Integrating L1 to TESL
-
Upload
rohini-widyalankara -
Category
Documents
-
view
239 -
download
0
Transcript of Integrating L1 to TESL
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
1/30
1
Target Situation Analysis for integrating L1 to a Sri Lankan TESL environment
Rohini Chandrica Widyalankara
Observing and evaluating current pedagogical practices to identify a systemic, rational mode of
integrating L1 to the TESL environment under Pre research task I, a classroom observation,
identified the pragmatism of restricting the area of integration to vocabulary enhancement.
Pre research task II selected the participants for the main research through classifying three L2
proficiency groups: low, intermediate and high, through prior performance data and selected
participants using stratified random sampling procedures. The Pilot Studies conducted research
and analyzed contrasting descriptive statistics to ascertain whether the ability to infer lexical
meaning, dictionary skills vary across the three proficiency groups. Findings were examined to
ascertain whether judicious integration of L1 is viable and pragmatic across all three
proficiency groups.
In sum this chapter identified the impetus for judicious integration of L1 through classroom
observation, shortlisted participants for the main research and the research based components of
the target situation analysis identified and formulated the foreground for the main research which
examines, across the three identified proficiency groups, the effects of the provision of two gloss
conditions, English, and Sinhala glosses, which are independent variables in contrast with the
control No gloss condition on text comprehension.
2.1 Stage I - Pre research tasks
2.1.1 Pre research task I- Need for L1 translations in an ESL classroom
Research method - Classroom observation
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
2/30
2
Objective - to identify whether there is a need for L1 translations in an ESL classroom and
whether adequate resources to obtain the right meaning of difficult English words are available
outside the classroom.
Research questions-
1.Do teachers use L1in an ESL classroom?
2. How often do learners check the English-Sinhala dictionary by Malalasekara,
or any other English-Sinhalese dictionary for the Sinhala meaning of a difficult English word?
3. If vocabulary items go uncomprehended are the resources available outside the
classroom adequate to obtain theright meaning?
Research method: classroom observation and short interviews
Participants 50 intermediate proficiency learners
Procedure the researcher observed a classroom teaching session and collected data from the
participants through interviews.
Results -
Research questions-
1.Do teachers use L1 to accelerate vocabulary comprehension?
Observation The researcher followed the research procedure classroom observation to identify
techniques used by facilitators to integrate L1 into the ESL classroom. According to the
researchers contention the observed practice is one of the most suitable methods which can be
used at undergraduate level. This method was defined as judicious integration of L1 in the ESL
classroom.
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
3/30
3
During the lesson prior to testing presentations the facilitator1, stated, If you do not prepare
beforehand for the presentations the examiners will know that you are bluffing. Realizing that
some of the weaker students would not understand bluffing, the L1 translation in Sinhala was
immediately provided,
Do you know what bluffing is? Its /pacha gahanawa/
It was observed that a facilitator who possessed high exposure to teaching English to the students
of the Department of English, where English is L1, used a different judicious approach when
required to teach ESL.
Though colloquial in usage /pacha gahanawa/provided an effective definition which was clear,
short and familiar. This usage activated the necessary schemata and accelerated comprehension,
the symptomatic result being the shy, embarrassed expressions on the faces of the students.
2. How often do learners check the English-Sinhala dictionary by Malalasekara, or any other
English-Sinhalese dictionary for the Sinhala meaning of a difficult English word?
Table 12: Frequency of consulting a bilingual dictionary
Statistics collected through short interviews bear evidence that the majority of learners consulted
English-Sinhala dictionaries.
3. If vocabulary items go uncomprehended, are there adequate resources to obtain the right
meaning outside the locale of the classroom?
1Professor Manique Gunesekera
Response # of respondents / 50
Almost always 33
Often 9
Not very often 8
Almost never 0
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
4/30
4
The researcher referred to the English-Sinhalese dictionary (Malalasekara, 1958, revised version
2001) and the Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary for the meaning ofbluff.
bluff- Talking in a rough, kind manner. Innocent, rough behaviour. False threats.
Showing false cleverness. A steep incline/ hill.* 2 (Malalasekara, 1958)
bluff False pretension to obtain favours. Deceiving through falsehood.
bluffA very steep incline. Telling something to the face. A precipice. An abyss*
(Malalasekara, Revised version 2001).
The Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary bluff
a.Making believe that you will do something when you really have no intention of doing it.b. You show that you know something when, in fact, you do not know it.
