to

the first quarter of the twentieth century, the Direct Method began to decline.

However, the method has laid foundation upon which many of the later methods

and approaches expanded and developed. Among them are the Audio-lingual

Method and Communicative Approach.

The Audio- lingual Method, whose origin is found in the Army Method

developed in response to the need for Americans to learn the languages of their

allies and enemies alike during World War II, aims at helping learners “to be able

to use the target language communicatively” (Larsen- Freeman, 2012). Like the

Direct Method, this method focuses on the spoken language and forbids

translation and the students’ MT in the classroom (Ellis, 2003). Meanwhile, in the

Communicative Approach, which has attracted most attention from the language

10

teaching profession during the past five decades, the restricted use of learners’

mother tongue is allowed where feasible and translation may be used when

learners find it essential and helpful (Ellis, 2003).

Recently, there has been an increasing attention to the advantages of MT

use in the FL classrooms. Numerous studies related to the roles of MT in FL

teaching and learning have been carried out around the world in order to develop

communicative language teaching which considers MT as a classroom resource.

Weschler’s (1997) Functional-Translation Method, which combines “the best of

traditional “grammar translation” with the best of modern “direct,

communicative” methods”, is a good example for this.

2. The Use of MT in the EFL classroom

As indicated in previous sections, two opposing arguments have emerged

regarding MT use in the EFL classes, i.e. those against it and those favoring it.

Both are briefly discusses in the following sections.

a. Arguments against Using MT in the EFL classroom

Various arguments have been put forth for prohibiting the students’ MT in

the ESL/ EFL classroom. The first and most common is interference from the

native language. Dulay, Burt & Krashen, cited in Al-Harbi (2010, p. 145) define

the interference “as the automatic transfer, due to habit, of the surface structure of

the first language onto the surface of the target language". According to Cook,

(2001), interference is a major source of difficulty in the TL learning and to avoid

11

that, the separation of MT and TL should be made. Harbord (1992) also supports

MT and TL separation, and he acknowledges that overusing MT makes students

believe that word for word translation is a useful technique, and, consequently,

they will work towards transferring meaning in learning the TL.

The second argument asserts that using MT might negatively affect

students' learning process because it reduces the exposure learners get to the TL

and reduces their opportunities for using the TL (Turnbull, 2001, and Deller &

Rinvolucri, 2002). In other words, MT use will prevent the maximum provision of

the TL. This argument is usually strengthened with the idea that EFL learners

often have little or no exposure to the target language outside the classroom.

Teachers, therefore, should not spend this valuable classroom time using MT. In

agreement with this view, Auerbach (1993) indicates that "the more students are

exposed to English, the more quickly they will learn; as they hear and use English,

they will internalize it and begin to think in English" (p. 14).

The other argument, chiefly advanced by Krashen (1981), is MT

acquisition argument. The philosophical basis Krashen used to support this claim

is that adults learn the TL similar to the way children pick up their MT. The

justification put forward for the claim is that to acquire their MT, children do not

rely on another language. However, Cook (2001a) argues that the analogy to MT

acquisition is simply beside the point, According to him, the nature of MT

acquisition is fundamentally different from SL/FL learning, especially in terms of

age and situations. Therefore, the fact that by definition children do not fall back

on another language while acquiring their MT has no implication for whether or

12

not SL/FL learners should make use of their MT while learning SL/FL. In line

with this, Weschler (1997) asserts that, “Children take years following the natural

order of acquisition to master the concrete before the abstract. By contrast, already

having mastered the latter, adults can take shortcut” (p. 4). In the same vein, Cook

(2002) notes that the misguided vision of the MT acquisition is one of those

factors that have outlawed the role of translation in SL/FL teaching. He further

comments that the idea of relating SL/FL learning to MT acquisition is based on

assertions without evidence or weak evidence.

Based on these arguments, we can conclude that the advocates of the

monolingual approach believe the best way to teach EFL is by using English as

the medium of teaching.

b. Arguments Supporting MT Use in the EFL Classroom

The monolingual approach has been criticized by researchers and

practicioners who believe that limited use of MT is a very natural and useful tool

in the SL/FL classroom. Thus, many researchers have thought of ways to use MT

into the EFL teaching effectively (Schweers, 1999; Cook, 2001, Deller &

Rinvolucri, 2002; and Al-Nofaie, 2010). Atkinson (1987) strongly supports that

students' MT shouldn’t be completely ignored in the English classes since "the use

of L1 can be very effective in terms of the amount of time spent explaining" (p.

242). According to Auerbach (1993), "when the native language is used,

practitioners, researchers, and learners consistently report positive results" (p. 18).

