Doctor of Education A Comparative Analysis of Proficiency Scores of University Students in the United Arab Emirates: The Effectiveness of Using a First Language When Teaching a Second Language in a Reading Class تحليل مقارن لعالمات الكفاءة لطلبة الجامعات في اإلمارات العربية المتحدة: فعالية استخدام اللغة األم عند تعليم القراءة بلغة ثانية By Amira Traish A thesis submitted to The British University in Dubai for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Abstract This study, an investigation into the effectiveness of using a learner’s first language (L1) to teach a second language (L2) in reading comprehension classes, focuses on tertiary students in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The role of the learner’s L1 in facilitating instruction of an L2 has evoked considerable discussion among linguists and language instructors. Many theorists argue that a student’s L1 contributes to a more successful learning environment and facilitates second language acquisition, particularly with respect to socio-psychological factors such as motivation. The UAE has set guidelines for entrance into English-medium programmes mandating that students attain a 500 in the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or an average Band 5 in the International English Language Testing Service (IELTS). Because English has risen to near total hegemony in the linguistic/language realm, both students and instructors feel pressure to pass these reading examinations; one-third of the country’s tertiary budget is for first-year students. Because of the importance placed on proficiency scores, this study uses empirical data, comparing test scores of two classes and exploring and examining their differences. One instructor uses a student’s L1 (Arabic) to teach reading in L2, and the other does not. Research questions for this study have employed a mixed methods approach (qualitative and quantitative), which has included assessment data from midterm and proficiency exams as well as a student questionnaire, classroom observations, and interviews. The findings of the study, which indicate negligible differences in overall scores, demonstrate that the pedagogical practice has no significant impact on the scores obtained. However, further study is warranted to accommodate more of the variables that may have affected data outcome. It is hoped that this study will prompt additional interest and research in the field of L1/L2 reading instruction and that further exploration of this topic will facilitate improved reading and academic performance for students both in the UAE and elsewhere. ΓέΎϬϤΑθ ϲΑδ Ϣ ϴΔˬΘϴ΋ϧΎϬΛ έΔ˱ϐΗϟ ϞϪϭϤϠϜόΗ ΪϨϋ ϢϠόΘΘγϤ΍Ϡ Δϟϴ ϡϠϷϋ΍Ύ Δϓϐ ϲϠϓϟ Δ΍γ ϡ΍΍έΪΪΨϟ΍ ϩάϫ ΚΤΒΗ ϱάϟ΍ έ˵ϭΪϟ΍ Ϟ˵˷Ϝθ˵ϳϭ .ΓΪΤΘϤϟ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ Ε΍έΎϣϹ΍ ΔϟϭΩ ϲϓ ΔϴόϣΎΠϟ΍ ΔϠΣήϤϟ΍ ΔΒϠρ ϰϠϋ Δγ΍έΪϟ΍ ΰ˷ϛήΗϭ .ϩ˯΍ήϘϟ΍ ϲγέΪϣϭ ϦϴϳϮϐϠϟ΍ ρΎγϭ΃ ϲϓ ϝ˳ΪΟϭ ε˳ΎϘϧ ω˴ϮοϮϣ ΔϴΒϨΟ΃ ϭ΃ ΔϴϧΎΛ Δϐϟ ϢϴϠόΗ ϞϴϬδΗ ϲϓ ϢϠόΘϤϠϟ ϡϷ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ϪΒϠόΗ Ϣ˷ϠόΗ ΔΌϴΑ ήϴϓϮΗ ϲϓ ήΒϛ΃ Ϟ˳ϜθΑ ϢϫΎδΗ ΐϟΎτϠϟ ϡϷ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ˵ήϥϴΜϜ΃ϟ΍ ΐ˵ ϰϫά˴ϟϳϭ ·.Ε ΎΕϐϠϟ΍ΎϳήψϨϟ΍ ϲόο΍ϭ Ϧϣ ΔϴδϔϨϟ΍ϭ ΔϴϋΎϤΘΟϻ΍ Ϟϣ΍ϮόϟΎΑ ϖϠόΘϳ ΎϤϴϓ Δ˱λΎΧϭ ΔϟϮϬγ ήΜϛ΃ ΍˱ήϣ΃ ΔϴϧΎΜϟ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ΏΎδΘϛ΍ Ϧϣ ϞόΠϳϭ ΔΤΟΎϧ ΔϳΰϴϠΠϧϹ΍ ΔϐϠϟΎΑ αέ˷Ϊ˵Η ϲΘϟ΍ Ξϣ΍ήΒϟΎΑ ϕΎΤΘϟϼϟ Ε˳ΎϤϴϠόΗ ΓΪΤΘϤϟ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ Ε΍έΎϣϹ΍ ΔϟϭΩ ΕΩΪΣ Ϊϗϭ .Δϴόϓ΍ΪϟΎϛ ΍˱ήψϧϭ .βΘϠϳϵ΍ ϥΎΤΘϣ΍ ϲϓ 5 ϝΪόϣ ϭ΃ Ϟϓ 5Ϯ00Θ Δϟϣ΍ϼ ϥϋΎ ϰΤϠΘϋϣ ϝ΍Ϯ ϲμϓΤϟ΍ ΔΒϠτϟ΍ ϰϠϋ ΐΟϮΘϳ ΚϴΣ ΔΒϠτϟ΍ Ϧϣ ͇Ϟϛ ήόθϳ ˬΕΎϐϠϟ΍ ΔϴϘΑ ϰϠϋ ΔϠϣΎϜϟ΍ ΔϨϤϴϬϟΎΑ ήΛ΄ΘδΗ ϥ΄Α ϚηϮΗ ϲΘϟ΍ ΔϳΰϴϠΠϧϹ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ϥ΄η ϮϠόϟ ϲϟΎόϟ΍ ϢϴϠόΘϠϟ ϓΔ ˬΕμ΍μέΨΎϤΒϟΘ΍Χ Δϻϟ΍ϭ ϩΤΪΗ άϰϟϟ·ϫ ΍Δ˷γ ϲΎΔϣ ΔϓϴΟΎ ΤϧΡΑ Ϧ΍ΎϴγΰΠέΪϤϴϨϟ΍ϭϣϟ ΍Κ ϠϖΜϴϘ .ϰϟϭϷ΍ ΔϨδϟ ΍ ΔΒϠρ ϰϠϋ ϖϔϨΗ Δϧ˶έΎϘϣ ΔϳέΎΒΘΧ΍ ΔϴΒϳήΠΗ ΕΎϧΎϴΑ Δγ΍έΪϟ΍ ΖϣΪΨΘγ΍ Γˬ˯ΎϔϜϟ΍ ΕΎϣϼϋ ΎϬϠΘΤΗ ϲΘϟ΍ ΔϴϤϫϸϟ ΍˱ήψϧ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ϡΪΨΘγ΍ Ϧϴ γΔϔθέϜΘδ˵ΪϣϭϤ Ϧϟϴ΍Θ ΪϦϔΣϴϠ΄ΘϓϴΨ γϣ.Ύ΍ϤέϬΩϨ ϦϴϴΑΘ ϕϋϭΎήϗϔ ϲϟϓ΍ ΔΒϠρ Ε΍έΎΒΘΧ΍ ΕΎϣϼϋ ΖϣΪΨΘγ΍ Ϊϗϭ .ϚϟΫ ή˵Χϵ΍ αέΪϤϟ΍ ϡΪΨΘδϳ Ϣϟ ΎϤϴϓ ΔˬϴΒϨΟϷ΍ ΔϐϠϟΎΑ Γ˯ϟ΍ Ϣ΍ήϴ Ϙ(ϠΔόϴΘΑϟήό ΐϟϟ΍Ύ ΔτϐϠϠϟϟ ϡ΍Ϸ)΍ ΕΎϧΎϴΑ ϰϠϋ ΖϠϤΘη΍ ϲΘϟ΍ϭ (ˬΔϴϤϜϟ΍ϭ ΔϴϋϮϨϟ΍) ΐϴϟΎγϷ΍ Ϧϣ ΔϋϮϨΘϣ ΔϋϮϤΠϣ Δγ΍έΪϟ΍ ϩάϫ ϲϓ ΚΤΒϟ΍ Δ˵ϠΌγ΃ Δϴϔλ ΕΎψΣϼϣϭ ΔΒϠτϠϟ ϥΎϴΒΘγ΍ ϰϟ· Ϧ Δϣϓ ΔΎϴοϤϹϴΎϴΑϘ ΓΗ˯ΎϔϜϟ΍ Ε΍έΎΒΘΧ΍ϭ Ϟμϔϟ΍ ϒμϧ Ε΍έΎΒΘΧ΍ ϲλϮϳ ϚϟΫ ϊϣ .ΔϴϠϜϟ΍ ΕΎϣϼόϟ΍ ϲϓ ΔϤϴϗ Ε΍Ϋ Ζδϴϟ ˱Ύϗϭήϓ Δγ΍έΪϟ΍ ϩάϫ Ξ΋ΎΘϧ ΖϨϴ .ΑΔ ϴΪμϗΨϭη ΕϼΑΎϘϣϭ ΰ˷ϔΤ˵Η ϥ΃ ϞϣΆϤϟ΍ ϦϣΕϭΎΟ .ήΨϤϟ΍ ϰϠϋ ήΛΆΗ ϲΘϟ΍ Ε΍ήϴϐΘϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΪϳΰϤϟ΍ ςΒπϟ ΔϴϓΎο· Ε˳Ύγ΍έΩ ˯΍ήΟΈΑ ΚΣΎΒϟ΍ ΪϳΰϤϟ΍ ˯΍ήΟ· ΰϴϔΤ ΔΗϴ ϲΒϟϨΎΟΘϷϟ΍Ύ ΔΑϐϭϠ ˬϟϡΎ ˴ϡΎϷϤΑΘϫ΍ϻ Γ΍ ˵Δ˯γ΍ϐέ΍ΪϟϠ΍ή ϩάϟϫϘ΍ϟ ϡ΍΍ ϢΪϴΨϠΘόγΗΎ ϝΑΎΠϣ ϲϓ Γ˯΍ήϘϟ΍ Ϧ· ωϴϮδοΤϮΗϤ Ϟϲϟϓ ϴϊ΍γϬϮ Θϟδ΍ ϱάΗΩΆϫϳ ϰϥ΃ ˱ϟΎπϳ΃ ϞϣΆϤϟ΍ Ϧϣϭ .ϝΎΠϤϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϲϓ ΙΎΤΑϷ΍ Ϧϣ .ήΧ΁ Ϊ˳ϠΑ ϱ΃ ϲϓ ϭ΃ Ε΍έΎϣ ϲϹ ϓ ˱˯΍Ϯγ ΔϟΒϭϠΩτϠϟ ϲϤϳΩΎϛϷ΍ ˯΍ΩϷ΍ϭ Dedication I dedicate this project to my family: To my patents, who see nothing as impossible and instilled within me the spirit to reach for the stars. To my husband and son, whose support enabled me to complete this long and difficult journey. And to my friends, who never doubted my ability to achieve my goal. Acknowledgments This thesis would not have been possible without the support and understanding of my family and friends. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Amanda Howard, without whose continuous support and guidance this dissertation would not have been possible. Also, I would like to thank Duane Dodson for his valuable input and comments and Ahmad Al Rahal for his help with data. Finally, a special debt of gratitude is owed to my husband and son for supporting me throughout this process. CONTENTS CHAPTER 1.0: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background Rationale, and Contribution .................................................................................. 1 1.2 Contextual Overview of UAE Language Studies ...................................................................... 4 1.3 The Importance of SLA Proficiency Exams in the UAE .......................................................... 6 1.4 IELTS and TOEFL .................................................................................................................... 8 1.4.1 International English Language Testing System (IELTS) .................................................. 9 1.4.2 Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) ............................................................ 10 1.4.3 Criticism of Proficiency Exams in the Literature ............................................................. 12 1.5 Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 14 1.6 Study Overview ....................................................................................................................... 17 CHAPTER 2.0: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 18 2.1 Theories of Second Language Acquisition ............................................................................. 18 2.2 Psycholinguistics in SLA ........................................................................................................ 22 2.2.1 Language Learning Information Processing System ........................................................ 24 2.2.2 Cognitive Considerations Related to Teaching ................................................................. 26 2.2.2.1 SLA Reading Skill: Theoretical Perspectives ................................................................................ 27 2.3 Monolingualism and Bilingualism .......................................................................................... 30 2.3.1 Bilingualism Research Results.......................................................................................... 33 2.4 Teacher Methodology and Beliefs .......................................................................................... 36 2.4.1 Instructors’ Beliefs ............................................................................................................ 38 2.4.2 Methods and Approaches for Second Language Teaching ............................................... 41 2.4.3 Use of L1 to Promote SLA ............................................................................................... 42 2.4.4 Roles of L1 in the Reading Classroom ............................................................................. 45 2.4.5 Amount of L1 Use in the Reading Classroom .................................................................. 47 2.5 Linguistic Interdependency Hypothesis and Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis ...................... 48 2.5.1 Input Hypothesis ............................................................................................................... 52 2.5.2 Interaction Hypotheses: Teacher/Reader/Text .................................................................. 55 2.6 Cultural and Motivational Effect on SLA ............................................................................... 57 CHAPTER 3.0: STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ............................................ 61 3.1 Background to Approach ........................................................................................................ 61 3.2 Research Design ...................................................................................................................... 62 3.3 Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 63 3.4 Research Paradigm .................................................................................................................. 64 3.4.1 Qualitative Elements of Mixed Methods .......................................................................... 66 3.4.2 Qualitative Approach ........................................................................................................ 71 3.5 Validity and Reliability ........................................................................................................... 73 3.6 Ethical Considerations............................................................................................................. 74 3.7 Background to the Research .................................................................................................... 76 3.7.1 Student and Instructor Research Participants .................................................................... 76 3.7.2 Site Selection .................................................................................................................... 79 3.8 Research Instruments .............................................................................................................. 79 3.8.1 First Stage: Pre-test ........................................................................................................... 79 3.8.2 Second Stage: Midterm ..................................................................................................... 80 3.8.3 Third Stage: Classroom Observation ................................................................................ 82 3.8.4 Fourth Stage: Student Questionnaires ............................................................................... 87 3.8.5 Fifth Stage: Post-Test ........................................................................................................ 91 3.8.6 Final Data Collection Stage - Structured Instructor Interviews ........................................ 93 CHAPTER 4.0: DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 97 4.1 Overview and Analysis of Research Data ............................................................................... 97 4.2 Analysis of Classroom Observation ........................................................................................ 98 4.2.1 S51 Classroom Observations (Instructor) ....................................................................... 100 4.2.2.1 Reading Classroom Observation Results ..................................................................................... 102 4.2.2 S52 Classroom Observation (Instructor) ......................................................................... 105 4.2.3 S51: Classroom Observation Student Checklist ............................................................. 107 4.2.4 S52: Classroom Observational Student Checklist........................................................... 110 4.2.5 Review of Observational Checklist Qualitative Data ..................................................... 112 4.3 Qualitative Review: Instructor Interview .............................................................................. 115 4.3.1 S51/52 Instructor Interview Results ................................................................................ 116 4.4 Analysis of Instructor Interviews .......................................................................................... 122 4.5 Student Questionnaire ........................................................................................................... 126 4.5.1 Summary of Student Questionnaire Results ................................................................... 145 4.6 Quantitative Data Analysis: Inferential Data Midterm Exam Scores.................................... 151 4.7 Inferential Proficiency Exam Results .................................................................................... 153 4.8 Inferential Quantitative Results Analysis .............................................................................. 162 CHAPTER 5.0: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................................... 167 5.1 RQ 1 and 2 ............................................................................................................................ 168 5.2 RQ 1.1: “What are the reasons for instructor use of Arabic in a reading class?” .................. 169 5.3 RQ 2.1: “What are the reasons for a student’s use of Arabic in a class?” ........................ 180 5.4 RQ 3: “What impact does the use of the L1 in the classroom have on student reading examination marks?” ........................................................................................................................................... 185 5.5 RQ 3.1: “Is there any significant difference between the midterm scores of students who are exposed to L1 in reading comprehension classes and those who are not?” .................................... 186 5.6 RQ 3.2 and 3.3: “Is there any significant difference between the TOEFL/IELTS reading scores of students who are exposed to L1 in reading comprehension classes and those who are not?” ........ 187 5.7 Main RQ: “Does the instructor’s use of L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension?” 191 5.8 Review of Research Results .................................................................................................. 192 5.9 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 195 5.10 Research Challenges and Limitations ................................................................................... 197 5.11 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 199 TABLES Table 1: Summary of Methodology/Tools/RQ (2012) .............................................................. 67 Table 2: TOEFL Placement ([2012] UoS.ac.ae) ........................................................................ 77 Table 3: IELTS/TOEFL Foundation-level Exiting Percentage (2012) ................................... 92 Table 4: IELTS Reading ([2012] IELTS.org) ........................................................................... 93 Table 5: Purpose/Chronological Order of Tools Used (2012) ................................................. 95 Table 6: S51 Instructor Observation Results (2012) .............................................................. 100 Table 7: S52 Instructor Observation Results (2012) .............................................................. 106 Table 8: S51 Student Observation (2012) ................................................................................ 107 Table 9: S52 Student Observation (2012) ................................................................................ 110 Table 10: Student Questionnaire (2012) .................................................................................. 127 Table 11: S51/52 Student Question 1 Results (2012) .............................................................. 129 Table 12: S51/52 Student Question 2 Results (2012) .............................................................. 130 Table 13: S51/52 Student Question 3 Results (2012) .............................................................. 131 Table 14: S51/52 Student Question 5 Results (2012) .............................................................. 132 Table 15: S51/52 Student Question 5 Results (2012) .............................................................. 133 Table 16: S51/52 Student Question 6 Results (2012) .............................................................. 135 Table 17: S51/52 Student Question 7 Results (2012) .............................................................. 136 Table 18: S51/52 Student Question 8 Results (2012) .............................................................. 137 Table 19: S51/52 Student Question 9 Results (2012) .............................................................. 138 Table 20: S51/52 Student Question 10 Results (2012) ............................................................ 139 Table 21: S51/52 Student Question 11 Results (2012) ............................................................ 140 Table 22: S51/52 Student Question 12 Results (2012) ............................................................ 141 Table 23: S51/52 Student Question 13 Results (2012) ............................................................ 142 Table 24: S51/52 Student Question 14 Results (2012) ............................................................ 143 Table 25: S51/52 Student Question 15 Results (2012) ............................................................ 144 Table 26: S51 Student Questionnaire Results (2012) ............................................................. 145 Table 27: S52 Student Questionnaire Results (2012) ............................................................. 146 Table 28: S51 Responses Q4, Q6, Q7 (2012) ........................................................................... 147 Table 29: S51/52 Midterm Exam Results (2012) .................................................................... 151 Table 30: S51/52 Statistically Significant Midterm Scores (2012) ........................................ 152 Table 31: IELTS Reading/Overall Correlation Test (2012) .................................................. 154 Table 32: TOEFL Reading/Overall Correlation Test (2012) ................................................ 155 Table 33: S51/S52 IELTS Reading Average (2012) ................................................................ 156 Table 34: S51/S52, TOEFL Reading Average (2012) ............................................................. 157 Table 35: Group Statistics for IELTS (2012) .......................................................................... 158 Table 36: Group Statistics for TOEFL (2012) ........................................................................ 159 Table 37: Independent Sample t-Test for Statistical Significance in IELTS (2012) ........... 160 Table 38: Independent Sample t-Test for Statistical Significance in TOEFL (2012) .......... 161 Table 39: Summary of Inferential Results (2012) ................................................................... 