Reassessment of English-only approach in EFL context in view of young learners’ attitudes, language proficiency, and vocabulary knowledge

English teaching policy in South Korea and assumptions behind the English-only approach

As mentioned in Introduction, the issue of teachers’ language use in English education in Korea has focused on the notion of TEE, which “pertains to the use of English between teachers and students during English language class activities” (Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education [2010], p. 10). Concerning the advancement of TEE protocols, Choi et al. ([2000]) from the Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation proposed three models of English teaching in terms of teachers’ language use in teaching different language skills:

Model 1 Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, Cultural Aspects of English→ all through English-only Instruction

Model 2 Listening, Speaking → through English-only InstructionReading, Writing, Cultural Aspects of English → 80% Use of English

Model 3 Listening, Speaking → through English-only InstructionReading, Writing, Cultural Aspects of English → 60% Use of English(Adapted from Choi et al. [2000])

Among these three options, Choi et al. ([2000]) argued that Model 2, which promotes English-only in teaching speaking and listening skills, and enables teachers to use about 80% use of English in teaching other skills, may be the most realistic and desirable model in the context of English education in Korea. This model, while encouraging a higher amount of English use than Model 3, permits some degree of teachers’ first language (L1) use for pedagogical purposes, unlike Model 1 which promotes the exclusivity of English instruction. This view is also shared by Swain et al. ([2011]) who support the teacher and student use of the L1 “in a planned and judicious manner” (p. 8), in the handbook for English teachers in Hong Kong—another EFL context.

Although the legitimacy of these tenets has been put into question by several authors (e.g., Cook [1999]; Medgyes [1994]; Swan [1985]) on both pedagogical and political grounds, the EO approach has gained popularity in the field and has brought about several pedagogical consequences. First, educational authorities have argued that TL-only instruction should be used as much as possible, and in Asian English teaching contexts the EO approach (delivered in either UK or US style English by native speakers of those varieties) has become a trendy one. For example, in the EFL context of Hong Kong, the Curriculum Development Council ([2004]) clearly states that “teachers should teach English through English,” and “in all English lessons” if possible (p. 109). As McKay ([2002]) points out, it is rather difficult to follow this pedagogical recommendation in the EFL environments in which teachers and learners share the same language. On another level, learners’ TL competence has been evaluated against monolingual standards (Grosjean [1985]). In line with Grosjean, Bolton ([2008]) raises a similar concern regarding the assessment of the proficiency of Asian English users:

"there are also profound issues about how ‘proficiency’ might best be measured in Asian contexts, given that many traditional proficiency tests are benchmarked in various ways against inner-circle (UK or US) ‘native speaker’ patterns of performance, and yet ignore the multilingual proficiency of many Asian users of English (p. 11)."

Lastly, it has been implied that the ideal TL teacher is a native speaker of that language (Cook [1999]), who presumably makes use of and implements TL-only approach better than their non-native counterparts. This is rather unfortunate, partly because we are far from having any tentative conclusion that the TL-only approach or instruction by native speaker teachers is superior to the bilingual approach to English teaching or that delivered by bilingual teachers (Macaro [2009]), and partly because language learners do not generally accept the TL-only approach as an effective and preferable one (see Learners’ attitudes towards teachers’ language use below). It is also noteworthy that there is an increasing awareness among both the research community and language learners that bilingual teachers have some strengths not shared by their native counterparts (for example, He and Miller [2011]; see also several chapters in Llurda [2005]) presumably in light of a recent movement of research towards bilingualism and English as an international language (Genesee [2008]; Myers-Scotton [2006]; Kachru et al. [2006]).

Embracing such a trend, the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education ([2010]) has recently taken a less assertive position about EO instruction, saying “teachers may switch between English and Korean during class according to the content of the lesson and the students’ understanding in order to exercise flexibility” (p. 10), implying that the EO approach may not be the most suitable model of English teaching in their view. Indeed, as Baumgardner ([2006]) rightly suggests, if we aim to help our English learners to become competent bilinguals, it would be required for English teachers to have knowledge of both TL and L1. This position supporting the integration of learners’ L1 may also fit in better with the current status of English as an international language, in which code-switching (between different languages or linguistic varieties) has been found to serve some sociolinguistic functions (Myers-Scotton [1993]).

Despite ongoing discussion on this issue, however, young learners’ attitudes towards this approach have rarely been studied, let alone its relation to proficiency. The importance of learners’ attitudes in language learning will be discussed below, focusing on the TL-only approach.

