In April 2016 Manchester eScholar was replaced by the University of Manchester’s
new Research Information Management System, Pure. In the autumn the University’s research
outputs will be available to search and browse via a new Research Portal. Until then
the University’s full publication record can be accessed via a
temporary portal and the old eScholar content is available to search and browse via this archive.
Related resources
Search for item elsewhere
University researcher(s)
Evaluating the L1 Use of Adult Intermediate Korean English Language Learners During Collaborative Oral Tasks
Dylan Glyn Williams
[Dissertation].http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Thesis/Thesis-Williams.pdf: The University of Manchester;2010.
Access to files
Full-text and supplementary files are not available from Manchester eScholar. Use our list of Related resources to find this item elsewhere. Alternatively, request a copy from the Library's Document supply service.
Abstract
The debate surrounding the use of the first language in the English classroom continues to be a contentious issue. Recent research has noted that the first language does have a part to play in the acquisition process of the second language. In relation to an adult intermediate South Korean EFL context, this study explores how students within this context use their first language as a learning tool, to help them produce the second language, during collaboration on oral pair-work tasks. To observe and analyse first language use in these circumstances the study employs a socio-cultural framework. The outcomes of this study indicate that the first language gives rise to several different cognitive processes during the interaction, which catalyse acquisition of the second language. However, in conclusion it is posited that without proper guidance from the teacher students may have a tendency to overuse their first language tool at the expense of challenging themselves to produce the second language. In this respect, suggestions are made into how teachers can guide their students to be less reliant on their first language tool as they collaborate on oral pair-work tasks.
Bibliographic metadata
Type of resource:
Content type:
Dissertation title:
Author(s) list:
Degree type:
MA TESOL
Publication date:
Institution:
Place of publication:
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Thesis/Thesis-Williams.pdf
Total pages:
99
Table of contents:
List of figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Abstract . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .5Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Copyright
statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Introduction
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Chapter 1: L1 use in EFL education . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111.1. The genesis
of 'the English only' approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 111.2. English education in South Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121.3. My history with 'the English only'
approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131.4. The case
for and against 'the English only' approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .141.5. Research questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Chapter 2: The literature on L1
use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.1.
A brief overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172.2. A Vygotskian perspective . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202.2.1.
The socio-cultural theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212.2.2. The zone of proximal development . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222.2.3. Outer and inner
development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .222.3. Research from a Vygotskian perspective into L1 use . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Chapter 3: Methodological approach . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273.1. The context . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 273.2. Ethical requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283.3. Methodological
considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 293.3.1. The participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313.3.2. The interactive tasks
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .323.3.3. Transcription and translation of the first data set . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .343.3.4. Open-ended questionnaire . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .353.3.5.
Approach to analysis of both data sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 36Chapter 4: Analysis of both data sets . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384.1. A framework for analysis
of the first data set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384.2.
Use of L1 in interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .394.3. The cognitive processes at play . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .414.3.1. Scaffolding
within the ZPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 424.3.2. Establishing intersubjectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .444.3.2.1. The cognitive plane
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 444.3.2.2. The social plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .464.3.3. Private speech . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 484.4. Analysis of the second data set . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51Chapter 5: A discussion of generated
insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .535.1. Korean
as a learning tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .535.2. A comparison of the different L1 uses . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .545.3. L1 use from the students'
perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58Chapter 6: Implications, evaluation and future proposals . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .60 6.1. Pedagogical implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .606.1.1. A flexible approach?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .606.1.2. An early intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616.2. Strengths and limitations
of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.626.2.1. An evaluation of the employed methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .626.2.2. An evaluation of the socio-cultural framework .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656.3. Future research proposals
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 656.4. Conclusive remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67References . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 69Appendix 1: Participant information sheet . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77Appendix 2: Participant consent form
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Appendix
3: Jigsaw task materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .83Appendix 4: Dictogloss task materials . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85Appendix 5: Piloted jigsaw
task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .86Appendix 6: Piloted dictogloss task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87Appendix 7: Transcription key . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88Appendix
8: Open-ended survey questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 89Appendix 9: Samples of dyads' produced written work . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91Appendix 10: Awareness raising framework of
L1 use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Appendix 11: Useful L2
vernacular for pair-work activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Appendix
12: Strategies to assist students manage dictogloss and jigsaw tasks . . . . . . 98
Abstract:
The debate surrounding the use of the first language in the English classroom continues
to be a contentious issue. Recent research has noted that the first language does
have a part to play in the acquisition process of the second language. In relation
to an adult intermediate South Korean EFL context, this study explores how students
within this context use their first language as a learning tool, to help them produce
the second language, during collaboration on oral pair-work tasks. To observe and
analyse first language use in these circumstances the study employs a socio-cultural
framework. The outcomes of this study indicate that the first language gives rise
to several different cognitive processes during the interaction, which catalyse acquisition
of the second language. However, in conclusion it is posited that without proper guidance
from the teacher students may have a tendency to overuse their first language tool
at the expense of challenging themselves to produce the second language. In this respect,
suggestions are made into how teachers can guide their students to be less reliant
on their first language tool as they collaborate on oral pair-work tasks.
Keyword(s):
Institutional metadata
University researcher(s):
Academic department(s):
Record metadata
Manchester eScholar ID:
uk-ac-man-scw:197866
Created by:
Williams, Dylan
Created:
13th June, 2013, 04:29:29
Last modified by:
Williams, Dylan
Last modified:
6th August, 2013, 18:17:47