Analysis
84% of the interviewees often or almost always refer to an English-Sinhalese dictionary for the
meaning of a difficult English word. The most popular source used was a bilingual dictionary by
Malalasekara (1958, Revised version 2001).The Malalasekara dictionary contained only the
probable meanings to the word bluff. It did not provide contexts as in the Oxford dictionary. The
contrasting meanings provided are assumed to result in confusion and lead to selecting the wrong
meaning. Whereas /pacha gahanawa/used by the facilitator not only activated the associating
schemata immediately, it also provided a concise Sinhala equivalent to the glosses provided in
the Oxford dictionary.
Analyzing the findings of pre research task I the researcher assumes the following:
The majority of ESL learners does not possess good inferring abilities and seeks thehelp of a bilingual dictionary instead of a monolingual one.
The multi meanings provided would hinder identification of the appropriate meaning incontext.
The selection of the wrong meaning will result inErroneous input erroneous intake fossilization of wrong
schemata
Based on these assumptions this research identifies the natural order of self meaning
identification the learners would follow if the meaning of bluff was not provided by the
facilitator: infer, refer to the dictionary for clarification of inferred meaning or to obtain the
2Translations which retains the linguistic quality of the Sinhala glosses.
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
5/30
5
meaning. This order of self meaning identification is supported by Koren (1999) who states that
in order for the learners to understand the meaning of a word they have to either infer it from
context or from its structure, or look up the word in a dictionary. Thus the study conceptualizes
the following model to illustrate natural order of self meaning identification followed by ESL
learners when encountering difficult English words.
Figure 2: Natural order of self meaning identification followed by ESL learners
when encountering difficult English words.
Success Arrives at a meaning
but is in doubt
Failure
Refers to dictionary
for clarification
Refers to dictionary
for meaning
Clarifies
as correct
Confusion due to
multiple meanings
SuccessFailure to
identify the
correctmeaning
Failure to
identify
thecorrect
meaning
Success
Fossilization of wrong meaning
Learner encounters difficult English word
Attempts to infer the meaningStep 1
Step 2
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
6/30
6
2.1.2 Pre research task II: Needs analysis and group divisions
Objective - to short list the participants through needs analysis procedures and group divisions
through stratified random sampling procedures for the research components.
.Research questions-
(1)Does the undergraduate population reflect a need for vocabulary
enhancement through judicious integration of L1?
(2)Is there a relationship between their lexical knowledge and
a) Ability to produce a body of written text in the form of an essay?b)
ESL proficiency?
(3) Which population (Arts/Science) is more in need of vocabulary enhancement?
Research method: Proficiency identification test in the form of a needs analysis.
Participants: a random sample of 100 final year students ( Arts-50, Science 50) who applied for
the English for final years programme conducted under the IRQUE project at the ELTU,
University of Kelaniya, 2005.
Instrument a question paper consisting of the following:
1) A comprehension passage
Target question Write the meanings of the 5 given words (tested the meaning inferring
skills of the participants)
2) Composition Write a short essay
Procedure a random sample of 100 answer scripts was taken from the total population who sat
the test. The papers were marked by 6 staff members (the researcher excluded) of the ELTU. The
final mark obtained represented overall proficiency, the marks obtained for the composition
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
7/30
7
represented the ability to produce a short essay on a given topic and the mark obtained for the
meaning guessing task represented the inferring skills of the participants.
Results: Performance statistics
Table 13:Descriptive statistics: inferring skills, composition and overall
performance at the test and their contrastive % mean. (n = 100)
Graph 2: Graphical representation for Contrastive % mean for inferring
skills, essay and overall proficiency
Analysis
(1)Does the sample population reflect a need for vocabulary enhancement through judicious
integration of L1?
Faculty
% Mean
Inferring skills composition Overall performance
Arts (n=50) 4.6 44.4 40.8
Science (n=50) 12 56.3 48.26667
Descriptive statistics: inferring meanings, essay and overall proficiency
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Inferringmeaning
Essay Overall
Arts % Mean
science % Mean% mean obtained
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
8/30
8
Yes. Compared with the % means obtained for essay writing (Arts- 44.4, Science- 56.3)
the target question which was a meaning inference test had a very low % mean. (Arts- 4.6,
Science- 12)
(2)Is there a relationship between lexical knowledge and
(a) The production of a body of written text in the form of an essay?
Within the limited lexical knowledge the sample population could produce a
bodyoftextwhich obtained a fairly high % mean (Arts 44.4, Science 56.3).
(b) ESL proficiency?
The % mean of the overall performance (Arts 40.8, Science 48.27) was affected by the low %
mean obtained for the target question which reflected the poor vocabulary knowledge and the
low inferring skills of the sample group. This caused the overall performance to fall below the
%mean obtained for essay writing.
(3) Which population (Arts/Science) has very low inferring skills and is more in
need of vocabulary enhancement through judicious integration of L1 ?
