A number of researchers have investigated the use of L1 and teachers’ attitudes towards it (e.g. Dickson, 1996; Macaro, 1997; Schweers, 1999; Tang, 2002). One popular fallacy is teachers’ belief that ‘TL only’ approach leads students to
understand and speak more in the TL. Actually, it was suggested that the use of L1 does not affect students’ exposure to L2; instead it helps and aids L2 learning (Tang, 2002). Furthermore, it was affirmed that teachers’ exclusive use of L2 did not have any correlation with students’ L2 amount during their discourse in the classroom (Macaro, 1998). Another fallacy is that a high level of experience in L2 teaching leads to more use of L2. According to Macaro’s (1998) study, evidence showed that there was no significant differences between teachers’ teaching experience and their attitudes towards the use of L1. However, teachers’ attitudes towards L1 use may be influenced by other features such as ‘the way in which they have been trained and, in some cases, on their own language education’ (Mattioli, 2004: 21). Since English teachers are usually either native speaker or non-native speaker teachers2; attitudes from both types should be considered.
Native speaker is a complex term that has been a controversial issue for many years; although it is obviously distinguished in real life, I will refer to simple and
comprehensive definitions for both terms. A native speaker of the English language, for instance, is a person ‘who learns English in childhood and continues to use it as his dominant language and has reached a certain level of fluency’ (Tay, 1982: 67).
Non-native-speaking teachers of English are as Medgyes (2001: 433) put it:
“ Their English is a second or a foreign language;
Who work in an EFL/ESL environment;
Whose students are monolingual groups of learners;
Who speaks the same native language as his/her students. ”
Both definitions apply to the current study context, however, it is important to add who has a qualification to teach English as a foreign/second language. Moreover,
non-native-speaker teachers are mainly or perhaps considered bilinguals as they
2 In the context of this research, Native English-Speaking Teachers are English teachers who grew up
in English speaking countries (e.g. Canada, America, Britain, Australia …etc.) and speak English as a first language; while Non-Native-Speaker Teachers are teachers who grew up in Arab speaking
share students’ native language and teach them L2. I consider the broad flexible definition of bilingual, which is the person who has a high proficiency in a language (MT) and ‘can produce complete meaningful utterances in the other language’ (Haugen, 1953: 7).
2.3.1.1 Teachers’ Attitudes in Previous Studies
In a study by Kim and Petraki (2009), who investigated the attitudes of teachers’ use of L1 in a Korean school, found that native English-speaking teachers believed that L1 might be rarely helpful during the class; while Korean teachers thought it could be helpful on many occasions such as explaining new terms or difficult grammar points. As native-speaker teachers cannot use L1, it might reflect their attitudes towards using it, although they can see the benefit of L1. The Korean teachers held a positive attitude towards the use of L1; although they admitted overusing it on some occasions (Kim and Petraki, 2009). In a similar study in a university in Japan, McMillan and Rivers (2011) stated that native speaking English teachers held a positive attitude about the use of L1, and thought that it could facilitate
communication and aid comprehension. Surprisingly, they found that teachers who were less proficient in the students’ native language had more positive attitudes about using it during the class. It might be asked here, how it is possible, for
instance, for a native English-speaking teacher to use Arabic properly in a classroom room full of Arab students? Hopkins (1989) reported ways in which L1 can be efficiently used, even with monolingual teachers, native speakers, such as asking students to give the meaning in L1 or asking a bilingual teacher to assist him/her. Teachers, however, especially language teachers, are aware of approaches to grasp a language; therefore a German teacher in China, for example, will have a number of Chinese words and expressions that could support him/her during the lesson.
Ismail (2011) also found that native speaking English teachers held more positive attitudes in using L1 in the classroom than the non-native-speaking teachers. The less positive attitude towards the use of L1 seems to come from the bad reputation of using L1, or perhaps the negative use or abuse of the L1 in the classroom. This might explain why a number of teachers especially the non-native-speakers felt guilty when they were resorting to L1 as reported by Mitchell (1988), Harbord (1992) and
Macaro (1998). Although, a large number of the teachers doubted the idea of avoiding L1 was a sign of good teaching (Macaro, 1998).
Teachers in general think that L1 could be helpful in task instruction to save time and to build a rapport with students (Macaro, 1998). Moreover, a number of studies according to Macaro (2000) reported the following results regarding the teachers’ attitudes:
The majority of teachers are against the idea of total rejection for L1.
The majority of teachers consider the TL the dominant language in the classroom.
Teachers find L1 useful in functions: i.e. building relationships with students, explaining difficult instructions, using L1 in matters related to students discipline and explaining grammar points.
Students’ age and level of L2 proficiency are considered the main reasons of teachers’ use of L1.
As shown, the negative attitudes of using L1 or the idea of ignoring it or banning it is being re-evaluated among educators, instead the question of how to benefit from students’ native language is reconsidered; teachers should take into consideration Macaro’s two types of the recourse to L1 as whether it is a ‘valuable tool’ or an ‘easy option’ (2001: 545).