166 Appendices Appendix A: Al-Nofaie Original Tools Table A1: Al-Nofaie Observational Checklist (2010) Table A2: Al-Nofaie Student Questionnaire (2010) Table A3: Al-Nofaie Instructor Interview Questions (2010) Appendix B: Adapted Tools Table B1: Section 51 Instructor Classroom Observational Checklist Tally Results (2012) Table B2: Section 52 Student Classroom Observational Checklist Tally Results (2012) Table B3: Section 52 Instructor Classroom Observational Checklist Tally Results (2012) Table B4: Section 52 Student Classroom Observational Checklist Tally Results (2012) Table B5: Student Questionnaire Form (2012) Table B6: Instructor Interview Questions and Responses (2012) Appendix C: Student Consent Form Appendix D: Level 3 Reading Syllabus Glossary ADEC American Distance Education Consortium ADUPC Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council ALM Audio Lingual Method AMideast American Mideast Educational and Training Services, Inc. CA Communicative Approach CELTA Certificate in English Language Teaching to Adults CLT Communicative Language Teaching CS Code Switching DELTA Diploma in English Language Teaching to Adults DM Direct Method EAP English for Academic Purposes ECSSR Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research EFL English as a Foreign Language ELT English Language Teaching ESL English as a Second Language ESOL English for Speakers of Other Languages ETS English Testing Service FL Foreign Language FLCAS Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale GCC Gulf Cooperation Council GT Grammar Translation I51 Instructor of Section 51 I52 Instructor of Section 52 IELTS International English Language Testing System L1 First Language L2 Second Language LAD Language Acquisition Device MT Midterm Exam NNS Non-Native Speaker NS Native Speaker PBT Paper-Based TOEFL RQ Research Question SAT Scholastic Aptitude Test s/i student to instructor SLA Second Language Acquisition SPSS Statistical Program for Social Sciences s/s student to student TEFL Teaching of English as a Foreign Language TESOL Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages TL Target Language TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language UAEMOHESR United Arab Emirates Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research UG Universal Grammar UK United Kingdom University Institution Where Study Was Conducted US United States vii CHAPTER 1.0: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Rationale, and Contribution As the world becomes more globalised, the need to learn a second language, which is of primary concern in the Middle East, is more of a necessity than an option for many (Firth & Wagner 2007; Toohey 2000). The acquisition of English as a Second Language (ESL) is developing into a requirement for upwardly mobile residents of most non-English-speaking countries (Gallagher 2011). Although attainment of the world’s most widely spoken academic language (Ammon & McConnell 2002; Hyland et al. 2009) is advantageous on a number of fronts, the issue does present some problems and complexities for those working in educational institutes operating abroad (Cenoz Jessner 2000; Kachru 1992). For an instructor of ESL who has been teaching in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for the past seven years, the task has been made more complex, perhaps, because not only must an educator be tolerant of students who hail from different cultures in order to understand their educational framework, but in the case of students whose issue is a language barrier, the instructor must determine how best to educate them in linguistic and communicative matters. This is especially pertinent in the context of this study because UAE students must achieve a requisite language proficiency score on the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) or Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) exams to study in their desired accredited English-medium majors. Upon arrival at the UAE university at which this study was conducted (herein after referred to as the “University”), this researcher was surprised to encounter students in the Foundation programme who were not able to pass the proficiency exam with the required score, even 1 though they had studied English for four years. That reaction was intensified by the realisation that a large number of these students had declared English-medium majors such as medicine and engineering, which require high school averages of 95% and 90%, respectively. The fact that students had averages that were at or above the 90th percentile but could still not pass a proficiency exam helped prompted my interest in this topic: these students had come from high school with ‘A’ averages, yet they were not able to pass the exam, a fact that suggested that they had not been learning English effectively and may have simply been rote memorising material in preparation for the exam, or that they had just been pushed through the system. After having entered the University, they found themselves unqualified to enter into their English-medium majors and, as a result, their academic progress had been delayed. Instructors who are preparing these students encounter a number of significant questions, especially in the pedagogical domain of reading, which has proven to be the most difficult of the four skills (listening, reading, writing, and speaking) in the IELTS and English Testing System (ETS) for students in the UAE, as the most recent IELTS score analysis indicates (IELTS report 2010). Of the four skills tested in the UAE, reading has the lowest score. Of native Arab-speaking students who sat for the IELTS in 2010, the average band score was 5.2 (IELTS report 2010), but the UAE average band score was much lower at 4.8. Irrespective of where instructors stand on the issue, few would argue that reading is a significant skill that needs to be pursued from the beginning of any second language classroom setting (Anderson 2005; Grabe 1991), and it would not be illogical to suppose that reading is a critical skill in academic contexts for second language learners (Grabe 1991; Lynch & Hudson 1991). As Grabe (1991) observes, this claim may be rooted in the premise 2 that almost every class includes a reading component of some type. Without fundamental reading ability, learners would find themselves at a disadvantage from the start and would likely find academic success difficult, if not impossible. This critical skill forms the foundation of this study. Because it is statistically the skill that garners the lowest achievement ranking, the need to improve students’ reading skill is a prime objective for most instructors (Cox et al. 2003; Pretorius 2000); however, the manner in which this objective can be most effectively achieved has been a topic of much debate (IELTS report 2012). One concern related to the issue of second language instruction is whether a student’s first or native language ( L1) should be used to help teach the second or target language ( L2) (Cook 1999; Schweers 1999; Warford 2007). The role of the learner’s primary language in facilitating instruction of a second or target language in a classroom has been the subject of considerable discussion and controversy among linguists and language instructors. Given the numerous views on the role of L1 in the class (DeKeyser 2003; Norris & Ortega 2000), the actual effectiveness of its use is a significant concept to explore. Numerous variables are involved in language instruction, such as the degree of similarity of L1 to L2, familiarity of instructor with L1/L2, familiarity of student population with L2, and demography of student population (Taillefer 1996; Sanz 2000; Brantmeier 2005), as well as the unique culture of the UAE. Because of the diverse expatriate population found in Dubai (Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council [ADUPC] report 2011), it is important to remember that language is used as a key tool of cultural expression as well as interaction. English is the dominant language in both business and tourism, although other languages are spoken as well, such as Urdu, Farsi, and Hindi, to name just a few. Because expatriate children are not permitted to attend government schools, the UAE’s private education caters to the diverse population of varying nationalists, such as ‘‘Lebanese, British, American, French, International Baccalaureate and 3 Indian curricula’ (Anttiroiko & Malkia 2007, p. 411). The following section [1.2] offers linguistic and economic background information pertinent to the importance of language in the UAE. 1.2 Contextual Overview of UAE Language Studies An overview of the UAE’s current educational context will facilitate understanding of this study. Education has been a prime concern of the UAE government, particularly after the discovery of oil in 1962 (ECSSR 2010). In 1962, boys comprised the major demographic of 20 schools with a population of approximately 4,000 students. Population in the UAE has also grown to over 2 million, which may be in response to the economic growth leading to a demand for foreign labor, which has in turn led to a growing expatriate community that has left the UAE nationals as a minority in their own country (Rojewski 2004). Minorities naturally recognize the need to communicate effectively with the cultural and linguistic majority, and the obvious standard by which this is accomplished is acquisition of the majority language, in this case, English. With such a rich English environment and a vast number of available opportunities, it might reasonably be expected that learners of English in the UAE would have ample opportunity to develop their English language skills. Unfortunately, this is not the reality of most UAE English classrooms. Most students experience the pan-Arab dilemma that is pointed out by Kharma and Hajjaj (1989), wherein students see English as ‘a school subject rather than a means of communication’; students in the UAE do receive several years of English in the classroom, but ‘the pass mark is often very low.’ Consequently, ‘learners can proceed to further learning of the language without having first mastered fully what they ought to have mastered’ (1989, p. 2). Year after year, they find themselves building on a language they do not really understand. This may be the situation that students find themselves in when it 4 comes to the reading skill. One factor that may influence reading acquisition is the use of L1. Although this is by no means the only influencing factor, it may turn out to be a critical one, especially since the policy decrying its use has been promoted by the Ministry (Ministry of Higher Education). Therefore, the degree and relevance of L1 use, limited or otherwise, will be investigated in this study. Those studying English in the UAE may have an advantage over those studying in other parts of the Middle East because of the many opportunities to practice and experience English outside of the classroom (Palfreyman & Khalil 2003). This is especially true of the larger urban areas of the UAE, where vast amounts of English are prevalent in everyday life. Established in 1971, the UAE comprises seven emirates: Abu Dhabi (the capital), Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Fujairah, Ras Al Khaimah, and umm Al Qiwain (Muysken & Nour 2006). Education, throughout its short history, has been a key concern for the Emirates and represented ‘(t)he largest expenditure of the federal budget in 2001’ (Rojewski 2004, p. 125). In 2009, the government ‘allocated a total of DH7.4bn ($2bn) for education’ (Oxford Business Group 2009, p. 190), with salaries for education projects and infrastructure topping the list of expenditures. The education system in the UAE is divided by age into blocks, which are called ‘cycles.’ The first cycle runs from grade one to five, the second, six to nine, and the last goes up to grade twelve (Oxford Business Group 2009). Tertiary education in the UAE has become a concern for the country, with the English programmes consuming one-third of the tertiary budget (Bardsley 2009; Fox 2008; Gallagher 2011). With UAE citizens’ higher education being funded by the government, the application rates for final-year UAE students at 95% and 80% for female and male students, respectively, 5 are some of the highest in the world (Abu Dhabi Week, 2011). The programme’s effectiveness has also come into question, and in 2008, the diploma-level students’ pass rate for English international benchmark exams was less than 50% at one of the major tertiary institutions in the country (Taylor 2008). Several researchers have investigated motivational as well as emotional and cultural factors that may have influenced L2 acquisition, but with proficiency exams playing such a critical role in a student’s academic future, the use of these exams has been chosen as a primary tool for this study. 1.3 The Importance of SLA Proficiency Exams in the UAE The UAE has experienced rapid economic development, which has helped to reinforce the importance of learning English for its population (Gallagher 2011). Because the need for Second Language Acquisition (SLA) has been a key issue in most higher education institutions in the UAE, consideration of the most effective way to teach L2 has come to the forefront. In the last 30 years, the UAE has experienced remarkable changes in demographics and development that have had a huge impact on UAE language diversity. English appears to have ‘become almost a lingua franca in the UAE, even though Arabic is the official language of the country’ (Alsheikh & Elhoweris 2011, p. 58). The current educational policies and reforms are evidence of the value that the government places on learning English (Farah & Ridge 2009), whose use in the Arab world is prevalent. The UAE Ministry has set guidelines for entrance into English-medium accredited programmes: students must attain a 500 in the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or an average Band 5 in the IELTS (UAEMOHESR [United Arab Emirates Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research] report 2010) in order to enter any English-medium degree programme such as those offered by the colleges of science, engineering, medicine, and business as offered by any of the accredited universities (MoE.ae 2013). The Ministry’s requirement for attainment 6 of a required minimum score assumes that the achievement score would equate to the literacy skill required to succeed in higher education. According to the IELTS website, achievement of Band 5 indicates that a user ‘should be able to handle basic communication in his own field’ (IELTS. Org 2013). Although many theorists are critical of these tests, they agree that they do measure literacy skills to some extent (Taylor & Weir 2012; Templer 2004). All UAE nationals are entitled to free tertiary education at any of the federal higher education institutions, and they must pass their proficiency exams within a limited time period to avoid forfeiture of their scholarships. Because so many students are forced to enter some sort of intensive English programme and experience delayed entrance into their major programmes, and given the urgency felt by most students to achieve the desired score and the frustration of some in not being able to do so, this researcher has become interested in the current policy prohibiting use of a student’s L1. For students being educated in a foreign or second language medium, reading presents particular challenges. For the purpose of this study, the umbrella term of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) will be used to refer to non-native English speakers. The ESOL student faces challenges that exceed the difficulty of comprehending, digesting, and analysing the reading material because the language barrier makes the material prohibitive from the standpoint of more fundamental linguistic features such as vocabulary, idiom, and usage. To understand texts, ESOL students must engage significantly greater mental efforts than native readers (Adamson 1993). It can generally be assumed that ESOL students will have more problems comprehending the reading throughout their courses because they lack the necessary L1 language development and knowledge. The UAE’s rapid economic 7 development (Gallagher 2011), as well as its extraordinary transformation in demographics and development, has had a large impact on language diversity in the country. A survey of any of the many journals in the field reveals that SLA has been studied in a wide variety of countries and contexts; however, because the UAE is still a rather young nation (officially established in 1971), research in the area is still somewhat new. What has emerged from the UAE’s short SLA history is the problem students are facing with achieving entrance scores required in order to enter their English-medium majors (Gallagher 2011; IELTS report 2010). As Lewis (2010) states, 83% of students do not qualify to enter their majors of choice, which would lead one to believe that their inability to pass the proficiency exam equates with a lack of literacy skills. One factor that may help to influence this equation is the role that L1 plays in the learning process. Consequently, a study that facilitates the acquisition of English language skills should prove valuable. The intent of this research paper is to explore SLA and its effectiveness in the area of reading for territory students. Therefore, it is important to consider the relevance of the educational and economic background of the UAE. 1.4 IELTS and TOEFL The pressure of the increasing use of standardised testing around the globe affects not only individual learning styles and future careers, but also teaching paradigms (Choi 2008; Templer 2004). Students have always had to sit for exams, but the proficiency exams have never been given as frequently nor had such an important role in education (Kohn 2000). This is especially true for English proficiency exams, which are accorded a higher degree of importance because of the prevalence of English worldwide. Because proficiency exams carry such weight, and given the abundance of literature that promotes the use of L1 as a tool that aids in L2 acquisition, it would be reasonable to assume that instructors would likely use L1 8 to help their students pass the proficiency exams. This is especially applicable given that students will be pressed for time, and any tool that might assist them in this process would be very useful. An example would be connecting the L1 to L2 immediately rather than requiring students to do the translation themselves. Two proficiency exams, the TOEFL and the IELTS, have taken on the role of gatekeepers in higher education in the UAE. The entry criteria of many different majors (engineering, medical and business) all include proficiency scores. For the purposes of this study, proficiency exams will be considered in the context of assessment, which is a key component to answering the research questions, as opposed to being considered in the context of whatever role they may play in language acquisition. A better understanding of the components of the exam will aid in the understanding of roles that instructors may feel that L1 plays. 