The sample population from the Faculty of Arts was short listed as the target
population for the study as they statistically reflected a dire need (% mean 4.6)
for vocabulary enhancement throughjudicious integration of L1.
Analyzing the findings of pre research task II the study short lists its target population,
undergraduates of the faculty of Arts of the University of Kelaniya who follow ESL courses at
the English Language Teaching Unit, as the participants for the research component of the study
Group division of participants
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
9/30
9
The group divisions were conducted according to the statistical procedure- stratified random
sampling. The participants were stratified into distinct sub groups based on their proficiency in
English and then a random sample was taken from each stratum.
Table 14: The participant population
Table 15: Categorization of participants
Two groups W1 (n=30) and W2 (n=30) were selected through stratified random sampling
procedures from the undergraduates who had obtained a W grade at the G.C.E. Advanced level
examination and they represented the low proficiency learner category. The undergraduates who
had obtained S (ordinary pass) and C (credit pass) were identified as the intermediate proficiency
level and two groups SC1 (n=30) and SC2 (n=30) were obtained through random sampling
procedures. Undergraduates who had obtained B (very good pass) and A (distinction pass)
totaled 43. Thus 17 undergraduates who had not registered for ELTU courses were included as
Grade # of students participants
W (weak= fail) 281 60
S (ordinary pass) 213 60
C (credit pass) 84
B (very good pass) 33 60
A (distinction pass) 10
Total 621 180
Group categorized according to
proficiency Low Intermediate High
Grade obtained for A/L General
English = Group title W S,C A,B
Group divisions W1 W2 SC1 SC2 AB1 AB2
# of participants obtained
through stratified randomsample selection
30 30 30 30 30 30
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
10/30
10
participants for the high proficiency group. Two parallel groups from each proficiency level were
obtained as the two instruments (Appendix D and Appendix E) used for collecting data for
inferring skills and dictionary skills used the same ten target words as instrument components.
Thus when participants have been exposed to one instrument the exposure to the same target
words at a second test where another skill is tested creates difficulties in qualitative analysis.
This is due to the fact that retention of details from the first exposure might affect the processing
skills of the second instrument. Thus groups W1, SC1 and AB1were the participants for testing
inferring skills (pilot study I) and groups W2, SC2 and AB2 were the participants for testing
dictionary skills (pilot study II).
2.2 Stage II: Pilot studies
The pilot studies followed the natural order of self meaning identification (Figure 2) the ESL
learners would proceed through when trying to obtain meanings for difficult English words. In
has to be stated that progress in this order necessitates a high motivation towards obtaining the
meaning of a difficult English word which is not provided in the classroom. If such motivation is
lacking this process will not be followed and the lexical items go uncomprehended by the
learners.
The progress of the learners along the natural order of self meaning identification is empirically
tested to collect data at two levels. Step 1 tested the inferring skills of the learners through pilot
study I and Step II tested the dictionary skills of the learners through pilot study II.
Pilot study I
Research question I:Is the ability to infer the meanings of difficult English words dependant on
the proficiency in English, and if dependant, how does this dependency vary across proficiency
levels?
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
11/30
11
Pilot study II
Research question II: What is the dictionary preference (bilingual /monolingual) of ESL learners
when required to obtain meanings or clarify an inferred meaning?
Research question III:Do the participants consult a dictionary for pronunciation?
Pilot study III
Research question IV: Are the bilingual dictionary skills of ESL learners dependant on their
proficiency in English and does this dependency vary across proficiency levels?
2.2.1 Pilot study I: Testing inferring skills across three proficiency levels
Objective - to collect performance data on research question I:
Is the ability to infer the meanings of difficult English words dependant on the proficiency in
English, and if dependant, how does this dependency vary across proficiency levels?
Research method: Meaning inferring test.
Instrument: 10 meaning inferring tasks where the target words were given in context. The target
words were selected at random, their main requisite feature being the multi meanings provided in
the Malasekara dictionary, of which only one would suit the context (Appendix D).
Table 16: Descriptive information of research instruments- inferring skills
Instrument Allocation conditions Participants
Appendix D
Inferring
skills
10 meaning identification tasks were given as
multiple choice questions. Three probable
meanings in English were given for each target
word to test participants ability to infer the
correct meaning
W1, n= 30
SC1, n= 30
AB1 n= 30
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
12/30
12
Participants: 30 low proficiency participants (W1) and two groups SC1 (n=30) and AB1 (n=30)
from the intermediate and high proficiency groups from Table15: Categorization of participants.
Results
Histogram representing results on measures of English inferring skills across three proficiency
groups: low, intermediate, high.