Learners’ attitudes towards teachers’ language use

Each language learner brings to classrooms his or her previous language learning experience, knowledge of language, and perception of various aspects of language learning. These perceptions progressively mould learners’ attitudes towards a certain teaching approach which is embodied and manifests itself through educational policy, curriculum, text materials, teachers’ activities and their language use. Learners’ attitudes or beliefs about language learning have been claimed to be influential factors in the success of TL learning, with much research in this tradition owing to the work of Horwitz (see Horwitz [1999] for a review). Horwitz developed a questionnaire called The Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) which assesses learners’ opinions on various controversial issues related to language learning. A series of studies using the BALLI suggest that learners’ beliefs about learning have a critical bearing on their experiences as well as actions they take in classrooms. In line with this proposal, Long ([1997]) further suggests that instructors “who do not solicit student attitudes often face [problems such as] they … gain fewer insights into the problems their students are having [and] … they may continue in certain practices that negatively affect the students’ self-esteem, performance” (The Importance of Student Attitudes, para. 3).

Only in recent years have second language (L2) researchers started to pay attention to learners’ attitudes towards TL-only instruction or L1 use by their teachers. Although the issue has not garnered much attention from the second or foreign language teaching community in general, the importance of this issue is well summarized by Chavez ([2003]): “learners’ beliefs are central in communicative, learner-centered approaches … [because learners’ views therein] determine how students perceive, interpret, and react to their teachers’ actions” (p. 164). In other words, learners’ attitudes towards teachers’ linguistic repertoire influences their language learning process. We can hypothesize then that learners’ positive attitudes towards the EO teaching approach would bear fruit if they were exposed to such an environment. If learners were not in favor of such an approach, being surrounded by English-only approach would possibly have a negative influence.

Research has repeatedly shown that learners’ attitudes towards the TL-only approach do not match the ideals of program administrators and teaching practitioners. Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney ([2008]) found that students enrolled in a French beginner course in which maximizing TL use was promoted preferred their L1 to be used for medium-oriented goals (as in learning vocabulary and grammar). Chavez ([2003]) observed a tendency among university learners of German to increasingly prefer the TL as they progressed in their TL learning. Still a majority of the participants valued the L1 for communicating with their instructors and understanding various aspects of the TL.

The findings of studies conducted in Asian EFL contexts (Burden [2004]; Liu et al. [2004]; Yao [2011]) strengthen earlier ones in that learners as a whole prefer having the L1 as part of their teachers’ oral instruction over English-exclusivity. In particular, as far as English vocabulary and grammar are concerned, EFL learners in these studies were greatly in favor of L1 explanations for the sake of comprehensibility. Yao, by implementing the same questionnaire with instructors and learners, further observed that instructors in Chinese EFL classrooms generally share similar beliefs with their learners in terms of teachers’ code-switching to the L1, although they disagreed with certain values attached to L1 use (e.g., for discipline purposes).

The findings of the studies on this topic appear to suggest that learners’ preference for the L1 in TL learning persists in spite of the strong TL-only (or maximum) approach advocated on an administrative level. While we also see some possibility of a growing preference for more TL input on the part of instructors among learners (Burden [2004]; Chavez [2003]), it remains unclear as to whether they would still be supportive of TL-only teaching approach and instruction after years of language learning. It is the focus of this study to examine whether young EFL learners share similar beliefs regarding EO instruction with those in previous studies, and whether one could further find any relationship between their attitudes to using the EO approach and proficiency.

The relationship between the L1 and TL proficiencies

In the field of TL learning and bilingual education, the role of the L1 in TL learning has been controversial for decades, with a recurring question among professionals being whether the L1 aids or interrupts the TL learning process. Research has spawned different propositions regarding cross-linguistic influences, each of which we will review briefly below.

A negative view of L1 influence largely comes from studies on Contrastive Analysis (CA). Research in this tradition (e.g., Stockwell et al. [1965]; James [1980]) draws on the behaviorist theory of learning from psychology and structural linguistics, suggesting that transfer from the L1 is likely to cause interference in TL learning, especially if two languages are considerably different from each other on a structural level. CA research further argues that the main task for TL learners is to get rid of previous L1-based habits, which are deemed sources of interference. The main concern of CA then is to predict those areas of differences between the L1 and TL which would impede TL learning and prevent learners from using their L1 knowledge. The popularity of CA waned, because it was soon found that the proportion of learners’ errors resulting from transfer was smaller than claimed by CA.