1.4.1 International English Language Testing System (IELTS) The IELTS exam consists of a variety of question types with four parts: Listening Comprehension, which has 4 sections and 40 questions (approximately 30 minutes); Reading Comprehension, with 3 sections and 40 items (60 minutes in length); Written Expression, which consists of 2 tasks (150 and 250 words, 60 minutes); and Speaking, which is between 11 and 14 minutes in length (Green 2007; IELTS.org 2011). The IELTS is mutually owned by British Council, IDP, and Cambridge ESOL Examinations. For example, the Listening section has students write out answers, which may include dates, names, or short expressions, and there is also a component that focuses on spelling. If the answer is spelled incorrectly, it is considered wrong. The IELTS, like the TOEFL, is a time-driven exam that students may have to rush to complete (IELTS.org 2011). 9 The examiner plays a key role in assessing answers in the IELTS exam. IELTS relies on the expertise of the examiners to ensure quality control and maintain standards. All examiners must have achieved an equivalent of Band 9 on the IELTS; this holder is considered an ‘Expert User’ and must have a full ‘operational command of the language: appropriate, accurate and fluent with complete understanding’ (British Council 2011). Examiners are also required to attend and successfully complete all training sessions that will train them to mark speaking and writing modules. The producers of the IELTS exam have recognised the importance of maintaining and preserving the positive reputation a proficiency exam should possess, and in so doing, they have been developing an ‘an ongoing and wide-ranging research and validation programme’ (Taylor & Weir 2012, p. 1), which has encouraged research that they have funded through grants. This external research, along with the organisation’s own internal research, aids in validation of this exam as an important academic measurement tool (Taylor & Weir 2012). The producers of both the IELTS and the TOEFL exams have worked on maintaining their exams’ integrity by being proactive in updating exams and reviewing material being used. This safeguard helps them to preserve their overwhelming presence in the English proficiency exam field. 1.4.2 Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) The TOEFL is one of the most widely used proficiency exams employed for entrance into institutions of higher education; this and the IELTS are the only two proficiency exams accepted at the institution where the study took place. The TOEFL exam is operated and owned by the English Testing Service (ETS), a company first established in 1947 in Princeton, New Jersey. Developed in 1964, it assesses the proficiency of non-native English- 10 speaking students and is used by more than 2,400 universities and colleges in the United States and Canada to determine the adequacy of a student’s level of English proficiency. ETS does not have passing or failing scores; it simply reports scores to institutions, who independently determine entrance score eligibility for their schools. Most students choose the PBT, which the University administrates on campus and which consists of three parts: Listening Comprehension, which consists of 50 questions and takes approximately 30 minutes; a Structure and Written Expression section, which has 40 questions and takes 25 minutes; and finally, the Reading and Vocabulary Comprehension section, which has 50 questions and has a set time of 55 minutes (ETS.org). The exam is approximately two hours in length and comprises solely multiple-choice questions. Often students find themselves racing against the clock to complete it by the deadline. Because no penalty is given for incorrect answers, test takers are encouraged not to leave any questions unanswered. Because it tests only three skills, the PBT has some drawbacks; it does not test the ability to write or speak English, two important skills for anyone whose intent is to enter an English-medium college major. The proficiency exam in this context seems to be used for the testing of language ability and not necessarily in adding language acquisition. In summary, proficiency exams play a key role in helping to shape a student’s (as well as the student’s family’s) future. The English proficiency exams assume an even more significant role because of the importance of English in society. A survey of university requirements into English-medium majors in the region will show that the only two exams being used in the Gulf at this time are the TOEFL and the IELTS; both are time-driven and test a student’s knowledge of English. The IELTS exam consists of a variety of question types, while the TOEFL PBT has only one type of question, multiple-choice. Both are accepted at the 11 University and are gatekeepers to the English-medium major. Students must achieve the preset minimum score in order to enter their chosen major. 1.4.3 Criticism of Proficiency Exams in the Literature Proficiency exams and more specific language assessment exams are useful in that they ‘… yield information that can help decision makers allocate resources on the basis of merit, rather than lineage or patronage’ (Spolsky & Hult 2010, p. 456). They are given by outside organisations that should not have a conflict of interest and should therefore be fair and unbiased in scoring. While some advocate the idea of proficiency exams, others have pointed out these same exams can be used for ‘… purposes other than those for which they were designed, often with unintended negative consequences to various groups of test takers’ (Spolsky & Hult 2010, p. 456). The actual way an exam will be used is dependent on a variety of factors, some of which include the financial or political atmosphere. All exams have their detractors and shortcomings; however, doing away with these critical assessment tools would yield far more negative consequences. The proficiency exams have experienced their fair share of criticism in reference to whether multiple-choice test items are chosen for convenience (Hughes 2003) and question context (Farhady 2005), which underscores the critical question of whether content or language is being tested (Butler & Stevenson 2001; Carrasquillo & Rodriguez 1995; Mohan 1986). One explanation that attempts to respond to the content requirement is from Short (1993), who contends that ‘language and content are intricately intertwined; it is difficult to isolate one feature from the other in the assessment process. Thus, teachers may not be sure whether a student is simply unable to demonstrate knowledge because of a language barrier or whether, indeed, the student does not know the content material being assessed’ (p. 629). 12 Another important question regarding both the TOEFL and IELTS exams is how similar a candidate’s L1 is to English (Traynor 1985). If a student’s L1 is similar in grammatical structure and word origins, this would leave the candidate with a slight advantage over a student whose L1 is very different from English. For example, L1 Spanish students would have an advantage over Arabic students since Spanish and English share a wide variety of similarities from structure to word origins to cognates to the phonetic nature of both languages, unlike the student whose L1 is Arabic, a language that has few similarities to English in either structure or origin (Traynor 1985). This is an especially relevant factor in the Grammar and Reading sections, for which students need to understand word meaning. This may lead to the question of the nature of equitability in testing questions, an issue explored by Hamp-Lyons (2001), who addresses queries such as, ‘What makes a test fair? How do we know when a test is unfair?’ (p. 224). These questions seem to be simple, yet finding the answers is a complicated process that has not fully been completed. In addition to the considerations previously addressed, the efficiency of any assessment is going to be dependent in large part on the cultural and sociological factors that influence those being assessed. Students who are not familiar with the cultural constructs and sociological tenets will not operate under the same predispositions as those who are native born and steeped in the particular cultural and sociological environment represented by the test (Weir 2005). Those students required to respond to an open-ended question would be at a distinct disadvantage for this reason. This observation uncovers an interesting issue concerning proficiency testing: It tests not only the content area, but it also tests predispositions, whether cultural, sociological, political, or otherwise. 13 Because the UAE is a culture that is obsessed with attaching numbers to things, we find assessment and test results to be crucial (Spielberger and Vagg 1995). Once something is assessed, it may be assigned a numerical form, which leaves us with a sense of reassurance that it is scientific and valid (Kohn 2000), and this is one reason the proficiency exams are having such a huge impact on curriculum. Instructors are constantly in search of any tool that may help students pass these proficiency exams, and one of those tools may be the use of L1 in class. In summation, the issue of exam bias has been a topic of concern for many years (Davies 2003; Lyons 1998, Lyons 2008, Raimes 1990). Unfortunately, the likelihood of there ever being a standardised proficiency exam that will be totally free of any bias seems very low (Winters & Trivitt 2010). The mandate seems to be that it is necessary to adjust and alter the test in order to reduce the cultural biases so that a minimal degree of undue advantage exists. Such important examinations must be prepared carefully and administered fairly. Much significance is attached to passing these tests (Bachman & Purpura 2008; Fahim & Alemi 2010), and it should be a priority to ensure that an adequate system of checks and balances is established and remains in place so that all students are tested under equal and fair conditions. Given that these proficiency exams, which served as a benchmark for this study, play a major role in determining students’ educational futures, the reading component will be the focus of this study. 1.5 Research Questions The number of stakeholders interested in improvement of UAE students’ English language skills, a primary concern of this study, has increased given the augmented importance of English and its expanded use among students, parents, instructors, educational institutions, 14 and governments, as well as the policy that was instituted in the 1970’s concerning tertiary education, which dictated that ‘instruction would be in English’ (UAEMOHESR 2007). Any study that facilitates the acquisition of English will hold ostensible value, and this study may be theoretically as well as pragmatically beneficial given its attempt to utilise the student’s native language skills (L1) as an instructional aid in L2 reading. Results of the evaluation of students’ performance using a mixed methods approach may be used to help "to identify criteria such that findings and judgments are grounded in both the experience of stakeholders and the rationale of the program" (Kiely and Rea-Dickins 2005, p. 14). The monetary expenditure can also be found in the requirement of native English-speaking instructors to teach in the UAE (Randall & Samimi 2010). Because this study locates L1 as fundamental to reading success, and given that the students understand that they must utilise it for these purposes, the typical UAE student targeted by this study is ideally poised to take advantage of any benefits or assistance this study may provide. The purpose and contribution of this study is to provide information that will evaluate the effectiveness of using L1 to teach reading in L2. The assumption is that not using L1 in the classroom will have a positive effect on students’ ability to acquire L2 because the ‘policy’ in the UAE of prohibiting L1 use in the classroom has been in place for several years. All stakeholders would benefit from this study if its results were able to facilitate ways to help develop a more efficient language programme (Kiely & Rea-Dickins 2005). The key tool of this study is to focus on proficiency exams and to determine if a student’s language proficiency, as assessed through these exams, is adequate for success in his/her English- medium major. The aim of this study is to investigate this assumption and in so doing to determine whether empirical evidence exists in the form of proficiency scores that may 15 validate it as well as to explore factors that may justify the expenditures being made to maintain the programme. The RQs addressed in this paper investigate the issue from a quantifiable perspective by exploring the concept of use of a student’s first language to learn a target language, and specific attention has been paid to the process of reading. The study examines whether there is any significant difference between the scores of students exposed to L1 in reading comprehension classes and those not exposed by using the TOEFL and IELTS, the only two proficiency exams accepted in the University, which are provided by outside organizations, as well as the scores of the midterm exam, a standardised test given by the Department during the middle of the 17-week term. To establish whether L1 aids students in L2 reading comprehension, the following questions have been posed: Main Research Question: Does the instructor’s use of the L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension? 1. How much Arabic do instructors use in reading classes? 1.1 What are their reasons for this? 2. Do students use Arabic in reading classes? 2.1 What are their reasons for this? 3. What impact does the use of L1 in the classroom have on student reading examination marks? 3.1 Is there any significant difference between the midterm scores of students who are exposed to L1 in reading comprehension classes and those who are not? 16 3.2 Is there any significant difference between the TOEFL reading scores of students who are exposed to L1 in reading comprehension classes and those who are not? 3.3 Is there any significant difference between the IELTS reading scores of students who are exposed to L1 in reading comprehension classes and those who are not? 1.6 Study Overview A brief layout of the study is provided in this subsection. The background and context for this study is addressed in 1.0, which also highlights the importance of the proficiency exams in the region. The background of the broad theoretical field of the study is disclosed in 2.0, which also links the characterization of L2 instruction to the benefits of using L1 in the classroom. An account of the research design and a discussion of quantitative and qualitative methods are provided in 3.0, as well as the tools used for the study. A discussion on data analysis and both quantitative and qualitative study findings comprises 4.0. A discussion of the design and methodology used in the study is included in 5.0, as well as the different theories of SLA found in 2.0, and 6.0 consists of the discussion of findings and provides the limitations of the study along with its conclusion and recommendations. 17 CHAPTER 2.0: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theories of Second Language Acquisition Prior to exploration of the RQs, the field of SLA needs to be contextualized through a review of relevant literature. SLA, as defined by Ortega (2009), is a ‘scholarly field of inquiry that investigates the human capacity to learn languages other than the first, during late childhood, adolescence or adulthood, and once the first language or languages have been acquired’ (Ortega 2009, p. 2). This definition supports the theory that first language learning is a natural occurrence that can be facilitated by the individual while SLA learners are forced by ‘life circumstances to learn enough of the additional language to fend for themselves in selected matters of daily survival, compulsory education or job-related communications’ (Ortega 2009, p. 1). By the 1960’s, SLA had emerged as an interdisciplinary field (Brown 1980) that had grown out of linguistics and psychology. By the end of the 20th century, it had become its own independent discipline (Firth & Wagner 1997; Ortega 2009); however, multiple theories continue to emerge in the field because SLA is constantly being developed by people of varying disciplinary backgrounds (Hall & Cook 2012) and different epistemological allegiances (Long 2006), who have become fragmented in recent years because of the variety of theories being proposed. The expectation is that a consideration and general analysis of the broad field of SLA will reveal how language learning may affect individual skills, especially reading, the main focus of this study. Several influential theorists have played pioneering roles in SLA theory and helped to shape SLA pedagogical approaches. Chomsky (1959) contributed his review of Skinner’s (1957) article, which endorsed the behaviourist idea of language, helping to promote a new way of thinking about SLA. Krashen (1985) offered his input hypothesis, and many other hypotheses 18 assisted in defining and distinguishing between input and output importance in the field. One form of output will be the prime objective of this study, specifically with respect to the measurable difference of exam scores. Vygotsky (1981), one of the leading theorists on sociocultural effects on SLA, Gardner (1997), who advocates the Multiple Intelligence Theory, and Bandura (1977), who helped bring forth the effects of motivation on SLA, are just a few of the most influential theorists that have played a pioneering role in SLA theory. Their influence can still be felt in the classroom, as most, if not all, are part of the literary canon of the field. Chomsky (1975), probably the leading linguist of the second half of the twentieth century, formulated a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) theory that has had a major influence on SLA theory. Known as ‘Universal Grammar' (UG), Chomsky’s theory, which is that humans are hard-wired for language, was embedded in cognitivist theory and shifted away from Skinner’s behaviourist idea of language as being learned through behavior with no allowances made for any internal process. This is not to say that Chomsky’s theories were accepted without criticism. One critical observation denounced the theory as not able to ‘…explain the widely documented inferior achievement of adults supposedly still equipped with the full innate language learning capacity that served them as well as children’ (Long 2006, p. 14). Chomsky has also been ‘challenged by empiricists, who believe that language acquisition can be accounted for solely in terms of general principles of learning and cognition’ (Segalowitz & Lightbown 1999, p. 45). Although Chomsky’s theory seems unable to answer these questions, it remains significant and pivotal because it serves as a foundation upon which other theorists may stand to more deeply scrutinise these issues. Like Chomsky, Krashen promoted the theory that there is a natural order to language acquisition, especially grammar (Krashen 1985). He argues that language is not necessarily 19 driven by environmental influences but does occur in some sort of hierarchy. Krashen’s (ibid) theory incorporates Chomsky’s UG theories, aspects of Vygotsky’s (1978) scaffolding theories as explained by Lantolf and Thorne (2006), and Bandura’s (1977) social learning theories. Like Krashen, Gardner has incorporated several principles of the aforementioned theorists, building on their concepts to strengthen his contention that identifying and addressing individual student language needs as they arise will aid in SLA. Krashen’s theories that language can be learned through exposure to comprehensible language have been criticized as being inadequate and lack empirical evidence (Long 2006). However, Krashen is still considered one of the