Graph 3: Graphical representation for contrastive performance at inferring
skills: low (n=30), intermediate (n=30), high (n=30)
Table 17: Mean scores on measures of English inferring skills
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
# of corect answers
freq
u
en
cy low proficiency
intermediate proficiency
high proficiency
Group W1 SC1 AB1
Proficiency Low Intermediate High
Instrument Test 1 Test 2 Test 1
# of participants 30 30 30
Mean 2.633 3.1 7
Percentage mean 26.33% 31% 70%
Median 2 4 8
S. D. 0.912 1.47 1.653
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
13/30
13
Data analysis for the success rate at obtaining the right meaning for the lexical item bluff
(classroom observation, pre research task I).
Question 2 - If you dont prepare for the presentation the examiners will know
that you are bluffing. (Appendix D) .
Analysis
Table 17 summarizes the performance levels of the three proficiency groups low, intermediate
and high. Mean scores on measures of inferring skills indicate that a significant difference exists
between the performance levels of the three proficiency groups. While the resulting mean of the
high proficiency group (70% success rate) indicates a fairly developed ability to infer while the
ability of the low proficiency learners to infer the meaning of the target words resulted in a very
poor success rate (26.33%). Data analysis for success rate at identifying the meaning of the
lexical item bluff indicates that 87.77 % of the participants failed to infer the right meaning.
2.2.2Pilot study II: Evaluating dictionary usage patterns of the target population.
0bjective: to collect data for research questions II and III
Participants: the total population in Table15: Categorization of participants
2.2.2.1: Research question II - What is the dictionary preference (bilingual /monolingual) of ESL
learners when required to obtain meanings or clarify an inferred meaning?
Instrument: Question 6 (Appendix C) - What dictionary would you check for
Multiple choice category # of choices / 90 % of choice
a. going to demand for a re-examination 49 54.44
b. trying to deceive by pretending to
have prepared
21
23.33
c. going to fail as you have not prepared 30 33.33
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
14/30
14
meanings of difficult English words?
Results
Table 18: Dictionarypreference of participant
Graph 4: Graphical representation of dictionary preference of participants
Analysis Recalling literature on prior research (Laufer & Hardar, 1997; Luppescu & Day,
1993; Schmitt, 2000) which restricts bilingual dictionary consultation to low level learners the
study illustrates through statistical analysis of data that bilingual dictionary consultation cannot
be restricted to the low proficiency learners of this study. A high percentage of intermediate and
high proficiency groups consulted bilingual and monolingual dictionaries. The analysis of data
dictionary preference
0
20
40
60
80
W SC AB
Group title
freque
ncy
Malasekara
English dictionary
Both
Dictionary type
Group allocations and percentages of
preference
W % SC % AB %
English-Sinhala - Malasekara 58 96.67 32 53.33 0 0
English-English 0 0 3 5.00 18 30
Both 2 3.33 25 41.67 42 70
# of participants 60 60 60
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
15/30
15
indicates that the majority (96.67%) of low proficiency learners (W) are heavily dependant on
bilingual dictionaries when attempting to find meanings of difficult English words. Only a very
low percentage (3.33%) referred to both bilingual and monolingual dictionaries and their usage
of only monolingual dictionaries was zero. 53.33% of the intermediate proficiency learners (SC)
too depended only on bilingual dictionaries but a very close 41.67% used both bilingual and
monolingual dictionaries. Though the study expected the high proficiency learners to claim a
higher usage of monolingual dictionaries the statistics indicate that 70% of them use both
bilingual and monolingual dictionaries.
2.2.2.2 Research question III:Do the participants consult a dictionary for pronunciation?
Instrument: Question 7 (Appendix C) - Do you consult a dictionary for pronunciation?
Table 19: Results- Dictionary consultation for pronunciation
Analysis: Through high exposure to dictionary consultation practices of the learners it was
assumed that the majority of them do not consult dictionaries for pronunciation. This research
component confirms what experience judged to be true: Almost all learners across all three
proficiency groups do not consult a dictionary for pronunciation.
Response Group allocations and percentages of preference
W % SC % AB %
Yes 0 0 0 0 2 3.3
No 60 100 60 100 58 96.7
Total 60 100 60 100 60 100.0
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
16/30
16
2.2.3 Pilot study III: Testing dictionary skills
Objective - to collect performance data for research question IV:
Are the bilingual dictionary skills of ESL learners dependant on their proficiency in English
and does this dependency vary across proficiency levels?
Instrument-
Table 20: Descriptive information of research instruments- dictionary skills
Participants: The participants were obtained from the populations in Table15: Categorization of
participants.
Procedure: Data were collected from 10 given items in the instrument (Appendix E). The number
of correct answers out of 10 was utilized for evaluating performance. Results -
Histogram representing results -Test for bilingual dictionary skills
Instrument Content Participants
(Appendix E)
Dictionary
skills
The same ten target words in
context in Appendix B with
authentic dictionary extracts of the
Sinhala meaning were provided
from Malasekara(2001).