A more positive view of L1 influence is given by Cummins ([1980a, b]). In studying the effects of bilingual education and its relationships with learners’ language proficiency, Cummins proposes the Interdependence Hypothesis, which makes predictions regarding the development of one’s TL proficiency as a function of one’s L1 proficiency. In the Interdependence Hypothesis, Cummins distinguishes between two types of language proficiency—basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive/academic language proficiency (CALP). According to Cummins, BICS refer to everyday conversational skills, including the ‘surface’ linguistic knowledge required in social interaction. On the other hand, CALP is more related to literacy skills (e.g., writing composition skills) or problem solving skills in cognitively demanding situations (e.g., academic contexts). Cummins suggests that BICS, the surface manifestations of a language, are independent across languages. In other words, each language consists of its own features of syntax, vocabulary, and phonology. On the other hand, CALP—an ability to deal with academic demands—is interdependent and transferable across languages. In his own words, “previous learning of literacy-related functions of language (in the L1) will predict future learning of these functions (in the TL)” (Cummins [1980a], p. 179). Cummins, however, qualifies that learners may need to pass a certain threshold level of proficiency to benefit from the transferring of literacy. Nonetheless, the Interdependence Hypothesis projects a much more positive view of cross-linguistic influence than CA, in particular for groups of learners who have surpassed a certain level of CALP in their L1.

Of two perspectives towards the cross-linguistic influence, the more relevant one to the present study is the Interdependence Hypothesis by Cummins, as general literacy and proficiency are of interest to us. That is, it may be true that while L1 influence could be negative in terms of some specific linguistic elements as CA suggests, L1 and TL proficiencies, particularly in the sense of CALP, may be related (though not causative).

Vocabulary knowledge

Vocabulary has been regarded as one of the most important areas in TL learning (Laufer [1986]; Zimmerman [1997]). However, it has also been viewed as an area which is particularly difficult to study and explore, due to its complex nature (Meara [1996]; Nation [2001]). Researchers like Nation ([2001]) and Richards ([1976]) have attempted to define vocabulary knowledge by providing a long list of different parts that make up this knowledge, but soon vocabulary researchers found it to be a rather daunting task to create assessing measures based on such a list. After a certain period of stalemate, Meara ([1996]) called for a more manageable set of dimensions to define and examine vocabulary knowledge. Having this agenda in mind, some researchers (e.g., Henriksen [1999]; Jiang [2000]) have devised their own ways of defining vocabulary knowledge, or “lexical competence,” a more preferred term among vocabulary researchers. The studies on this issue seem to have been boosted by Meara’s ([1996]) notes on the importance of vocabulary. In his words “lexical competence is at the heart of communicative competence” (p. 35).

Among vocabulary professionals, vocabulary size or breadth of vocabulary has been proposed to be a strong candidate for constructing lexical competence. Said differently, the more TL words learners know, the higher lexical competence they have. Size of vocabulary has been found to play an essential role in TL reading. As Laufer ([1997]) puts it, based on previous research, “lexis was found to be the best predictor of success in reading, better than syntax or general reading ability” (p. 31). In addition to reading ability, Meara ([1996]) suggests that vocabulary size may also be a reliable predictor of other areas, saying that “All other things being equal, learners with big vocabularies are more proficient in a wide range of language skills than learners with small vocabularies” (p. 37). He goes on to argue that we now have an ample amount of evidence suggesting that “vocabulary skills make a significant contribution to almost all aspects of L2 proficiency” (p. 37). The findings of a more recent study by Zareva et al. ([2005]) lend support to Meara in that some aspects of lexical competence (e.g., breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge) correlate with the proficiency of L2 learners.

Despite growing interest in the relationship between lexical competence (vocabulary size in particular) and proficiency, there have been few other studies examining this issue, apart from Zareva et al. ([2005]) mentioned above and previous studies conducted by Meara and his colleagues (Meara and Buxton [1987]; Meara and Jones [1988]). One of the aims of this study is to examine the extent to which EFL learners’ proficiency can be predicted based on lexical competence with a focus on their vocabulary size.

Hypotheses

Participants

The study used a purposive sampling method to draw on participants with the following characteristics: they have been exposed to English-only (EO) instruction, so that they can evaluate the EO teaching approach based on their previous experience (rather than intuition); they have not been living in English-speaking countries (i.e., they are EFL learners); they are not simultaneous bilinguals (i.e., they have not concurrently acquired their L1 and English from birth and onwards); lastly, the participants have learned English in a formal instructional setting (rather than natural settings).

In March 2011, the participants attending a public elementary school in Incheon, South Korea were sampled based on the above criteria. The selected participants were those whose parents agreed to allow their children to participate in the study. The sample was composed of 243 sixth grade learners (12 years old). This number was later reduced to 208, or those who completed all the instruments of the study and who were not removed during data mining (i.e., to check statistical assumptions). Their L1 was Korean and they had learned English as their foreign language for three consecutive years at their school by the time of the study.