13

As shown by Harbord (1992), Auerbach (1993) and Deller and Rinvolucri

(2002), MT represents a powerful source that can be used to enhance the SL/FL

learning. In this situation, there is a extensive amount of literature which strongly

suggests that MT can play a supportive and facilitating role in the EFL classroom

as a valuable linguistic resource, and consequently, it should not be totally

avoided (Schweers, 1999 and Nation, 2003). ELT teachers must have ever

experienced or felt that the students’ MT can be used as a teaching technique

especially in the areas where there is marked difference between MT and EFL

system. Harmer (2001) also notes that MT use is a quick and helpful technique in

teaching the TL. To conclude, the most realistic principle in ESL/EFL teaching

should be to use English where possible and MT where necessary" (Atkinson,

1993).

3. Teachers’ Attitudes towards MT Use in the EFL Classroom

According to AL-Nofaie (2010), teachers’ attitudes towards MT use have

been examined in different countries with varied results. The results of Al-

Buraiki’s (2008) study aimed to investigate the Omani English teachers' attitudes

in basic education school showed that the teachers believed that MT has a positive

role to play in teaching the young learners. Crawford's study (2004) concerning

the primary level as cited in Al-Nofaie (2010) revealed that 54 % had

"reservations" in using MT as the main medium of teaching. The study of Sharma

(2006) on the attitudes of Nepali teachers and students towards the use of the

native language in the EFL classroom revealed that all respondents preferred the

14

occasional use of MT in the English classes. They also asserted that judicious use

of mother tongue is justified because it helps students learn English better.

Similarly, Kim and Petraki (2009) reported that for Korean students and teachers'

MT plays a helpful role in the language classroom, especially in the early stages.

4. Reasons for Using MT in the EFL Classroom

Several studies have been carried out in different countries to investigate

areas in which teachers can take advantage of their students’ first language (Al-

Nofaie, 2010).

The notion of MT serving as "a time–saving device" is the most frequent

justification given by teachers for LI use (Atkinson, 1987. p, 422) Similarly,

Shimizu (2006, p. 77) indicated that "time-saving" is one of the principle

arguments why researchers are in favor of using MT. As Turnbull (2001) stated,

"I know from my personal experience that it is tempting to use the MT to save

time"(p.536). Auerbach (1993) and Schweers (1999 also agree that saving time is

a justified reason for using MT especially at lower levels. According to Harbord

(1992), teachers' use of MT to save time provides opportunities for "real teacher-

student communication in TL classroom" (p.352).

Another significant reason for teachers' use of the students' MT in the TL

classroom is to achieve natural communication between them and their students.

Harbord (1992, p. 352) argues that "facilitating teacher-student communication",

and "facilitating teacher-student rapport" are two basic objectives for the teachers'

use of students' MT in the EFL classroom. In accordance with the previous view,

15

Auerbach (1993) indicates that achieving a good relationship between students

and teachers is a desirable aim that can be fulfilled through MT use. Nation

(2003) indicates that it is easier and more communicative to use MT in the EFL

classrooms to facilitate communication between students and teachers.

Additionally, Miles (2004) considers that MT should be used in the EFL

classroom in order not to create a barrier between the students and the teachers.

It is also acceptable to use MT in the EFL classroom by teachers to convey

the meaning of an unfamiliar word, to clarify abstract word, and to explain

difficult concepts (Meyer, 2008). Turnbull (2001) concurs with the opinion that

“it is efficient to make a quick switch to the L1 to ensure that students understand

an unknown word” (p. 535). As shown by Meyer (2008), the absence of MT when

explaining the unfamiliar concepts can raise the level of anxiety among students.

Motivating students by using MT has received much interest in literature.

Hamdallah (1999, p. 290), for example, emphasizes that in order to keep the

learner's motivation in an " ideal circle", appropriate use of MT in EFL classroom

could be used. He adds that using MT to motivate students encourages them to

express their ideas since it has a direct influence on the "psychological pressure".

However, he concludes that when learners' ability of TL increases, it is necessary

to minimize the use of MT. Critchely (2002) indicates that with lower level

learners, teachers should use MT when appropriate to build positive and mutually

supportive relationships that will promote student motivation (p. 3). It is also

commonly agreed in the literature that MT could be used by EFL teachers to give

complex instructions to early levels (Harbord, 1992 and Auerbach, 1993). In

16

Cook's (2001b) and AL-Nofaie's (2010) studies, the findings revealed that a large

number of teachers' favorite choice for giving complex instructions was by using

the students' mother tongue. Harbord (1992) emphasized that giving class

instructions by using MT is an important point to achieve and facilitate

communication between teachers and students.

5. The Amount of L1 Use in the EFL Classroom

A body of research about how much MT is used in the EFL classroom by

both teachers and students with different kinds of data, including questionnaire,

interviews and observation of lessons, has been carried out in different contexts

and indicated a great degree of variability in the amounts of the MT and the TL

use by teachers.