Group W2, n=30
Group SC2, n=30
Group AB2, n=30
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
17/30
17
Graph 5: Graphical representation for contrastive performance at dictionary
skills: low (n=30), intermediate (n=30), high (n=30)
Table 21: Descriptive statistics for performance - Mean scores on measures
of bilingual dictionary skills
Data analysis for the success rate at obtaining the right meaning for the lexical item bluff
(classroom observation, pre research task I)
Question 2 - Test for dictionary skills (Appendix E)
Q 2 - If you dont prepare for the presentation the examiners will know that you
are bluffing.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
# of correct answ ers
frequency low proficiency
intermediate proficiency
high proficiency
Group W2 SC2 AB2
Proficiency Low Intermediate High
Instrument Test 2 Test 2 Test 2
# of participants 30 30 30
Mean 2.67 5.5 6.37
% Mean 26.7 55.0 63.7
Median 2.00 5 6
S. D. 1.193 1.43 1.66
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
18/30
18
(The following are English translations of the multiple choices available in the bilingual
dictionary)
a) going to talk in a rough, kind manner
b) going to make false threats
c) making false pretensions to obtain favours
d) going to tell it to the face
Table 22: Success rate at obtaining the right meaning for the lexical item
bluff
Analysis
Table 21 summarizes the performance levels of the three proficiency groups low, intermediate
and high. Mean scores on measures of dictionary skills indicate that a significant difference
exists between the performance levels of the three proficiency groups. While the resulting mean
of the high proficiency group (63.70% success rate) indicates a fairly developed ability to obtain
the right meaning of a difficult English word from a bilingual dictionary extract, the ability of the
low proficiency learners to identify the meaning of the target words resulted in a very poor
success rate (26.70%). Data analysis for success rate at identifying the meaning of the lexical
Multiple choice category # of choices / 90 % of choices
a 28 31.11
b 11 12.22
c 19 21.11
d 32 35.55
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
19/30
19
item bluff from the bilingual extract indicates that 78.88 % of the participants failed to identify
the right meaning.
2.2.4 - Pilot study IV: Preference for L1 glosses
Objective- to identify the preference to the use of L1 and the method of providing the Sinhala
translations for difficult English words in the classroom,
Research method: needs analysis (Appendix C)
Participants: The total number of participants (n =180) in Table15: Categorization of
participants.
Instruments: Question numbers 4 and 5 (Appendix C).
Q. 4 -Do you think the Sinhala translations for difficult English words should be provided within
the ESL classroom?
Q. 5 -If your answer is yes how should they be presented?
Tabulation procedure-
For both Q. 4 and Q. 5 the data were tabulated according to the three proficiency levels and
percentage preferences were calculated to identify whether preference differed across proficiency
levels.
Results
Table 23: Tabulated results for Q-4 - % preference for L1 translations
W SC AB Row Total %
Yes 55 53 46 154 85.56
No 5 7 1 4 26 14.44
Column total 60 60 60 180 100.00
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
20/30
20
Table 24: Tabulated results for Q. 5 - % preference for the mode of
provision of L1 translations
.
Analysis
Across all proficiencies a high percentage of the participants (85.56%) declared a preference for
the provision of L1 translations for difficult English words in the ESL classroom. When asked to
decide on the mode of provision, the proficiency levels differed in their choice of the preferred
method. 98.2% of the low proficiency group (W) wanted the L1 meanings on the material
provided while 73.6% of the intermediate (SC) students preferred the same method of provision.
76.1% of the high proficiency (AB) learners wanted their meanings verbally.
Thus the study recognizes that the low and intermediate proficiency groups identify a need for
more a concrete form of L1 meanings for difficult English words they come across in the
classroom. This need reflects their preference for a permanent, recorded resource which could be
reviewed when necessary. Distributed repetition, the controllable time factor and self checks on
recalled meanings can accelerate the learning of the new lexical items. The final outcome would
be learner autonomy in and an increase of their breadth of vocabulary.
Mode W % SC % AB %
In the material provided 54 98.2 39 73.6 3 6.52
On the board 1 1.82 9 17 8 17.4
Verbally 0 0 5 9.43 35 76.1
Total 55 100 53 100 46 100
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
21/30
21
On the other hand the 76.1% of the high proficiency group (AB) preferred to have the meaning
verbally. For this population once the schemata are activated their better lexical processing
capabilities make the process towards learner autonomy quicker.