leading theorists in SLA (Ellis 1997; Larsen- Freeman & Long 1991), and although several have found fault in his and Chomsky’s theories, they should by no means be wholly discounted. At the very least, they may be utilised as a starting point for related research proposals. One important aspect of SLA is the effect of using L1 in the reading class, as it has proven to be one of the most difficult skills for students in the Gulf region [1.1]. Research on the effects of using L1 when teaching L2 ‘suffer[s] from a number of inherent problems beyond those typical of other research on educational programs’ (Slavin & Cheung 2005, p. 251). There has been considerable research on the effect of age on SLA (Bialystok & Hakutaas 1999; Birdsong 2005; DeKeyser 2000), and although the consensus appears to be that age does affect SLA, several questions have remained unanswered, including those concerning the length and extent of exposure of learners, as observed by Birdsong (2005), who states that, ‘there are acknowledged age effects, but not all researchers agree that the effects are 20 consistent with the notion of a critical period’ (p. 109). As Slavin has mentioned, several inherent problems complicate the field. One variable that touches on the particular research that is the focus of this study is a learner’s ability in her own native language. As Nuttall (1996) points out, a student’s inefficiency in reading in her native language may be a hindrance to reading in a second language. This concept is touched upon by several theorists (Bernhardt & Kamil 1995; Taillefer & Pugh 2002) and will be discussed again later in this study [2.2.1]. Another problem is that the reader may not have enough knowledge of the world, which may lead to misinterpretation or lack of understanding of the text (Day & Bamford 1998). Along with the varying theories currently in vogue concerning SLA, there is also pressure from the public, which arises from the need for accountability that exists whenever there is public money at stake. Having dedicated a significant portion of its funding to education [1.3], the UAE has started to see some research on the effects of expenditures; however, for a more comprehensive look at the role public funding plays in the SLA arena, a review of the USA’s policy would be beneficial, given its longer history and the abundance of research taking place. For example, until recently, most theoretical research was not publicly funded in the USA (Willig 1985), and funding expenditures required evidence of tangible results on how to teach a second language in a way that would best benefit the public. The perception appears to be that empirical research meets this tangibility criterion, and it may have been deemed an effective tool for facilitation of the student’s SLA. Likewise, empirical evidence would justify the UAE’s current policy against L1 classroom use, especially in consideration of the amount of resources needed to enable students to acquire a second language. 21 Chomsky’s and Krashen’s theories and views offer the basis for many new possibilities for SLA. They allow others to experiment and to add to or detract from original theories and concepts, thus enriching the field. The focus of this study is to answer the main Research Question: ‘Does the instructor’s use of the L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension?’ Under consideration is the psycholinguistics theory, which was motivated by Chomsky’s work in linguistics. The psycholinguistics field was developed with reading and sentence comprehension as a particular emphasis, and it encompassed more than one linguistic theory; it emphasised the need to consider both the human mind and the language itself, which rendered it as its own area of inquiry (psycholinguistics), dependent not solely on linguistics but on other areas as well (Treiman et al 2003). A better understanding of the cognitive process of language learning would be instrumental in determining what role, if any, L1 plays in teaching L2. 2.2 Psycholinguistics in SLA SLA is facilitated through an awareness of the internal learning processes. An understanding of the internal cognitive processes related to language acquisition will permit a clearer perspective of the reading components of language and permit a better understanding of what role, if any, L1 plays in SLA in general, and in reading, particularly. Goodman (1988) defines reading as ‘a receptive language process. It is a psycholinguistic process in that it starts with a linguistic surface representation encoded by a writer and ends with a meaning which a reader constructs’ (p. 11). In an ideal setting, the writer would encode thoughts into a language source, and the reader would be able to decode these thoughts from the language source so that the reader was able to comprehend the writer’s thoughts. To decode and read more efficiently, some students may need to use strategies such as guessing from context, or making inferences (Grabe 1991). If strategies are not in place, learners may have a problem 22 with the decoding of thought from language, and this problem may lead to misunderstanding. This problem would be amplified for SLA readers, who may find their decoding restricted by many different variables, such as vocabulary (Nation 2003) or grammar (Ellis 1991), to name a few. It has been pointed out that the cognitive process of learning a second language ‘cannot be the same as first language acquisition, for the learners’ own language plays a central role in the development and use of their new language’ (Hall & Cook 2012, p. 281). To facilitate a better understanding of the difficulties SLA readers face, some researchers have tried to approach the issue in different ways, including claiming that language and thought are to be viewed as separate phenomena (Claros 2008; Long 1996) wherein ‘interaction helps learners activate the individual internal cognitive processes that allow them to access the comprehensible input’ (Claros 2008, p. 144). As Long (1996) points out, there are two individual components to the cognitive processes. A better understanding of these components would aid in achieving comprehensible input, which will, hopefully lead to comprehensible output, which is the focus of this research. Although it is undeniable that interaction is an important aspect of language acquisition, its degree of significance, as well as its location in the process, is still being debated (Claros 2008). Psycholinguistics, which ‘inevitably intersects with psychology, linguistics, philosophy, education and other disciplines as well’ (Steinberg 1992, p. xi), focuses on the psychological and neurobiological factors that help individuals to acquire language. Long (1996) explains that negative feedback and comprehensible input exposure are needed for language learning rather than seeing language as a collaborative dialogue that contains a 23 performance component. It may be reasonably assumed, as well, that reading, as one component of language learning, employs selective cues in the form of comprehensible input that involve interaction between language learning and thought, and that meaning is either confirmed or rejected in an attempt to achieve comprehensible input and textual clarification (Long 1996). This is a view that differs from that of the socio-cultural theorists, who see learning as first taking place between people, then individually (Domain 2005). One can say that those who follow the psycholinguistic perspective ‘believe that the mind imposes structure on thoughts and languages’ while the socio-cultural theorists advocate that ‘language imposes structure on the mind’ (Domain 2005, p. 131). The debate between the psycholinguistics and the socio-culturists is important. Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) have stated that it may allow researchers to collaborate and try different methodologies in joint research, which in turn ‘may stimulate the field, and more complete insights of L2 learning could be obtained as a result of such collaboration’ (Claros 2008, p. 153). While this is a provocative insight, it is beyond the scope of this study. 2.2.1 Language Learning Information Processing System Traditionally, the rate at which students learn a second language has been the focus of most instructors’ concerns rather than how learners learn (Myles 2011). This focus is relevant to this study in that both instructors and students are under significant pressure in UAE University Foundation programmes to attain minimal proficiency scores on their exams to qualify to enter their English-medium majors. However, it may be argued that understanding how learners learn would be instrumental in helping them learn more quickly. The role of the learner’s L1 in facilitating L2 instruction has been the subject of considerable discussion and controversy among linguists and language instructors (e.g., Baker 2003; Schweers 1999). This is because, from a cognitive viewpoint, language learning may be affected by the brain’s 24 ability to associate new input with already stored information (Gass 1988). From the psycholinguistic point of view, L1 is seen as helping to facilitate instruction in L2 in a variety of ways. Kern (1994), for example, argues that L1 use helps in the reduction of memory constraints, allowing conversion of text to a more familiar term. Others, like Forman (2008), have associated L1 with scaffolding, as it enables students to connect L1 to L2 by allowing L1 to naturally link what students are learning with previous things already stored in memory. Examination of the information processing system reveals that the strain on the capacity of the working memory leaves little room for the acquisition of knowledge (Robinson 2003). Some learners may have been able to recognize certain words, but they would likely not have been able to understand connotations outside of the context of the word’s classroom use. This brings up the consideration of learning versus memorization, or deep vs. shallow learning (Biggs & Tang 2011), which may factor into student output in the form of exam results. As Koda (2005) stated, ‘inefficient word recognition takes long-term roles, directly and indirectly, on the acquisition of reading competence’ (p. 31). The issue is whether students operating in this educational environment were actually learning the words, or if they were simply memorising and storing them in short-term memory. Yoshimura (2000) expands on this idea by adding that certain reading tasks are needed for cognition and memory to be freed up in order to acquire some sort of automaticity in reading. There is obviously some benefit to this learning methodology; however, given that communication is far from an objective process, any technique that does not incorporate the linguistic facet of language as a living, pulsing, rhetorical, and ever-changing construct can achieve only limited success (Biggs & Tang 2011). 25 ESL students are often frustrated when trying to read in their L2, especially when they relate their lack of ability in this area to their L1 reading proficiency (Fung et al. 2003). One concept that has been successful in addressing this issue is schema theory (Adams & Collins 1979; Rumelhart 1980), which shows the relationship between the knowledge a learner brings to the text and how is it comprehended. According to schema theory, a good knowledge of both background and strategies can aid in L2 comprehension (Fung et al. 2003), which re- emphasises Vygotsky’s (1962) perspective that the L1 system of meaning skills is transferred to L2 to aid in its understanding (Benedetto 1984; Block 1986). A key player in this transference is the information processing system. To comprehend the influence of the information processing system, an understanding of the cognitive process involved is needed. 2.2.2 Cognitive Considerations Related to Teaching Through understanding of the cognitive process, a more effective introduction of students to SLA may be achieved. Two approaches, top-down and bottom-up, will be explored in this section to aid in offering a useful view of the cognitive process. A delineation of the relationship between the cognitive process and SLA may facilitate a better understanding of certain important aspects of SLA, including decoding and scaffolding. Also, the roles of L1 to promote cognitive language proficiency, and concept development, have been explored (Liu, p. 608). There has even been research to show that L1 can be used as a cognitive learning tool to promote scaffolding (Anton & Dicamilla 1998); and introduction of the cognitive psychological perspective (McLaughlin 1990; Tomlin 1994) has been considered, which views the reading skill as a process or set of processes involving complex mental operations and interactions between reader and text and within the reader (Shihab 2011). This process involves several different components such as top-down and 26 bottom-up processing approaches (Carrell 1988) as well as knowledge of both linguistic and rhetorical structure, which encompasses the realm of the reader’s prior knowledge. 2.2.2.1 SLA Reading Skill: Theoretical Perspectives The bottom-up theoretical view of SLA, which advocates a passive micro-level of help in the form of definitions or explanations, is largely influenced by the behaviourist view of decoding visual stimuli. The reading process has been seen as a way of ‘reconstructing the author’s intended meaning via recognition of the printed letters and words, and building up a meaning’ (Carrell 1988, p. 2) with the phoneme, the smallest linguistic unit, then moving up to syllables, and then words. The approach views reading as a linear process that will eventually evolve into the understanding of sentences, paragraphs, and finally, longer discourse (Long & Adamson 2012). Once a better understanding of the actual role of L1 in the bottom-up theory is attained, it can be explored, and a determination may be made concerning whether it aids in the definitions and explanations of key words and concepts that may promote comprehensible input. Students may face several different problems when reading in a second language. The use of the bottom-up method promotes the decoding many students need help with in dealing with incomprehensible input (Price & Devlin 2011). There are many ways in which learners can decode input to make it more comprehensible, such as giving an unfamiliar word a definition. According to supporters of the bottom-up perspective, unless these opportunities are given to learners, they will have to rely on their own background knowledge or suppositions, which are unsupported strategies that may lead to more confusion and incomprehensible input (Long & Adamson 2012). Without comprehensible input, the prospect of comprehensible output is diminished, which may cause incomprehensible output in the form of incorrect language use and may result in incorrect exam answers. Advocates of the bottom-up perspective claim that 27 learners need ‘to understand the linguistic aspects of the text before they are able to understand its textual and pragmatic elements’ (Guidi 2012, p. 2), a task that would be rendered difficult without the bottom-up approach. This is not to say that all are in agreement with this approach (Anderson 2005): Some feel that it is actually slowing down learners’ progress in the area of language acquisition. The bottom-up approach is both intriguing and useful in that it allows for the confirmation of understanding at varying levels of the reading activity. Advocating a hierarchical process (first words, then meanings, then abstract reading concepts and themes), this approach provides the opportunity for confirmation of meaning at varying, easily identifiable intervals, as opposed to depending on comprehension of an overall, abstract concept, which may involve several different influencing factors that could hinder or preclude the process of comprehension. Advocates of the top-down approach see things differently and claim that the bottom-up approach may actually hinder learners’ progress in SLA. They see reading as a more holistic skill, contending that defining every unknown word is not necessary. Instead, readers should try to overcome any difficulties they may come across in decoding by using strategies and skills such as guessing (Qian 2004) and background knowledge (Nassaji 2002). The top-down approach was also popular in terms of teaching reading (Christiansen & Chater 2001). The idea of providing students with an authentic reading task was popularised based on psycholinguistic concepts. Psycholinguistic advocates did not see reading as a process of decoding unknown words; instead, they perceived it as a ‘complex process of information processing’ (Anderson 2005). Readers now relied ‘on their own knowledge of the subject (content schemata) and a knowledge of how information in texts tends to be structured 28 (formal schemata) to construct meaning’ (Anderson 2005, p. 2). This process enforces the idea of predicting and guessing meaning from context. Neither the top-down nor the bottom-up approach directly takes into consideration the use of a student’s L1 in the process. The manner in which an instructor actually chooses to teach the reading skill using either approach determines if and how L1 will be used. This concept of cognitive interactivism in relation to L2 reading has led to the realization of the variety of variables and functions found in relation to both the text and the reader (Carrell 1988), such as background, culture, and student proficiency in L1. Both approaches had their advantages and disadvantages, and these imperfections helped lead to another theory, that of the interactive model, which tried to blend aspects of both approaches (Rumelhart 1977). This model saw the reading skill as a synthesis of the previous approaches and introduced the idea that reading is not passive but ‘an active process. The interactive approach promotes both the psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic approaches to reading in that it takes into account ‘how language and thought interact’ (Carrell et al. 1988, p. 9), as well as how language interacts in social contexts, which borrows from the psycholinguistic theory of SLA. Like the previous two approaches (bottom-up and top-down), the role, if any, L1 would play in the interactive approach is not directly stated. There are some theorists who favour use of L2 in the classroom, seeing it as a way to provide students with the tools they need to comprehend text. For example, psycholinguists agree that L1 can facilitate instruction in L2 by reducing memory constraints such as lost meaning tracks and by allowing conversion of 29 text to a more recognisable term (Kern 1994; Macaro 2002). A number of theorists have viewed the use of L1 in the classroom as a scaffold that helps connect L1 to L2 (Forman 2008) in that the use of L1 can naturally link what students are learning with previous things stored in memory. Macaro (2002) offers a good psycholinguistic summary concerning the cognitive role that L1 plays in teaching L2, stating that there are four basic categories in which L1 can aid in L2 processing: by aiding in semantic processing; by reducing memory constraints via L2 chunking or clustering, which frees up working memory; by helping to convert input into more familiar terms and lowering affective barriers; and by mentally translating L1 syntactic roles being played by lexical items. Some theorists have suggested that neglecting use of L1 in the classroom will only cause more frustration and obstruct the learning process (Cook 2007; Harbord 1992; Pennycook 2010). With the extensive research being done on the cognitive effects of L1 in learning, L2 educators can make a more well- informed decision on whether to use L1 in teaching or whether it would be more advisable to employ the monolingual approach. 