Instruments

The study used four instruments, namely an English proficiency test, vocabulary test, participant questionnaire, and Korean proficiency test. As for the proficiency test, the TOSEL (Test of Skills in the English Language)—an English proficiency test developed for Korean test takers (TOSEL Organization [2011])—was used in the present study for the following reasons. First, the TOSEL is a test originally developed for Korean test takers, and thus takes into account Korean English learners’ characteristics better than other English proficiency tests. Second, the TOSEL is divided into six levels according to different age groups of test takers, and thus enables more age-appropriate evaluations. To this ends, the testing instrument used in the doctoral research project (Lee [2010]) was adopted, and administered to the participants. This test was of the Basic level, which was originally developed for upper elementary school students (grade 5 and 6). In total, 30 listening test items and 25 reading test items were included in the test. Cronbach’s alpha (i.e., reliability) for the test was found to be very high (.909), with the estimates for the subsections being lower than the overall reliability of the test (.843 for the listening section and .840 for the reading section). In addition, the test scores were found to be significantly and positively correlated with their school grades in English (r = .87).

Unlike the proficiency test, the vocabulary measure had to be developed from scratch, as there was no specific test available for our target population. In view of the facts that these EFL learners were studying English within the framework of a government-regulated curriculum and that they were relatively at the beginning stages of English learning, the existing vocabulary tests were not suitable for our purposes. The vocabulary test for the present study, thus, was developed with a reference to the list of English vocabulary recommended in the curriculum developed by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology ([2009]). The test was further given vocabulary targeted for a population with slightly higher English proficiency, in order to prevent possible ceiling effects. The vocabulary test was of the receptive type, asking test takers to demonstrate their knowledge of the words by providing a synonym or translation of each word into their L1. In total, 80 lexical items, consisting of nouns (e.g., vegetable, peak), verbs (e.g., understand, forgive), adjectives (e.g., ancient, delicious), and adverbs (e.g., unfortunately, quickly), were included in the test.

The participant questionnaire was designed to investigate young EFL learners’ attitudes towards the EO teaching approach as well as to elicit their responses regarding the amount of English they could understand based on their learning experience. A preliminary questionnaire, which is a simplified version of the original questionnaire used in the research project mentioned above, was piloted to 56 sixth grade students attending another public elementary school. The primary purpose of the piloting was to ensure that the questionnaire items were comprehensible to our target population. The preliminary questionnaire was further revised in terms of wording and length. The final questionnaire, including attitudinal statements regarding the EO approach on a Likert scale, was two pages in length, and written in Korean. The questionnaire also included the item asking the amount of teachers’ English one can understand (how much can you understand when your teacher speaks English?), on a scale of 0 to 100%.

As for Korean proficiency, the author asked permission from the sampled elementary school for participants’ scores on a national scholastic achievement test to be used for research purposes. The school agreed to provide only the total score of each participant on this test, but not their performance on individual test items. It was not possible, thus, to estimate the reliability of the test, though the test can be assumed to have a sufficiently high value on the grounds that it was developed by a group of specialists in this area. The test was more or less similar in format to the English proficiency test described above. The participants’ scores on the Korean proficiency test were found to be significantly and positively correlated with their school grades in Korean (r = .82).

Procedure

In terms of ethical issues, the author first approached the principal and teachers of the sampled school, and discussed the relevant issues (e.g., whether the tests would cause any harm to the participants, how the participants’ parents would be informed about the present study). After the consultation, the author sent informed consent forms (opt-out) to the participants’ parents, with the help from the teachers therein. The sampled teachers further assured the participants that the testing materials would not affect the participants’ school grade in any possible way, and that they had the right to withdraw anytime during the study without any penalty.

The study was carried out over a period of two days, with the English test being administered on the first day and the vocabulary measure and questionnaire being given on the next day. The tests were administered in ordinary classrooms, equipped with individual desks and chairs, whiteboard and a large projection screen. Each classroom was suitable for a class size of 25 to 30 students. The instructions for the tests and questionnaire were given to the participants by reading a script. After explaining the instructions, the proficiency test sheets were distributed and administered for fifty minutes (20 and 30 min for the listening and reading sections, respectively), on the first day. On the following day, the participants were given instructions regarding the vocabulary measure with examples by the sampled teachers. This test was administered for 25 min. There was a mandatory 10-min break, and after this they proceeded to complete the participant questionnaire, which was administered for 20 min.

Data analysis

After completing the tests, the researcher and one of the sampled teachers independently scored the answers to the vocabulary test. The value of inter-rater reliability was .92. Discrepancies in scoring were resolved through discussion with another English teacher at the sampled school. The English proficiency test, which was of the multiple choice type, was scored based on the answer sheet provided by the TOSEL organization.