The low percentage (16%) obtained for the provision of meanings on the board is an indication
that its time consuming nature is a drawback
2.3 Discussion
2.3.1 Findings of the pre research tasks
Pre research task I provided evidence for the utilization of judicious integration of L1 in an
ESL classroom. The main research of this study wishes to empirically test how beneficial this
integration is to text comprehension and to vocabulary acquisition. Thus the key words
judicious integration are analyzed to arrive at a broad definition through the classroom
observation.
Firstly judicious integration negates arbitrary, extensive usage of L1 which spells pedagogical
disaster as the learners need to gain proficiency in English their second language. The study
vehemently argues that word to word translation of sentences should not be provided as the ESL
classroom should not be converted into a locale which practices translation. Neither does
judicious integration resort to the pedagogical practices of Grammar Translation Method which
is a classical approach to the integration of L1 into ESL pedagogical practices. Grammar
Translation Method uses L1 not only to translate vocabulary but also in contrasting the syntactic
patterns of L1 with L2 to the detriment of acquiring the L2 syntactic order. Many theorists
consider this as a violation of the basic psychological principles of language learning (Goodman,
1975; Nation, 2001, 2005; Stanovich, 1998)
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
22/30
22
Secondly judicious integration of L1 requires sensitivity towards the linguistic needs of the
learners. To generalize that all undergraduates who register for ESL courses need judicious
integration of L1 is pedagogically not feasible. Thus judicious integration should identify the
different proficiency levels of the learners and advocate the integration of L1 judiciously through
a needs analysis.
Pre-research task I identified the natural path the learners would follow if they encounter a
difficult English word in the absence of outside language support. This is given the title the
natural order of self meaning identification (Figure 2). There were two main steps in this
process inferring and referring to a dictionary for clarification or meaning identification. This
led to the discovery that bilingual dictionaries that many of the learners refer have multiple,
contrary meanings to most difficult words. This generated a need for empirical evaluation of the
extent of misidentifications which would justify the need for judicious integration of L1 within
the ESL classroom.
Pre-research task II bears evidence to the fact that the students who graduate after following ESL
courses have obtained an adequate overall proficiency level in English. It also bears evidence to
the fact that they graduate with low inferring skills in English and a very limited exposure to
vocabulary but are able to perform, on average, at a satisfactory level when required to produce a
short written text. The low inferring skills and the narrow vocabulary will affect their receptive
skills as well as their productive skills. These features are strongly evidenced in the graduates of
the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Thus the target population of the study was short
listed to undergraduates of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences who register for ESL
courses at the English Language Teaching Unit. On average they are assumed to possess a very
narrow register with low inferring capabilities. Thus the study identified that the feasibility and
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
23/30
23
the benefits of judicious integration of L1 should be empirically tested on the short listed
population - undergraduates of the Faculty who registered for the first year ESL course English
for Communication in 2007.
Furthermore the researcher recognizes that L1 is used by many facilitators but considers that they
should acknowledge the following in the undergraduate population they facilitate.
The high L1 literacy rate and IQ level3
The fact that they differ in proficiency levels in English.
They are at the threshold of entering a job market which requires good communicative
skills in English, a good breadth of word knowledge (knowing many words) and a well
developed depth of word knowledge, i.e. knowing many things about a word- its literal
meaning, various connotations, the sorts of syntactic constructions into which it enters, the
morphological options it offers, semantic associations such as synonyms and antonyms (see
Nagy and Scott, 2000 for a review).
The time limitation (3 or 4 years) which necessitates an accelerated gain in vocabulary
knowledge with strategies which minimize the time used and maximize the breadth and
depth of vocabulary.
Thus through the methodology followed in pilot studies the researcher builds an argument that
judicious integration of L1 will recognize the intelligence of the undergraduate population by
not resorting to extensive usage of L1, will satisfy their diverse linguistic needs through
proficiency level groupings and make maximum use of the narrow time frame available for
lexical enhancement.
2.3.2 Findings of the pilot studies
3Based on the results of the IQ test conducted at the A/L examination.
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
24/30
24
The pilot studies followed the natural order of self meaning identification the learners would
proceed through when trying to obtain meanings for difficult English words (Figure 2). This
natural order is mostly followed by learners who posses a high motivation towards enhancing
lexical knowledge. It is ironical to acknowledge that in real learner situations low proficiency
learners are less inclined to attempt following this natural order. According to many theorists
(Gass & Selinker, 1994; Paribakt & Wesche, 1999; Pulido, 2004) when confronted with difficult
lexical items in texts most learners ignore them. The pilot studies I and II collected statistical
data for the success and failure rates at two levels of the natural order:
a) Step I where the learner attempts to infer the meaning of a target word.
b) Step II where the learner attempts to obtain the meaning of a target word
From a bilingual dictionary
The analyzed data of pilot study I indicated the magnitude of success at inferring skills.