2.3 Monolingualism and Bilingualism The debate on whether to use L1 in an L2 classroom is far from over; however, the concept is gaining more acceptance. One aspect that has emerged from the SLA debate is the role, if any, a learner’s L1 plays in SLA (Freeman 2004), an educational issue of primary concern for the UAE given that much of its education budget has been dedicated to SLA education. There seems to be more openness to public debate concerning when use of L1 is appropriate, which brings to the forefront the argument of whether to teach SLA using the monolingual or the bilingual approach. This decision is informed by numerous other factors, including demonstrated success of a certain approach, as well as the attributes and skills of the students being instructed. These issues, and others, will be addressed in the following paragraph. 30 Teaching can be a complex enterprise, and successful instruction of a particular subject is often dependent upon the effectiveness of the approach being utilised. Instructional planning should involve consideration of not only lesson content but also the natural tools and resources students may be bringing to the classroom. One of these tools is the student’s language (Slavin et al. 2011). Policies in the 1970’s and 1980’s favoured bilingual education, but by the late 1990’s, there had been a shift in favour of a more English-only mode of instruction (Miles 2004; Slavin et al. 2011). This was especially true in North America, where ‘California, Arizona, Massachusetts, and other states have enacted policies to greatly curtail bilingual education’ (Slavin et al. 2011, p. 47). This is not to say that all researchers agree with this shift; several have been advocates for the use of L1 in the classroom (Brown 2000; Schweers 1999; Slavin 2011), deferring to research that has shown that completely disregarding L1 while providing L2 instruction is not beneficial. Nevertheless, because of the abundance of research that has been undertaken on this issue in North America, instructors would be well advised to explore this pertinent database of information. Prior to 2010, the use of L1 in the classroom was prohibited by the majority of tertiary institutions in the UAE, who believed it to be an impediment to SLA (Gallagher 2011; Mouhanna 2009). Tertiary instructors in the UAE have been encouraged to use the monolinguistic approach in teaching students; however, anecdotal evidence suggests that some instructors have advocated it, not just because of the language policy but also because of the increasing time constraints needed to pass the proficiency exams and the need for maximal exposure to L2. The assumptions held by many regarding the most effective way to teach a second language would promote the monolingual approach, those assumptions being that the target language in lessons and L1 should not be used (Cook 2007; Cummins 2007), 31 ideas found in the audio-lingual approach to teaching [3.1.4]. With many agreeing that the primary use of the target language should be in the classroom and cautioning against the overuse of L1 (Cook 2001; Turnball 2001), the traditional monolinguistic approach has been seen as the best way of approaching the problem. As researchers started to challenge the notions of monolingualism (Cook 2001; Firth & Wagner 1997; Pennycook 2010) in the classroom, the concepts of multilingualism and bilingualism have been brought into the limelight (Cenoz & Gorter 2011; Pennycook 2010). In 2010, the UAE government moved away from the monolingual approach of the past, especially since that approach was not meeting the country’s current language requirements. The UAE government launched what seems to be an ambitious plan for school reform entitled ‘New School Model’ (Gallagher 2011). In this plan, which was instituted in 2010-2011, schools taught English alongside the country’s native Arabic language (ADEC 2010). The UAE may have determined that the monolingual approach in teaching was not the most effective for their population, given the low English scores of the students; they may have felt that a new approach was needed. Anecdotal evidence taking into account the students of this researcher supports this position; low test scores appear to indicate that a change in curriculum is warranted. Bilingual education in the UAE is a new concept and has not seen the expansive research that has been undertaken in other regions in the world (Gallagher 2011). Relative to reading skills, two fundamental categories for learning reading exist in L2; one is through immersion, which advocates the monolingual approach, and the other involves bilingual acquisition, which allows for the use of L1 in the classroom (Slavin & Cheung 2005). A simplified way to define these two categories is that immersion strategies apply to learners who acquire L2 with little or no ‘significant amounts of instruction in reading and/or 32 other subjects in their native language’ (Slavin & Cheung 2005, p. 250). This definition helps to provide clarification of the parameters involved when exploring the concept. Until recently, there has been little research done on bilingual education in the Arab world (Al-Khatib 2006; Findlow 2006; Sowa & De La 2009). For example, in Tellefson and Tsui’s Medium of Instruction Policies (2004) review, Europe, Africa, Asia, and America were all explored, but the Middle East has been overlooked (Gallagher 2011). Also, Baker’s Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (2006) work references Arabic but does not mention any Arab country. There have been some efforts to broaden research to include the Arab world, namely, the Gulf countries that comprise the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). One reason may be the Arabian Gulf economic and political emergence (Gallagher 2011). With the UAE’s transformation from one of the least developed economies to a wealthy, industrialised country (Raven 2011), even given the economic slowdown that most of the world has felt, the UAE has been able to continue its rapid growth and is diversifying into other sources of income. The opinion that economic independence is not moving fast enough because of the educational system currently in place in the UAE (Muyksen & Nour 2006) is a contention that links pedagogical methods and approaches to the problem. 2.3.1 Bilingualism Research Results Because this study’s focus is on the effectiveness of using L1 to teach L2 in reading in relation to proficiency exam scores, a review of the research previously conducted in the field is critical. Extensive research has been done on the role of L1 and how it aids L2 instruction in the USA. Both policy and practice have favoured the idea of using bilingual education in the 1970’s and 1980 to teach children in their native language and then transition them to English-only instruction at some point in their elementary education (Greene 1998). By the 33 1990s, however, the tide had turned in favour of English-only instruction as a result of recent policies by the federal government restricting the amount of L1 being used to teach children (Greene 1998). Upon review of the outcomes of educational instruction that has used L1 to help teach L2, conflicting conclusions emerge. The debate has seen research results favouring both sides, with ideology at times playing a role rather than actual results (Slavin & Cheung 2005). Some research results, such as those produced by Willig (1985), Wong-Fillmore and Valadez (1986), Greene (1997), and Rolstad & Mahoney & Glass (2005), have concluded that allowing students to use their L1 is an effective technique. Greene (1998) goes further, stating, ‘an unbiased reading of the scholarly research suggests that bilingual education helps children who are learning English’ (p. 1). Moreover, Greene (1998) also observes that several advocates as well as opponents of English use in the classroom ‘claim that scholarly research supports their case, but their reading of the literature is often selective, exaggerated, and distorted’ (p. 1). This claim is usually evidenced in the form of higher scores. Willig (1985) observes that a review of L2 different studies found that ‘bilingual education was successful because it either improved or did not hinder academic achievement in school’ (p. 270). However, Willig (1985) is not the only researcher that found that bilingual education did not hinder achievement, as shown in the following section. Several studies on the effect of using L1 to teach L2 reflect a contradictory view. For example, Baker and de Kanter’s (1981) evaluation of 28 studies has found that bilingual education was very weak. Rossell and Baker (1996) have noted that using L1 in the classroom is no more effective than using L2 alone. Questions may arise about the varying findings of 34 such studies, and in order to reconcile the disparities, it is important to realize that some studies may involve special interests. For example, Baker and de Kanter’s (1981) study, as Willig (1985) points out, was ‘one under the auspices of the Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation’ (p. 70). In this context, the study may seem to be promoting the idea of monolingualism and not bilingualism in the classroom, since bilingualism would cost more. This is not to say that these studies may not be accurate; however, it does raise an important aspect of research design. Other researchers find fault with these results, citing methodology concerns or reporting antithetical findings. Furthermore, several researchers point out flaws they have found when reviewing findings. For example, the methodology could be called into question because of the use of ‘matching rather than random assignments, thereby leaving open the possibility that selection bias might have influenced the findings’ (Slavin et al. 2011, p. 49). The issue of bias can also be seen echoed in Greene’s (1998) earlier claim that an ‘unbiased’ reading was used. As Michael Long (1997) points out, bias is a key issue in SLA research and may result in misleading results. Furthermore, varying factors related to SLA may produce different results as well, as evidenced by many researchers (Greene 1998; Long 1997; Slavin et al. 2011). Notwithstanding these variations, a number of educators have moved forward, beginning to apply L1 in their classrooms in various contexts. Due consideration has now been given to cognitive issues associated with the decision to use L1, which informs whether bilingual or monolingual education is appropriate in a given educational setting. At this point, it is relevant to address the actual role L1 plays in the classroom as well as issues related to the effect it has on the students, along with related ramifications for instructors. 35 2.4 Teacher Methodology and Beliefs The methodology a teacher employs in an SLA-based environment is largely informed by her particular approach to second language instruction. As the bilingual approach becomes more popular, it is reasonable to assume that instructors are beginning to find the use of L1 more acceptable. One leading advocate for the use of L1 in the classroom is Nation (2003), who states: ‘research has shown that the first language of learners can play a useful role’ (Nation 2003); other researchers also agree with this idea (Brown 2000; Cook 2002; Forman 2008; Shweebers 1999). This study will seek to explore the issue of empirical evidence and the use of L1 to teach L2 reading in the form of exam scores. Prior to address these issues, it is necessary to examine some of the research currently available in SLA. All of the previously mentioned theories (Brown 2000; Cook 2002; Nation 20003) have been of significant use to SLA theorists and have formed the bases for hundreds of studies, but still they are constantly being updated or challenged. This is especially true with empirical findings, which support some theories whilst casting doubt upon others. As might be expected, these theories have influenced several teaching methods, and a leading factor in influencing methodology has also been the importance of the proficiency exams in the Gulf region. With the rising importance of these proficiency exams, which may narrow the curriculum (Chapman & Snyder 2000), testing is one key factor that can influence classroom practices. The premise that what is being tested is what is being taught, or ‘washback,’ (Green 2007) is a concept that has been accepted as routinely influencing (Alderson & Wall 1993; Green 2007) teaching practices. One of the primary concerns for students and instructors alike is the lower reading skill scores on proficiency exams (Cox et al. 2003; Pretorius 2000), which is the focus of this study. The controversy regarding the most effective way to teach reading in a second language involves not only researchers but also educators and education policy makers. 36 Evidence suggests that while most are in agreement that reading instruction bears consideration from a number of standpoints, the actual role that L1 plays in the learning process has experienced particular scrutiny (Grabe 1991; Grabe 2002; Slavin & Cheung 2005). This leaves many unanswered questions for instructors concerning not only the best way to teach reading but also regarding how to teach proficiency exam reading and what role, if any, L1 should play in the process. Anecdotal evidence suggests that instructors who teach L2 are hopeful that inclusion of this component will aid students in passing their proficiency exams; however, they are aware that it will be an uphill battle. The reading skill is seen by many as an important key to academic success (Cox et al. 2003) and is an essential tool for ESL/EFL students (Pretorius 2000). According to Adamson (1993), several types of processes are needed in L2 reading: decoding (lexical access), linguistic, phonological representation, and background knowledge, to name a few. Given their close relationship to the reading skill set, these processes will likely prove useful in the facilitation of reading acquisition. Research into the connection between reading in L1 and L2 reveals the significance of the linguistic proficiency of the subject, and some researchers (Koda 2005; Yamashita 2002) have also tried to identify ways in which the subject’s linguistic proficiency affected reading ability in L2. Also, establishment of empirical evidence that proves conclusively whether L1 aids in L2 reading acquisition, the main concern of this study, would facilitate identification of patterns that would lead to an understanding of the most effective uses of L1. The cognitive process of SLA as well as the decision of whether to use a bilingual or a monolingual form of language teaching cannot always be controlled by the instructors; 37 however, this does not mean that instructors are not able to also use forms of observation to assist in determination of their own methodologies and approaches to teaching. 2.4.1 Instructors’ Beliefs The beliefs of an instructor will have a significant influence upon the role L1 plays in the classroom. Although an instructor may not be aware that his beliefs help to determine how he will approach teaching, his beliefs will ultimately help to define his ideology, which will help to determine the role L1 plays in his classroom as well as his methodology, materials, and activities (Borg 2003). As Nesper suggests, to understand instructors’ styles, we must ‘understand the beliefs with which they define their work’ (1987, p. 323). Nesper is not the only one who believes that instructors’ beliefs ‘impact on the nature of their reasoning since the ways in which teachers come to conceptualize themselves as teachers and develop explanations for their own classroom practices tend to be filtered through their beliefs’ (Johnson & 逊翰约. 1999, p. 31). Brown (1980) holds that beliefs ‘…determine your philosophy of education, your teaching style, your approach, methods, and classroom techniques’ (p. 5). Instructors’ beliefs, in one form or another, play a pivotal role in the way a class is taught. Although beliefs are not easily defined, a few theorists have made an attempt. Pajares (1992) offers a list of terms that can be associated with beliefs: ‘… attitudes, judgments, axioms, opinions, ideology…’ are a few of these. Many theories try to determine what influences beliefs, and it has been suggested that culture (Weinstein 1989; Liu 2007; Ogilvie 2010) policies, mandates (Meiring & Norman 2002), and preparation for proficiency exams (Booher-Jennings 2005; White & Rosenbaum 2007), as well as historical anecdotes (Auerbach 1993; Crawford 1991; Philipson 2009) may all have a contributing effect. This is why some instructors revert to the methodology they were taught rather than implement the 38 new methodologies or approaches to which they are exposed when they undergo training (Goodman 1988; Nesper 1987). Instructors are learners first and use the way they learned to teach others, a behavior sometimes called ‘apprenticeship of observation’ (Lortie 1975). Another factor that can influence teacher methodology is the pressure a teacher may feel to help students pass proficiency exams. The belief that this is the main objective of the class may shift resources away from ‘low performing students and toward students who had more realistic chances of exceeding key threshold scores’ (Neal & Schanzenbach 2010, p. 6), and these resources may be their L1. If time constraints have been imposed on the development of language proficiency, an instructor may feel that class time is better spent using L1 (Weschler 1997). The need to comply with an unwritten policy that mandates that only the TL be used in class would understandably influence teacher beliefs in the implementation of a method that may challenge the status quo. Auerbach (1993) makes another interesting observation about a possible influencing factor of teacher methodology: Many instructors may view the past English-only attitudes as being natural, believing that they need to encourage students to use the TL as much as possible and that the ‘need to use’ seems to echo a negative value and produce a feeling of failure and guilt (Auerbach 1993; Cook 2001 Mitchell 1988). This may present another complication, namely, the possibility that an instructor’s use of L1 is indicative of a feeling of guilt or failure on the part of that instructor (Auerbach 1993; Hall & Cook 2013). Auerbach (1993) also noted that 80% of instructors who took part in his questionnaire and allowed the use of L1 in the class gave it a negative value and felt it was the cause of a lapse because ‘the English-only axiom is so strong that they didn’t trust their own practice’ (p. 14). Mitchell (1988) has also echoed 39 Auerbach’s findings, saying that it ‘seemed almost to feel they were making an admission of professional misconduct in ‘confessing to low levels of FL use’ (1988, p. 28). Prodromou (2002) even goes as far as to suggest that the use of a student’s L1 in the classroom is like a ‘skeleton in the cupboard,’ as if it were somehow a secret that needs to be hidden. It should be noted that even though several researchers have advocated the use of L1 in the classroom (Auerbach 1993; Cook 2001; Prodromou 2002), most caution that L2 should be used whenever possible. For example, this can be seen in the observations of Prodromou (2002), who observes that instructors should not ‘waste any opportunity to provide students with natural, comprehensible input. Procedural language in the classroom is too good an opportunity for natural English to waste’ a student’s native language (p. 7). The feeling of guilt or failure associated with use of a student’s L1 would complicate matters by dissuading instructors from using L1 or by discouraging them from admitting to using it. In summation, many agree that language learning is dependent on many variables, such as context and skill level, but no unanimous consensus currently exists regarding the most effective way to teach SLA. Because SLA learning and instruction can be influenced by a wide variety of influences, theories are in abundance, and it is important to be aware of as many as possible. Several theorists have played pioneering roles in SLA, only to be later criticised as a result of newer theories and data. As these theories become popular, recommendations on how to best teach SLA are both put forth and discredited, leaving a need for the most up-to-date information to be made available to educators. Most researchers are in agreement that a better understanding of the cognitive process is key to understanding SLA, but they have not agreed on how best to use it to teach a second language. Several important theoretical views of SLA have helped to shape teaching pedagogies, but they do not all have 40 the same theoretical outcomes. The amount of L1 that should be used to teach L2 has been a question that many instructors have tried to answer, and although no simple or definitive answers to this difficult question have been discovered, some have proposed that certain guidelines be adopted which may advocate or reject the current policy of the UAE in limiting the use of L1 in teaching L2. One of these concerns the methodology an instructor decides to use, which is strongly influenced by teacher beliefs; this methodology may also play a role in the achievement of SLA success in the classroom. 