Guthries (1984), who investigated the MT and the TL use of 6 university

French instructors, found that there was a great degree of variability in the

amounts of the MT and the TL use by teachers. Overall, most of them used the

MT in a relatively low percentage of the total time. Five out of the six instructors

apparently used the MT 2% to 17% of the time (with one exception above 40%).

Duff and Polio’s (1990) study in FL classes at the University of California

showed a wide range of percentages across languages: from 0% to 90% the first

language with a 32.1% “cross-class average” (p.156). Their interviews with

teachers dealing with the variability in MT/TL ratio showed that the variables that

might have played a role included language type, departmental policy and

guidelines, lesson content, materials and formal teacher training.

17

Macaro (1997), intended to investigate how much MT was used by

instructors, why they claimed to use it, and what factors appeared to influence

their decision to use it, found that very little MT was used in the classes recorded

by the instructors. When instructors initiated a switch to MT, it appeared that they

did so for the sake of efficiency and convenience, or to impose discipline or keep

control of the class. According to Macaro (1997), teachers switched from TL to

MT mainly to give and clarify instructions for classroom activities, to give

feedback to students, to translate, and to check comprehension.

More recent studies on this issue also revealed a great degree of variability

in the amounts of the MT and the TL use by teachers. Macaro’s (2001) study on

six student teachers in England revealed that the participants use their MT up to

15.2% in their teaching. Based on their study on 13 Korean teachers of English in

high schools, Liu et al (2004) reported their use of Korean ranged from 10% to

90% of class time. Kim and Elder’s (2005) study on seven teachers who taught

foreign languages in New Zealand revealed that the proportion of target language

use among these teachers varied from 23% to 88%.

Based on the results of these studies, it can be concluded that the amounts

of the MT and the TL use by teachers are varied, and thus, more empirical support

is needed before sound pedagogical and policy decision are made.

B. Conceptual Framework

The inclusion of the students’ MT in SL/FL classes has long been a

controversy. On the one hand, proponents of the monolingual approach believe

18

that to maximize the effectiveness of learning the TL, MT should be prohibited,

because maximum exposure to TL and least exposure to MT are of crucial

importance, and the use of MT may obstruct TL learning process. Thus a

second/foreign language is best learned and taught through the language itself. On

the other hand, the proponents of the MT use argue that MT can be helpful in

most classroom activities. As a consequence, MT should not completely

eliminated from a SL or FL classes for a well-judged and well–planned use of the

students’ MT can give positive results.

Since most current research results tend to support the judicious and well–

planned inclusion of MT, this issue deserves more studies to get more empirical

data. The more data concerning this issue available to use, the easier it is for us to

find more suitable teaching methodology for our students. This study is one of the

trials to meet this challenge. Its findings will at least enrich empirical data

concerning with secondary school students and English teachers’ perception

towards the use of Indonesian in English classrooms.

19

Chapter III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter provides the basic plan of the proposed study. It covers the

specific research purposes and questions, research design, participants, time and

place, data collection instruments and techniques, data analysis technique, and

research procedure. At the end of this chapter, information about the budget is

also presented.

A. Specific Research Purposes

The findings of this study are hopefully able to get empirical data about:

1. English teachers and students’ perception on the use of Indonesian in English

classroom.

2. The extent of English teachers and students’ belief in the role of the

Indonesian in English classroom.

3. The frequency of teacher’s use of Indonesian in English classroom.

4. Students’ expectation of the frequency of teachers’ use of Indonesian in their

English classes.

5. Students’ expectation of the frequency of their use of Indonesian in their

English classes.

6. The students and teachers objectives for employing Indonesian.

7. The relationship between years of English teaching experience and teachers'

use of Indonesian.

20

8. The relationship between years of English learning and students' expectation

in the use of Indonesian.

B. Research Method

This study will employ an explanatory mixed method design, which,

according to Creswell et al. (2003) enables the researcher to gather qualitative

input to explain and extend quantitative results, in order to gain a comprehensive

insight of the research.

C. Participants

The target participants of this study are 20 English teachers and 750

students from 20 secondary schools around Jabodetabek (Jakarta Depok,

Tangerang, and Bekasi)

D. Time and Place

This study will be conducted in May—August 2013 in Jadetabek.

E. Data Collection Instrument and Technique

Data will be collected employing survey and interview techniques. The

survey will be conducted using two questionnaires: (1) teachers’ questionnaire

and (2) students’ questionnaire. Both of them will be constructed to gauge the

perceptions of both teachers and students toward the use of MT in their English

classes. Focused semi structured open-ended interviews will be conducted to all

21

teachers and 40 students (2 students from each school), who were respondents to

the questionnaire administered, to gather qualitative input. The themes that

emerged during the interview sessions were coded in accordance to the

quantitative dimensions from the questionnaire. The rationale for using focused

semi structured open-ended interviews is to understand the respondents’ point of

view rather than make generalizations.