According to analyzed findings, success rates not only of the low proficiency learners (% mean =
27.33) but also the intermediate proficiency learners (% mean = 31.00) illustrated that they
possessed poor inferring skills. Many theorists have attributed these poor inferring skills to the
lack of sight vocabulary. Haynes and Baker (1993) state that in order to guess the meanings of
unknown words in context the learner must be able to recognize, on sight, most of the
surrounding words. Nation and Hwang (1995) are not only more numerically specific they
upgrade words to word families. They state that sight recognition knowledge of the 2000
most frequent word families is needed for successful inferring. These word families consist of a
base form and all its derived and inflected forms. But Laufer (1997a) has upgraded the sight
vocabulary requirements further by stating that for successful inferring learners should know
98% or more of the surrounding vocabulary, which in many cases, amounts to knowledge of at
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
25/30
25
least 5000 word families. Thus the lack of sight vocabulary in low level learners would result in
either failure to infer the right meaning or being at doubt whether the inferred meaning is correct.
The next step of the natural order in meaning identification (figure 2) is to refer to a dictionary.
The analyzed results of pilot study II indicated that the low proficiency learners with very poor
inferring skills heavily and exclusively depended on bilingual dictionaries (96.67 %) when
required to obtain meanings of difficult English words while intermediate proficiency learners
dependency was middling (53.33%). But an almost equal 41.67 % of this group and 70% of the
high proficiency learners referred to both bilingual and monolingual dictionaries. This indicated
that across all proficiency groups the bilingual dictionary was a popular source for finding the
meaning of a difficult English word. Thus the study could generalize that most learners refer to
bilingual dictionaries.
This is supported by surveys of dictionary preferences which provide statistical evidence to
indicate that ESL learners strongly favour bilingual or bilingualized dictionaries. According to
Hulstjn, Hollander& Griedanus, (1996) and Knight, (1994) learners value bilingual dictionaries
as they assist vocabulary development at all levels of proficiency and the reading proficiency,
especially of low level learners, can be greatly improved through the consultation. But Tang
(1997) states that with the exception of comprehensive bilingual dictionaries they contribute to
over reliance on one-to-one word translation and have little information in their entries. This is
applicable to bilingual dictionaries in Sri Lanka and furthermore as evidenced in pre research
task I they are devoid of usage information and very often contain multiple contradictory
meanings. Very many of them are archaic Sinhala usages which are unnecessary distracters.
bilingualized English Sinhala dictionaries which contain the advantages of the bilingual and
monolingual dictionaries combined together are yet to be created in Sri Lanka. A bilingualized
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
26/30
26
entry typically includes: L2 definitions, L2 sentence examples, and either full L1 translations of
the L2 information or L1 synonyms of the headword. Furthermore, according to Laufer & Hadar,
(1997), and Laufer & Kimmel, (1997) using a bilingualized dictionary is more efficient than
using separate bilingual and monolingual dictionaries.
Monolingual dictionaries, on the other hand, contain a wealth of information, and provide up to
date reliable sentence examples drawn from corpus data that provide information about
meanings, grammar and usage (Harvey & Yuill, 1997), and their definitions are often within a
controlled vocabulary. But according to Tang (1997), the definition vocabulary usually consists
of about 2000 words. Thus to use a monolingual dictionary effectively, learners need to have at
least a receptive vocabulary of 2000 words and they need to interpret definitions which are more
difficult than L1 synonyms. This makes the low level learners who possess very narrow
vocabulary knowledge prefer to enter the comfort zone of L1 synonyms provided in the
monolingual dictionaries. Further difficulties await the learners who consult monolingual
dictionaries. Amritavalli (1999) provides evidence for the presence of overly difficult and
culturally bound examples drawn from corpus data. These difficulties contribute to the
reluctance of even the high proficiency learners to be exclusively dependent (18%) on
monolingual dictionaries. This plethora of deficiencies and difficulties in dictionaries results in
the poor success rate evidenced in pilot study III which tested step 2 of the natural order of self
meaning identification- dictionary skills. The results bore evidence to the fact that the success
rate of this dependency on bilingual dictionaries to obtain the correct meaning differed according
to the proficiency group of the learners. The percentage mean obtained by the proficiency
groups: low - 26.7%, intermediate - 55%, high 63.7% indicate that the low proficiency learners
had little success and intermediate proficiency learners had middling success in obtaining the
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
27/30
27
right meaning from the bilingual dictionary extracts provided in the instrument. It is my
contention that not only the linguistic proficiency of the learners but also the inherent drawbacks
in bilingual dictionaries and the high linguistic demands of the monolingual dictionaries
available for them contribute towards the poor performance in dictionary skills.