2.4.2 Methods and Approaches for Second Language Teaching Approaches taken based on assumptions made about language acquisition produce results that are beneficial to some and problematic to others. In the ESL domain, method is usually seen as the guiding framework of principles instructors use in the classroom. Four approaches/methods have proven to be more popular in this region (Liu 2004): the Grammar Translation Method (GT), the Direct Method (DM), the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM), and the Communicative Approach (CA). These have become popular, influential, and prominent pedagogical tools used by regional instructors. In the UAE, the GT method is still used to teach vocabulary by focusing on memorising word lists to facilitate assessment success. This method has been criticised (Richards & Renandya 2002) as isolating vocabulary, which makes it difficult to understand, as well as cited as having no theory ‘that offers a rationale or justification for it that attempts to relate it to issues in linguistics, psychology, or educational theory’ (Richards and Rodgers 2001, p. 7). With demographic change in the UAE and more than 50% of the population coming from non-Arabic-speaking countries (Palfreyman 2006), the GT method has no longer been meeting the needs of the students. In response to the problems posed by the GT method and its overuse of L1 in the classroom, the DM was developed (Pennycook 1989). All teaching that occurred was accomplished in 41 the second language, and the use of L1 was abandoned (Harbord 1992). The basic idea was to encourage the student to think in the language she wanted to learn (Skela 1998). The DM, along with the ALM, which is based on the behaviourist theory, holds that certain human traits can be taught through the aid of a system of reinforcement. With the change in language use policy in UAE schools (Hyland et al. 2009), instructors may have had to limit, if not abolish altogether, the use of the native language in classes, which may have increased the popularity of the DM and ALM. The last method to be discussed is the CA, which was built on Chomsky’s idea of linguistic competence. Dell Hynes (1972) brought forth the idea of communicative competence as the governing force behind this approach, which has helped to shift focus from teaching structure and accuracy of a language toward fluency and instruction of communicative proficiency. This has been increasingly important to students, who needed to be able to communicate using the L2 rather than just understand it (Larsen- Freeman 2007; Palfreyman 2006). Many saw this as a ‘radical change in scientific theorizing--a shift away from development of linguistic competence to a focus on communicative competence’ (Danesi 2003, p. 13), where learners were involved in authentic communication settings that would motivate their natural strategies and propensities for language acquisition. The CA continues to hold a prominent place with most instructors, as witnessed in both classroom observations, in that its ideas have been implemented in the class. Both instructors used for this study have promoted group work and student interaction as much as possible. Ultimately, instructor methodology may be the single most important factor determining the role SLA can play in the classroom. 2.4.3 Use of L1 to Promote SLA SLA has emerged as a field of inquiry with varying views. In the 1980’s, different approaches for responding to questions in the field began to develop, both in relative isolation and parallel 42 to each other. By the 1990’s, these approaches had begun to confront one another (Lightbown 2000). Although just as is currently the case, researchers of 30 years ago were debating the roles of cognition, language, and learning, the difference today is that technology has afforded them new research tools that did not exist in the past to test the different hypotheses (Lightbown & Segalowitz 1999). As Bialystok and Frohlich (1978) explain, factors that influence proficiency in second language learning ‘may generally be classified into two basic categories: cognitive and affective variables’ (p. 327). They go on to explain that cognitive variables refer to the ‘aptitude, intelligence, and certain cognitive styles,’ while affective variables are the ‘attitude and motivation’ (p. 327). In reference to the second category, that of attitude and motivation, several studies have pointed out the benefits of L1 use (Dörnyei 1994; Dörnyei 2003; Macintyre, Noels & Clement 1997; Robinson 2002; Robinson 2001; MacIntyre & Gardner 2006;Scovel 1978; Scovel 2001). In reference to motivation, Dornyei (1998) has found it to be the ‘one of the key factors that influence the rate of success of second/foreign language (L2) learning’ (p. 117). Success is not always measurable in test scores; it can also be quantified in the form of attitude toward learning and willingness to utilise SLA as a learning tool. These are admittedly important factors that may affect the overall test scores of students and will be addressed to some extent in the next section of this study (‘Roles of L1 in the Reading Classroom’). Motivation and attitude are not being questioned or analysed; rather, it is simply being acknowledged that they may contribute to or hinder SLA. In this study, the overall effectiveness of L1 use will be explored in reference to test scores. Research has revealed several implications of L1 instructional use to help teach reading in L2. William Grabe (2004) gives a summary of these implications that includes use of L1 to help 43 ensure word recognition, fluency, vocabulary learning, and to help activate background knowledge. The effects of allowing the use of L1 to help in reading L2 have been researched by many theorists (Grabe 2004; Greene 1997; Lightbown & Segalowitz 1999), all of whom found that L1 did actually help in L2 reading with students who were taught in an all-L2 environment. However, these findings are relevant of students who spoke an L1 that shared several similarities to the L2 being taught, mainly in the domain of alphabet, rather than a language like Arabic, which is typologically different (Goldenberg 2011). When considering a learner’s language and culture, the question becomes ‘How generalisable is most research to English learners whose native language is not a European language, such as Chinese or Arabic?’ As Khon (1992) states, ‘the very patterns of reading behaviour that American teachers are training their students to avoid are the ones that Chinese teachers expect their students to use’ (p. 121). It is hoped that research undertaken in the preparation of this study will uncover some of the effects of L2 when taught to an audience that is accustomed to a typologically different language, namely, Arabic. It is also hoped that this study will highlight the importance of SLA both to teachers, whose job it is to effectively facilitate SLA for their students, and for the students themselves, who must determine how best to utilise their L1/L2 to proficiently negotiate the language learning process. Several researchers have advocated the beneficial use of L1 (Auerbach 1993; Cook 2001; Macaro 2005). In most cases, this advocacy comes with words of caution that are not always instigated by government policies against its overuse or against insufficient use of L2 in the classroom (Cook 2001; Duff 2002; Prodromou 2002). Some have advocated the use of L2 in class because of the minimal opportunity and exposure to quality L2 outside of a classroom (Chaudron 1988; Duff & Polio 1999), where ‘… the common belief is that the fullest 44 competence in the target language (TL) is achieved by means of the instructor providing a rich TL environment, in which not only instruction and drill are executed in the TL, but also disciplinary and management operations’ (Chaudron 1988. p. 121). Other researchers also agree that the use of the TL (or L2) is essential to language learning (Cook 2001; Cook 2007; Pennycook 2004). Still other researchers have pointed out that the TL needs to be utilised in different functions of the classroom, from language-related functions to classroom management activities (Ellis 1984). Ellis (1984) states: In the EFL classroom, however, teachers sometimes prefer to use the pupils’ L1 to explain and organize a task and to manage behavior in the belief that this will facilitate the medium-centred [language-related] goals of the lesson. In so doing, however, they deprive the learners of valuable input in the L2 (p. 133). Ellis (1984), in referring to valuable input, highlights the importance of repletion and contextualised language. Wong (1985) also agrees with the need to expose learners to the TL and endeavour to ‘figure out’ (p. 35) what is being said and how the language is being used, pointing out that translation can at times ‘short circuit this process.’ Several researchers (Brown 2000, Cook 2001; Macaro 2005) emphasise that when used effectively and appropriately, L1 can be a ‘facilitating factor and not just an interfering factor’ (Brown 2000, p. 68). Therefore, to provide insight into the effectiveness of classroom use of L1, the following subsection offers a closer look at the different influences that may affect the roles of L1 currently in vogue in the classroom. 2.4.4 Roles of L1 in the Reading Classroom Many studies have investigated the different roles of L1 in teaching L2. The role of L1 in a classroom is not easy to determine because the answer depends on a variety of variables, such as the level of the student’s L2 (Liu 2004). For example, some of the main issues are the varying approaches (implicit or explicit) (DeKeyser 2003), the raising of learners’ metalinguistic awareness helping to facilitate acquisition of L2 (Jessner 1999), the 45 effectiveness of meaning and effective focus lessons (Norris & Ortega 2000), benefits of negative feedback in L2 development (Long 1997), and the relevance of psycholinguistic methods to promote SLA vs. the traditional grammar way (Ellis 1993). The above mentioned issues share the ‘theoretical premise that the goal of any instructional interventions should be to effect changes in learners’ focal attention when they are processing the L2’ (Norris & Ortega 2000, p. 419), which will promote ‘noticing’ as defined in the Noticing Hypothesis. It is important to note that the noticing hypothesis reaffirms that input does not automatically become intake unless it is noticed and is registered consciously (Schmidt 2012). Once this occurs, learners will be able to address their linguistic problems in L2, which will promote language acquisition. Input is the commonality found in most of the research. Unfortunately, not as much research focuses on the output or product in terms of actual performance on exams, especially in countries where L2 is not the native language. Goldenberg (2011) has examined the progress of Spanish-speaking students learning English in the USA; however, very few consider the output of exam scores of students learning L2 in a foreign atmosphere as well as the effect of noticing when using L1 as opposed to L2, if any. The lack of research in this area leaves unanswered questions for students in such an environment. The concept of noticing has brought to light valuable insight on the connective links that may be taking place that would aid in language acquisition, especially with reference to L1 use. The nature of this linkage is that the teacher belief being practiced leads to the methodology, which leads to the amount and role of L1 to be used in the classroom. 46 2.4.5 Amount of L1 Use in the Reading Classroom To understand the role L1 plays in teaching L2, it is important to recognize that most instructors revert to the common question of how much L1 is appropriate for classroom use. Many factors complicate the educational picture: the multiple intellectual ranges and varying ability levels of students that comprise a given classroom, the amount of time allotted to a particular instructional module, content parameters required of different departments and institutions, teaching methods of instructors, and learning styles of students. This is hardly a representative list, and when it is coupled with the complexities and unique needs posed by students and instructors in an L1/L2 environment, the difficulty increases substantially (Schweers 1999). Because this question is tied to the individualised nature of each classroom, responses cannot be predetermined or generalised from one class to another, which means that instructors may feel that the amount of L1 can change, depending on the situation. There have been more concrete guidelines for use and function of L1 in teaching L2, but these rules give the impression that there is a simple way to address a very complex situation. However, this has not stopped some researchers from laying down guidelines for the actual amount of L2 usage in classrooms. For example, Legarreta's (1979) study suggests that the ratio should be about 50% L2 to 50% L1, except in two areas: language arts and reading; and Miles (2004) has stated, ‘quantity of exposure is important, but other factors, such as quality of the text material, trained instructors, and sound methods of teaching are more important than the amount of exposure’ (Miles 2004, p. 13), once again contending that amount may be dependent upon on situation and need. 47 Some theorists, such as Miles (2004) and Schweer (1999), have even suggested that before the role of L1 can be determined by an instructor, he needs to be aware of certain factors, including what a student is bringing with her to the class in terms of age, culture, motivation, etc. There are so many available theories, and many are not substantiated with evidence; consequently, one must take particular care in selection of a formula that dictates the amount of L1 that is appropriate to use in any classroom situation. One important factor in this equation may be the quality of L2 being used. If the quality is questionable, then the impact on students with respect to the issue of comprehensible input may be unsatisfactory. To effectively present this study and answer the main RQ, ‘Does the instructor’s use of L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension?’ a broad understanding of the field, as well as an awareness of as many theories as possible, is necessary given that several different factors could influence the outcome. Fulfillment of the criteria that facilitate this understanding will prove instrumental in analysing data, particularly the information included in the observational checklist, because of the unplanned utterances that typically occur during class time. Understanding of these utterances at the time they are made is critical to full comprehension of what is being said and is also necessary to avoid missing an important linguistic component of the classroom dynamic. The following section will outline some of the more prevalent SLA hypotheses currently being employed by instructors. 