F. Data Analysis Technique

Data will be analyzed descriptively. To run frequency analysis and to cross

tabulation of the data, SPSS version17.0 will be employed.

22

References

Al-Harbi, A. (2010). Mother tongue maintenance and second languagesustenance. A two way language teaching method. TESOL Journal, 2,144-158.

Al-Nofaie, H. (2010). The attitudes of teachers and students towards using arabicin EFL classrooms in Saudi public schools. Novitas-ROYAL, 4 (1), 64-95

Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching monolingual classes: Using L1 in the classroom.Harlow: Longman Group Ltd.

Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining english only in the ESL classroom. TESOLQuarterly 27, (1), 9–32.

Cook,G. (2002). Breaking Taboos. English Teaching Professional, Issue23, 5-7.

Cook, V. (2001a). Second language learning and language teaching. London:Arnold.

_______ (2001b). Using the first language in the classroom. The CanadianModern Language Review/ La Revue Canadienne des Language Vivantes,57 (3), 402 – 423.

Critchley, M.P. (2002). The role of L1 support in communicative ELT: A guidefor teachers in Japan. The Language Teacher, 23(9), 1-9.

Deller, S. & Rinvolucri, M. (2002). Using the mother tongue: Making the most ofthe learner's language. London: Baskerville Press Ltd.

Duff P.A. and Polio, C.G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in theforeign language classroom? Modern Language Journal ,74, 154-66.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Guthrie, E.M.L. (1984). Six cases in classroom communication: A study ofteacher discourse in the foreign language classroom. In: Lantolf J.P. andLabarca A, (Ed.). (1984). Research in second language learning: Focus onthe classroom. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Hamdallah, R. (1999). To use or not to use Arabic in English language teaching,An-Najah National University Research Journal- B, 13 (1), 285-296.

Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal,46, 350-355.

23

Hsieh, L..T. (2000) The effects of translation on English vocabulary and readinglearning’, paper presented at the Ninth International Symposium onEnglish Teaching, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.

Kim Anh, K. H. (2010). Use of Vietnamese in English language teaching invietnam: Attitudes of vietnamese university teachers. ELT Journal, 3(2).

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning.Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition inthe classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.

Kobayashi, H., and C. Rinnert. (1992). Effects of first language on secondlanguage writing: Translation versus direct composition, LanguageLeaning, (42), 2: 183-215.

Larsen–Freeman, D. (2012). Techniques and principles in language teaching. (3rd

ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Macaro E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Macaro E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ code-switching in foreignlanguage classrooms: Theories and decision making. Modern LanguageJournal. 85, 531-48.

McCann, K. (2005). Not lost in translation. IATEFL Issues, 186.

Meyer, H. (2008). The pedagogical implications of L1 use in the L2 classroom.Retrieved September 12, 2010 from http://www.kyoai.ac.jp/college/ronshuu/no08/meyer1.pdf.

Miles, R. (2004). Evaluating the use of L1 in the English language classroom(Master thesis, University of Birmingham). Retrieved February 4, 2008from: www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/Milesdiss.pdf.

Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. TheAsian EFL Journal, 5 (2), 1-8.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in languageteaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schweers, W. Jr. (1999). Using L1 in the TL classroom. English Teaching Forum,37(2), 6-7

Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

24

Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English classroom. English Teaching Forum,40(1).

Turnbull, M. (2001). There is role for the L1 in second and foreign languageteaching, but… The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(4), 531-540.Retrieved August 9, 2010 from http://www.utpjournals.metapress.com/index/n5753111t48u536r.pdf

Turnbull, M., & Arnett, K. (2002). Teachers’ uses of the target and first languagesin second and foreign language classroom. Annual Review of AppliedLinguistics, 22, 204–218.

Usadiati, W. (2009). Contribution of L1 in EFL teaching. Kata, 11(2), 171-184

Vaezi, S., & Mirzaei, M. (2007). The effect of using translation from L1 to TL asa teaching technique on the improvement of EFL learners’ linguisticaccuracy – focus on form. Humanising Language Teaching, 9(5).Retrieved February 20, 2013 from http://www.hltmag.co.uk/Sep07/mart03.htm.

Weschler, R. (1997). Uses of L1 in the English classroom: Introducing thefunctional-translation method. In The Internet TESL Journal, November,1997. Retrieved March 16, 2013 from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Weschler-UsingL1.html

Zacharias, N. T. (2003). A survey of tertiary teachers’ beliefs about EnglishLanguage Teaching in Indonesia with regard to the role of English as aglobal language (Master thesis, Assumption University, 2003). Retrievedfrom http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/thesis.php.