Statistics bore evidence to the fact that only 3.3% of the learner population refer to a dictionary
for pronunciation of a word. Pronunciation of English words, though available in bilingual
dictionaries, is complex to uncipher and it is a time consuming task. The phonetic transliterations
available in monolingual dictionaries are not accessed as the learners have had no exposure to
the phonetic alphabet, not even the one provided in a dictionary, and thus do not possess the
ability to obtain the pronunciation of a word from a dictioary. The study finds this a drawback to
its aim of vocabulary enhancement within the learner population. Thus the pedagogical
implementations of the study gives recognition to the area of pronunciation and discusses a L1
integrating strategy, utilization of loan words, to provide the learners the necessary exposure to
the phonetic alphabet of English.
Thus the three forerunners to the main study pilot studies I, II and III identified that a high
percentage of low and intermediate learners did not perform successfully in inferring skills and
identified wrong meanings at the test for dictionary skills. As indicated by the natural order of
self meaning identification the corollary would be the fossilization of the wrong meaning.
Focusing on the high proficiency learners, though their inferring skills are fairly developed most
of them too refer to bilingual dictionaries and face difficulties. Thus the resultant probability of
identifying the right meaning is middling.
The study argues that there is a pedagogical requirement to intervene at step 1 through judicious
integration of L1 where meanings are provided for words judged as difficult to infer and would
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
28/30
28
result in the time consuming and very often unsuccessful procedure of dictionary consultation.
Given the intelligence of the learners, the provision of the L1 equivalent will immediately
activate the relevant linguistic associations within the given context. The non provision will
activate a multitude of associations creating a web of misconceptions.
Evidence for this comes from the analysis of success levels at inferring and dictionary skills
tested on the following statement (pre research task I, classroom observation).
If you dont practice for the presentation the examiners will know that you are bluffing.
The learners immediately comprehend the lexical items practice, presentations as these occur
in the form of borrowings from English in the code repertoire of their L1- Sinhala. Examiners
on the other hand can be guessed in context as a derivative of exam which is again a borrowed
from English to Sinhala. This is possible as lexical comprehension according to Goodman (1975)
is a psycholinguistic guessing game The negative form dont is again within their inferring
level due to its high frequency of occurrence. Thus though the context is understood the failure
rate was a high 87.77% at inferring the meaning and an equally high 78.88% at identifying the
right meaning from a dictionary extract. This according to my contention is the result of the
psychological affinity the learners, especially the low and intermediate, feel towards the
distracters. The possibility of demanding a reexamination or talking in a rough, kind manner
(this is one meaning given in the bilingual dictionary though an interlocutor might find the
combination of two antonyms difficult to produce in short discourse) explaining that you have
not prepared for the presentation are very attractive associations activated by the context. More
evidence comes from the low preference (12.22%) given to going to make false threats as the
possible meaning for bluffing. This is rendered as impossible as the learners cognize that an
examiner- examinee relationship cannot evolve into the generation of threats. On the other
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
29/30
29
hand the immediate provision of the L1 equivalent pacha gahanawa resulted in the immediate
activation of the right schema for comprehension.
Thus at the end of pilot study III the study has justified the need for and clinched the argument
towards judicious integration of L1 in the ESL context targeted in this study. But as further
justification, pilot study IV, was conducted to obtain the preference of the learners towards the
judicious integration of L1 in the ESL classroom and the preferred mode of provision. The high
percentage (85.6%) of preference to judicious integration of L1 bore evidence for the feasibility
of its introduction into pedagogical practices. It is to be noted that 76.66% of the high
proficiency learners too preferred such integration. But the preference of the mode of provision
differed indicating that the high proficiency learners preference (76%), was for verbal provision
while the intermediate and low proficiency groups wanted a more concrete form of the meanings
to difficult English words provided. This identifies a pedagogical need for two different modes
of providing meanings through judicious integration of L1 in the ESL classroom.
The pilot studies tested lexical comprehension at sentence level and obtained data which
statistically validated that most low and intermediate proficiency learners have poor inferring and
dictionary skills which hindered their process of arriving at the meaning of difficult English
words. Based on these findings the study wishes to upgrade the area of research of the main
study from sentence comprehension to text comprehension. The main research will continue to
retain the priority given to lexis over grammar in the forerunners. Judicious integration in this
context will be identified as the provision of L1 glosses to difficult English words which occur in
the given text.
In conclusion this study forms the following hypothesis which will be the statistically tested for
validity in the main research.
-
7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL
30/30
Hypothesis I: Provision of Sinhala glosses for difficult English words which occur in
comprehension passages will accelerate and increase comprehension in low and intermediate
proficiency groups.