2.5 Linguistic Interdependency Hypothesis and Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis The methodology teachers employ, and in some instances, their beliefs, may obviously be influenced by existing proven and verified data, as well as hypotheses that are currently in vogue in the field. Many researchers have shared a commonalty in the referencing of two hypotheses: the Linguistic Interdependency Hypothesis and the Linguistic Threshold 48 Hypothesis (Bernhardt 1995; Cummins 1979; Koda 2005), either of which may have a role in forming an instructor’s methodology. The Linguistic Interdependency Hypothesis states that a student’s reading ability in L1 will transfer to reading in L2 (Bernhardt & Kamil 1995; Yamashita 2004). The more literate students are in L1, the more likely they will be able to develop literacy in L2. Proponents of this idea (Bernhardt 1995; Cummins 1979; Koda 2005 Yamashita 2004) have argued that learners should be taught to read in their native language first in order to avoid problems in simultaneous acquisition of both the vocal nature and the reading of English. Some researchers have found that reading and writing language components should be transferable across languages, and when a learner has acquired the skills in his native language, those same skills should also be available in the second language (Peregoy & Boyle 2000). The hypothesis seems to advocate that learners who engage in this technique have an innate foundation of reading skills that can later be called upon to help in reading in a second language. The Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis, which addresses the linguistic threshold, holds that reading ability in L1 transfers to L2 only when learners have a higher proficiency than the linguistic threshold (Jing 2011; Yamashita 2004). This theory contends that until learners are able to develop language proficiency in their target language, or L2, they will not be able to transfer L1 reading skills. Both hypotheses, important and bearing consideration relative to this study’s research, claim that some aspect of transferable knowledge exists, but there are differing views concerning when this transfer occurs (Cummins 1979; Jing 2011). Empirical research has aided in promoting the Linguistic Interdependency Hypothesis, which may have some bearing on score results, particularly if the student’s L1 reading proficiency 49 level is known and can be correlated with the L2 results. Several findings have revealed that ‘reading abilities of bilingual children have demonstrated moderate but significant relationships between their L1 and L2 reading abilities’ (Jiang 2011, p. 178), a fact that provides evidence that L1 literacy skills can help predict the development of L2 skills. In one study by Van Gelderen et al. (2004, 2007), when investigation was undertaken on students whose first language was Dutch and whose L2 was English, ‘L1 reading comprehension was found to correlate strongly with L2 reading comprehension and to contribute more to L2 reading comprehension than other L2 component skills’ (179). The results of these studies promote the idea of the relationship between L1 and L2 reading abilities; however, unfortunately, they do not provide all the answers. Other studies have found that not all literacy skills have been transferred. For example, Verhoeven’s (1994) study shows that pragmatic and phonological skills were transferred but that lexical and syntactic skills were not. Because reading incorporates several different learning processes, it is difficult to make general observations or pinpoint a single factor without considering its influence on a different one. That is why some findings may lead to the hypothesis that ‘L2 language skills were highly related to L2 reading ability’ (p. 179). As opposed to considering the reading as part of the whole, it is prudent to consider the whole. The Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis also has its advocates. One is Bernhardt and Kamil (1995), whose research found that even though L1 was an important variable in predicting reading ability, L2 language proficiency is a stronger predictor. This is not to say that L1 is not important, only that there are other variables that need to be considered, namely, the linguistic threshold. Other researchers (Carrell 1988; Brisbois 1995) also found that language proficiency in L2 is a stronger predictor of reading ability than L1 reading ability. Overall, the 50 studies indicated a consistency in the results, showing that both reading ability and language proficiency are important elements but that language proficiency has been a greater contributor. As was the case with the previous hypothesis, there is no clear-cut answer with a single constant that can be pinpointed to determine the results. Several variables that cannot be controlled may affect each individual’s learning process, such as the actual reading tasks vs. reading context (Jiang 2011, p. 181). This is an interesting concept, but the importance of what is being read may have been overlooked. The actual reading context of students may play an important role in determining reading ability. Personal experience has shown that some students do not feel that they are reading unless their reading material is academic, as opposed to pleasure-oriented. Student participants were queried by one instructor participant at the beginning of the academic term regarding whether they enjoyed reading, but most did not seem to wish to share their answers. Initially, I assumed that their hesitation to respond was because they were reluctant to admit that they read in their native language while engaged in academic study of L2. However, when I expanded on my question, asking them to divulge the nature of their reading material, I learned that very few of them engaged in reading anything at all other than what is assigned for a lesson. Reading for pleasure does not seem to be a priority for them. This attitude seems to reinforce the concept of language study as an academic subject, as opposed to a life skill, a perspective that coincided with the finding of Grabe (2002). Both the students’ and the instructor’s perception of reading are significant determinants of educational success, and in some situations, one may relate to the other. For example, reading instructors that consider reading in a student’s L1 to be especially useful will be free to allow their students extra time to engage in that activity as well as to take a more active role in a 51 student’s reading practices outside of the classroom. This information will assist in determination of the methodology and material that will be most effective, given that it would include either L1 reading material or L2. When the student’s L1 is used outside of the classroom, in-classroom use is facilitated and enhanced, and the student’s reading material can be rendered more comprehensible as a result of the student’s increased exposure to the language. The aforementioned considerations lead to the varying theories currently prevalent in the field of SLA, such as those of Slavin & Cheung (2005), Nuttall (1996), Long (2006), and Schweers (1999). Unfortunately, no researchers can claim that they have covered all variables; rather, they find themselves focusing on what they consider to be the variables that have the most significant effect on the results. This may be seen for most research: Its value and scope is determined and limited by the bias or principal interest of the researcher(s) involved. 2.5.1 Input Hypothesis Comprehensible input has been seen by many as an important aspect of learning the target language (TL) (Call 1985; Krashen 1985; Ni 2012; Terrell 1982). Corder (1967) was one of the first to work on the concept; then Krashen (1981) built on it, which helped to distinguish between input and output importance as well as connections between them [2.1]. Others have contributed a great deal of input into the shaping of the concept, such as Long (1981), whose work on comprehensible input has been a significant part of the acquisition process. To better understand the concept of comprehensible input, a survey of the input hypothesis is needed. Several hypotheses are attributed to Krashen, such as the Affective Filter Hypothesis (1982), the Monitor Hypothesis (1982), and the Input Hypothesis (1985). For the purpose of this exploration, his Input Hypothesis will be examined in detail. The other hypothesis role in SLA is also very important and will be mentioned although not explored in depth. The Input 52 Hypothesis states: ‘we acquire language by understanding messages, that ‘comprehensible input’ is the essential environmental ingredient in language acquisition’ (Alatis 1991, p. 409). In other words, the more learners are exposed to the TL, the more proficient they should become. This would seem to indorse the L2-only policy of UAE institutions in that if one exposes students only to the TL, it will increase their exposure and aid in acquisition. As Krashen (1991) states, ‘more exposure to a second language tends to show more proficiency in it’ (409). Regarding reading, Krashen states, ‘If acquirers rely only in the informal environment, or readers read only authentic texts, progress at first may be slow, since very little of the input will be comprehensible’ (1991, p. 409). Building on Krashen’s work, Long & White (1996) also agrees that access to comprehensible input in L2 is important and sees the benefit of using the L2 in its authentic states, but he cautions that it may be insufficient since some elements go unnoticed to second language learners. This premise was echoed and expanded by White (1998), who also agreed that L2 learners may not always notice some elements that are needed for SLA. Neither the claim that comprehensible input is needed for language acquisition nor the role that L1 plays in the process can be advanced without argument. As many have pointed out, not all input is comprehensible (Krashen 1991; Long & White 1996), nor has the method by which comprehensible input may be achieved been easily defined. It is possible that L1 may help input become more comprehensible. L1 can be seen as the tool that allows input to be understood by connecting it to already learned concepts or thoughts. Without the use of L1, input may remain incomprehensible, which would not allow the process of language acquisition to continue. An observation in Krashen’s original theory may help explain Long and White’s (1996) questions concerning Krashen’s argument that input must achieve a certain level, wherein he 53 cites the famous formula of (i+1), a contention that the learner is receiving input one level above her comprehension (i) level. If the input is higher, it is beyond comprehension, and if it is at the learner’s level, she will not be interested. This hypothesis is very important when teaching the reading skill. In examination of the concept of the hypothesis, it becomes evident why many agree with its premise. If students are not able to understand the words, they will not understand the content, which will be an element of consideration in this research. Through use of L1, lessons previously perceived as being too advanced ([i+2] rather than [i+]) may be suited to the parameters of the Krashen formula. This research will explore two premises of L1: acquisition of comprehensible input in order to acquire the language, and the possibility of comprehensible input being achieved with the aid of a student’s L2. This hypothesis also claims that skill-building lessons have no real impact on acquisition; rather it is the comprehensible input that is supplied in class. For example, pre-vocabulary teaching and direct grammar do not aid in the comprehension of a reading passage. Instead, Krashen’s (1991) hypothesis advocates the ‘read and test’ method to teach vocabulary, wherein enough comprehensible input in the reading will allow learners to better understand the text and have a better chance at language acquisition since people ‘…with large vocabularies typically credit reading with having helped them’ (p. 420). Krashen is not advocating the use of L1 in class, even though it would seem to be the comprehensible input that his hypothesis suggests. Instead he seems to be advocating use of different approaches and methods to make input comprehensible to students. Comprehensible output can help us identify where students are in the language acquisition stage (Bernhardt & Kamil 1995; Yamashita 2004), which is significant in that the further 54 along in the language learning process a student is, the more that student’s output is affected. This analysis can relate positively to other skills as well. While it stands to reason that if a student has a greater degree of knowledge, she will be able to provide more correct answers, she will also be able to engage in different types of dialogue and discern whether her output is inaccurate. Once comprehensible input is available to students, the hope is that the production of output can then be processed. The importance of output cannot be ignored and may even lead to a better understanding of the cognitive learning process through exploration of more complex language aspects. For example, they may move from ‘semantic, open-ended, strategic processing prevalent in comprehension to the complete grammatical processing needed for accurate production’ (Swain 2000, p. 99). In reference to reading, this would allow the instructor to locate deficient concepts in the reading process. 2.5.2 Interaction Hypotheses: Teacher/Reader/Text Because the main RQ posed in this study involves the effectiveness of L1 in teaching L2 reading, there is a need to focus not only on the input aspect of SLA but more directly on its output with respect to the final product of scores on proficiency exams. As stated [4.1], attention was paid to certain demographics the students are bringing into classes, such as background, culture, and reading ability in L1. All these are important factors that need to be considered, but they are beyond an instructor’s control. The following section will address the L1 frequency use that is, for the most part, taking place in class and may have been observed during the classroom observation; this may lead to identify factors that have influenced results. Adequate input and output has been a theme explored and focused on by many researchers (Cook 1997; Krashen 1991; Long 1997). Michael Long’s perspective of the Interaction 55 Hypothesis draws from Chomskyan cognitive psycholinguistics. Several works have cited this hypothesis (Claros 2008; Ellis 1997), which is indicative of its importance in the field of SLA. A closer look at this hypothesis focuses on conversational interaction input stimuli that may take place in classroom interaction and may explain how students are able to negotiate comprehensible input from L1 stimuli in reading. This would then help to identify how reader and text interaction affect language acquisition. The psycholinguistic theory will be employed; this advocates a view of language and thought as separate phenomena wherein ‘interaction helps learners activate the individual internal cognitive processes that allow them to access the comprehensible input’ (Claros 2008, p. 144). The hypothesis relates to the effectiveness aspect of the main RQ in that it states that the rationale has three main parts: L2 acquisition needs comprehensible input, which is similar to the input hypothesis by Krashen’s theory; L2 learners need modifications in input in the interactional structure of conversations; and participants need to exchange information with each other to promote interactional restructuring. With regard to the reading skill, comprehensible input would take the form of reading context that may vary from the simplest form of word recognition to concept understanding by negotiation understanding of meaning. Several researchers (Krashen 1991; Long 1997; Pica 1987) agree that comprehensible input is needed for acquisition, and one way that input is achieved is through interaction. However, the form the interaction takes (either L1 or L2) is still open to debate. Research on second language reading strategies is needed to assist in the overall understanding of the conditions that produce input comprehension, which will facilitate SLA. The concept of adequate input is a key factor in Long’s interaction hypothesis. Without it, students would be at a disadvantage in reading in the second language. This concept will help 56 clarify the main RQ in that it may assist in determination of the effectiveness of using a student’s L1 in learning L2 reading. In summary, both of the previously cited hypotheses (Interactive and Input Hypotheses) are important to SLA and have key implications concerning the differing factors involved in the best way to achieve acquisition. One of the key links found in all three hypotheses is the idea of comprehensible input, which helps to strengthen its importance in SLA. Advocates of each hypothesis claim to indorse the most efficient way to achieve acquisition, but this subject is open to debate. The extent of the instructor’s belief that L1 can be used to facilitate the achievement of comprehensible input will be a primary determinant of its influence in the classroom and will also be influential on the success rate of SLA. 2.6 Cultural and Motivational Effect on SLA From a global vantage point, although more evidence is being presented by researchers on the beneficial role that L1 plays in the classroom, some instructors are still finding it difficult to adjust their teaching practices to allow its use, although the option to use it is not currently open in the UAE. One reason is that instructors may feel obligated to act in accordance with the unwritten policy that mandates that only the TL be used in class, as Cook (2001) states: ‘This avoidance of the L1 lies behind many teaching techniques, even if it is seldom spelled out’ (402). Meiring and Norman (2002) go on to point out that one of the subsections of the 1990 National Curriculum reports that instructors should use ‘the target language as the normal means of communication in the classroom’ (Meiring 2002, p. 27). He further observes that for practically all communication, the TL should be used. Because L2 instruction has been the norm in the classroom for so long, instructors have been reluctant to make a change. Implementation of a method that challenged the status quo has been understandably difficult. 57 The importance of trying to identify factors that may influence SLA has led to several different studies that have pointed to different variables, such as aptitude, as well as socio- psychological factors such as motivation (Larsen -Freeman & Long 1991; Li, 2010). Motivation and anxiety have been believed to influence SLA in several studies. Several researchers have examined the role that anxiety plays in the equation in an attempt to determine whether it is a hindrance to the learning process. Horwitz and Cope (1986) even developed a Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) as a way to measure students’ anxiety. Most of these studies report ‘that language anxiety is negatively related to achievement in the L2’ (Gardner et al. 1997, p. 345). One problem that may be causing anxiety is the fact that many instructors have opted against using L1 in the classroom, believing that one of the most efficient ways for them to communicate has now been changed. The idea of taking their means of communication away would leave most students feeling threatened, which in turn would hinder their SLA. As Schutz (2007) states about Krashen’s affective filter hypothesis, learners need to be self-confident, have a good self-image, be motivated, and have a low level of anxiety in order to be better prepared for SLA. When an instructor uses L1 in order to lessen the fear and increase the comfort, the assumption is that students may feel that they are being prepared to learn. Not much research has been done on learner perceptions towards SLA, but a few studies have shown that the use of L1 can reduce the learner’s anxiety (Hall & Cook 2013). Whether this reduced anxiety component will lead to measurable output in the form of exam scores is one of the issues under investigation in this study. Some instructors may argue that prohibiting a student from using L1 could facilitate an identity conflict. Since a learner’s native language is bound to her self-identity, 58 acknowledgment of her native language is imperative (Brown 2000). If her native language is disregarded, the student may feel threatened, which will have a negative impact on her affective filters, hindering language acquisition to an even greater degree. Also, as previously stated, L1 can be seen as scaffolding that links to L2. If this benefit of L1 is denied the student, she may not be able to connect abstract ideas or words to L1, leaving her at a disadvantage. There is also the danger that students may feel that L1 has been imposed on them, producing very negative attitudes about the class. In the Middle East, some students may feel that English is being forced on them because of the influence of a more powerful Western country. As Canagarajan (1999) states, English ‘…struggles for dominance against other languages, with conflicting implications for the construction of identity, community, and culture of the local people’ (Canagarajan 1999, p. 56). This can leave students with a feeling that English has not only been imposed on them but that it threatens and subjugates the very essence of their identities. A number of researchers (Brown 2000; Canagarajan 1999; Cummings 1997; Schweers 1999; Slavin et al. 2011) have drawn attention to the cultural sensitivity and overall emotional factors related to SLA. For example, Cummings (1997) cautions that ‘children in submersion programs may often become frustrated because of difficulties in communicating with the teacher’ (p. 5), and he further observes that the student’s lack of proficiency in the TL may be seen as a sign of lesser intellect. He goes on to comment on how students may find their language ‘denigrated by the teacher,’ at times feeling ‘acutely aware of their failure’ (6). As stated in [2.5.1], several researchers (Cook 1997; Krashen 1991; Long 1997) have pointed out that comprehensible input is key to language acquisition. As Krashen (1985) points out, second language learners need comprehensible input in order to learn a language, and if their 59 affective filters are high, it may be blocked, making it nearly impossible for learners to acquire the language. Awareness of the varying issues that may affect a student’s test score in a reading class is also a consideration of this study and may facilitate a clearer understanding of the results and assist in formation of a reasonable theory. Although student motivation and attitude are key factors in achievement of SLA, the teacher’s role in the process is also important, and that role may be largely influenced by policies already in place at educational institutes, as has been the case with some of my ELT jobs, where I have had to teach in a way that does not correspond with my beliefs. 60 CHAPTER 3.0: STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 Background to Approach This section will describe the research method as well as the design of the study by outlining the theoretical justification in terms of data analysis and collection, aims, and participants. The section begins with a restating of the main RQ followed by an outline of the quantitative and qualitative methods used. The role that L1 plays in teaching L2 has been heavily researched and has produced many competing viewpoints; however, the advisability of using L1 (Brown 2000; Cook 2007; Nation 2003; Forman 2008) or limiting its use (Chaudron 1988; Cook 2001; Duff & Polio 1990; Krashen 1991; Prodromou 2002) has not been explored as carefully, especially in the Middle East. It may reasonably be assumed that the role that L1 plays in teaching L2 also parallels the role that L1 plays in learning in L2 by providing students with the exposure they need to the subject being taught. The quantity of L1 being taught, as well as the role the teacher allows it to play in the instructional process, facilitates the learning process as it allows L1 to be linked to the student’s existing knowledge of L2 concepts. With the overwhelming literature advocating the use of L1 to some degree [2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.4], the UAE’s stance of cautioning use of L1 in the class may stem from the advocates who have emerged from the immersion programs conducted outside of the Middle East [2.3]. The intent of this study is to aid in either validating or discouraging the policy of using L1 to help teach L2. It is important to consider the premise of measurable differences in proficiency scores between students who use L1 in order to learn L2 and those who do not. Finding a measurable difference, if any, in student test scores has been the main concern of this research in order to investigate the UAE’s assumption that not allowing the use of L1 in the classroom will help in 61 the acquisition of L2. The purpose of the upcoming sections is to help define and provide the rationale used to underline various aspects of the methods and research design of the study. 3.2 Research Design The ease of access to education available to all UAE citizens may be a contributing factor to the overall poor quality of English proficiency (O’Sullivan 2010). UAE students do not always feel the need to achieve high grades in English, and most students do not prioritise the need to achieve English competency as they do with maths and sciences (Farah & Ridge 2009). Students at the Foundation level achieve an average of 95% or better at the secondary level, and yet their English proficiency level is not high enough to qualify them to enter their major area of study (Farah & Ridge 2009; Gallagher 2011). Students have been promoted to the next level for years without the requisite English skills, and this is now coming to a head at the tertiary level, where vast amounts of research are being dedicated to ’re-teaching’ students the language skills necessary for academic life. Instructors find themselves struggling to prepare students whose language skills are far below college level to take college-level language proficiency exams. Additional research reveals proficiency exam score results in tertiary levels, but most of these have taken place in Australia (Humphreys & Mousavi 2010; Storch & Hill 2011). The test/retest design has been predominant, and it has been found that studying in an English- medium atmosphere resulted in improved scores (Storch & Hill 2011), an observation that reflects cited studies on the use of L1 to help teach L2 previously mentioned in [2.4.3]. Although these studies have been valuable in helping interested parties to better understand the field, they do not provide a comprehensive view of the topic as pertains to this study since they were conducted in an English environment (one in which English is the country’s 62 primary language), a situation that stands out in marked contrast to the UAE, where Arabic is the official language. 3.3 Research Questions This study investigates whether or not an instructor’s use of L1 in class aids students in L2 reading comprehension in a Foundation-level tertiary reading class. The wording of an RQ is very important in that it helps to determine the type of method that will be followed. For example: ‘variables, factors which affect and the determinants or correlates of’ (Punch 2005, p. 19) entails more of a quantitative approach, while ‘looking to discover or to seek or explore’ leads to a more qualitative approach (Punch 2005, p. 19). Given that both quantitative and qualitative questions are relevant in this study, a mixed methods approach has been selected. Each question used in this study was required to help answer the main research question. An additional purpose of these questions was to focus the study on factors that might influence the findings. The following RQs have guided the investigation. Main RQ: Does the instructor’s use of the L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension? 1. How much Arabic do instructors use in reading classes? 1.1 What are their reasons for how much Arabic an instructor uses in reading class? 2. Do students use Arabic in reading classes? 2.1 What are their reasons for using Arabic in reading class? 3. What impact does the use of L1 in the classroom have on student reading examination marks? 3.1 Is there any significant difference between the midterm scores of students who are exposed to L1 in reading comprehension classes and those who are not? 63 3.2 Is there any significant difference between the TOEFL reading scores of students who are exposed to L1 in reading comprehension classes and those who are not? 3.3 Is there any significant difference between the IELTS reading scores of students who are exposed to L1 in reading comprehension classes and those who are not? Numerous components were contained within the scope of the RQ, and all related questions needed to be answered prior to reporting of findings. This was necessary because each of the components was interrelated, and without a comprehensive investigation of all associated questions, the results may have been invalid and/or misleading. 3.4 Research Paradigm Quantification and statistics are often considered a standard measure of validity (Henning 1986), and assessment and test results to measure achievement are often crucial (Farhady 2005; Kohn 2000). Consequently, quantitative research for this study has focused on the statistical outcome attained when L1 is used to teach L2 reading. Through use of the quantitative method, this study explores and assesses the effectiveness of L1. Along with statistical outcomes, the data collected herein also includes qualitative aspects reflected by the classroom observation, student questionnaire, and instructor interviews. This is needed to help document the many variables that could affect the statistical outcome, such as student attitude, motivation, aptitude, background, and other related factors [2.5.2 and 2.2.2], which may have influenced the outcome of the study. Although proponents of SLA offer a variety of methodologies designed to address questions that might arise during instruction, no single method is unilaterally endorsed; a mixture of qualitative and quantitative is generally favoured (Gao & Lü 2001; Guba & Lincoln 1994; Ortega & Iberri-Shea 2005). A typical qualitative methodology would entail use of an 64 ethnographic study, for which ‘a researcher does not set out to test hypotheses, but rather to observe what is present with their focus [which is] free to vary during the course of observation’ (Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991, p. 11). This differs from a quantitative study, which may use a typical experiment-type design where a hypothesis is tested through instruments and statistical analysis (Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991). Most quantitative experimentation results achieved by researchers are based on outcomes that are statistically analysed and usually involve retention or rejection of a null hypothesis (Girden & Kabacoff 2010), which has an extensive tradition in statistics (Trochim & Donnelly 2008). It was considered but then abandoned for this study because it would entail the prediction and expectations of an outcome (Trochim & Donnelly 2008). To investigate the measurable difference, if any, in student test scores, both quantitative and qualitative data have been gathered and analysed to help determine if the use of L1 is influential in a given classroom setting. This study has endeavoured to adhere theoretically to a quantitative method that has included a qualitative component. Midterm exam grades as well as proficiency exit exam scores have been based on the foundation of the quantitative data, which has been the primary concern of the study. Results of these exams address the main RQ, which concerns the degree to which L1 aids in L2 reading, and they also address Question 3, which concerns the impact L1 has on student exam marks. The instructor interview, the student questionnaire, and the observation results are the basis of the qualitative data that addresses RQs 1 and 2, which reference the amount of L1 use. Also, this data is used to understand the phenomenon and provides a better understanding of how the quantitative data results were attained. The interview and observation that provided the qualitative data for this study have been used to add breadth to this study by means of identifying possible 65 reasons for use of L1. The exam scores have been used to provide the numeric data that was used in the quantitative description of the research. Because the UAE is a relatively new country, there is not much research concerning the effectiveness of L1 in teaching L2 reading; however, several studies have contributed to this one in terms of either the content or the method that was used. Most of the available studies examine attitudes or motivation for learning English, rather than the actual scores of those who used L1 to learn L2, as this study explores. Examples include Al-Nofaie’s (2010) research on attitudes of Saudi students learning English, and Mustafa (2002), who investigated the teaching and learning of English in government schools in the UAE. 3.4.1 Qualitative Elements of Mixed Methods Through both quantitative and qualitative analysis, a survey approach using mixed methods has been able to answer the main RQ and its associated sub-questions. This type of analysis has facilitated a better understanding of factors that may have influenced the results of the student questionnaire and the observational checklist through exploration of variables that may have produced the results as opposed to one-dimensional reporting. 66 Table 1: Summary of Methodology/Tools/RQ (2012) Tools Methodology Addresses Research Qualitative/Quantitative Question Classroom X X Q 1 and 2 Observation Instructor Interview X Q 1.1 Student X X Q2.1 Questionnaire Midterm Exams X Q3 and 3.1 TOEFL Reading X Q3 and 3.2 Results IELTS Reading X Q3 and 3.3 Results Overall TOEFL X Supporting data for Q3 Overall IELTS X Supporting data for Q3 In addition, this approach has helped to answer RQs 1.1, and 2.1, which relate to the reasons Arabic was used in a reading classroom. Table 1 provides a summary of the relationship between the methodology, tools, and the RQ. Through the use of the mixed methods approach, which is defined as ‘the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study’ (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004, p. 17), this study has been able to use combinations of ‘multiple methods, different world views, and different assumptions, as well as different forms of data collection’ (Creswell 2008, p. 11). Use of the mixed methods approach has allowed the researcher to answer RQs using multiple approaches rather than limiting choices as a result of the attempt to remain loyal to a singular perspective. The mixed methods approach permits exploration of not just the results but may also provide the reason these results were achieved; it does so by mixing or combining strategies in order to collect 67 data that will be complementary in their strengths and not overlap any weaknesses (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004; Johnson & Turner 2003). This has allowed for more than a one- dimensional result. Through use of the classroom observation in conjunction with the questionnaire and interview, the hope was to explore the concept of comprehensible input. Does the use of L1 allow for more comprehensible input, which would imply that comprehensible output would also be increased and may be measured in the form of exam scores? One important point made by Silverman concerning the Mixed Methods approach is its concern in establishing ‘correlations between variables. However, while the approach can tell us a lot about input and output to some phenomenon …, it has to be satisfied with a purely ‘operational’ definition of the phenomenon and does not have the researchers to describe how that phenomenon is locally constituted’ (Silverman 2011, p. 17). This leaves a gap that needs to be filled in order to understand and generalise the event taking place. To answer the RQ’s and establish reasons Arabic was used by the instructor and students (RQ 1.1 and 2.1), a mixed methods approach has been selected. Figure 1 (adopted from Silverman [2011], page 17) Input Data Collection Output Data Phenomenon (?) Analysis Although several researchers have advocated the use of mixed methods to some degree (Guba & Lincoln 2005; Silverman 2011), a few have pointed out some of the limitations that may be found in combining the two (Morgan 2007; Tashakkori & Teddlie 2003), citing that the difference between the two approaches ‘is so fundamental that it is impossible to combine them…’ (Morgan 2007, p. 52). An awareness of the concerns allows a better understanding of 68 the concept, and, as previously mentioned, in order to attain a better understanding of the concepts being studied, a mixed methods approach has been used to help fill in the gaps created when only one method is used. Some of the variations between quantitative and qualitative methods reflect differences between the ontology and epistemology of the methods. For example, qualitative methods usually advocate an ontology that external reality is nonexistent (Joniak 2002) and exists outside of our interpretations of reality as well as being independent of it (Searle 1995). Participants’ interpretations of reality in qualitative research ‘are deeply embedded in a rich contextual web that cannot be separated and generalised out to some mass population’ (Janiak 2002, p. 5). As Johnson and Onwuegbuzi (2004) state, qualitative purists claim ‘that multiple- constructed realities abound, that time- and context-free generalizations are neither desirable nor possible, that research is value-bound, that it is impossible to differentiate fully causes and effects…’ (p. 14). A generalisable concept can relate a distinction between qualitative and quantitative approaches (Maxwell 1992; Winter 2000). For quantitative research, the ability to generalise findings to large groups is one way to test for validity but may not be seen as important for qualitative researchers. As Winter (2000) states, ‘qualitative research concerns itself with the meanings and experiences of the ‘whole’ person, or localized culture,’ but ‘quantitative research attempts to fragment and delimit phenomena into measurable or ‘common’ categories that can be applied to all of the subjects or wider and similar situations’ (p. 5). This may lead to the idea that quantitative research may be able to claim validity for larger populations, but it is restricted in that it measures only those elements found to be common for all. Awareness of the differences and how they affect the research results aids in selection of the approach that is most appropriately suited to address any related RQ. This is 69 not to say that the lines are always so clearly drawn. Several other aspects of the approaches vary, including the assumptions of reality and the tools used. The objective of this study is to answer the main RQ: ‘Does the instructor’s use of L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension?’ This question has been addressed using the quantitative approach employing two tools: exam scores at different intervals and non- participant observations of reading lessons. The intent of this study has been to determine if students who are exposed during one term to an instructor who uses L1 during a reading lesson will achieve higher scores than students not exposed. To achieve this, data has been collected and analysed under controlled circumstances (Duff 2002; Orlikowski & Baroudi 1991). This has been accomplished with the use of naturalistic settings (Johnson 2004) such as a classroom where one group of students has been exposed to an instructor using L1 during reading lessons and one control group has experienced limited exposure, if any. Using quantitative methods, data has been collected and measured to attain a statistically mathematical outcome (Cunning 2012), which would be needed to answer the main RQ. One important variable that can affect the outcome of the study is a student’s reading proficiency in L2. To determine if the variable had influenced test scores, participants have been measured before the variable was introduced, namely before the term began, using a pre- test, and then again after the variable was used. This was the first tool used to collect data, and it has entailed large groups of selected participants for whom a variable was manipulated in the participants’ environment (in this case, the L1) in order to determine whether there was any relationship between the independent (manipulated) variable (L1) and the participants’ acquisition of L2. The finding has then been generalised beyond the parameters of the 70 individuals who were participating in the study. Two groups have been employed, one with a variable that was changed through the use of L1 in the classroom during a reading lesson, and one without that variable. Then, statistical procedures have been used to determine whether the relationship was significant, and if it was significant, the consideration has been whether the results could be generalised (Creswell 2008) to a larger population beyond the immediate group of participants. The second tool used to collect data has been a semi-structured classroom observation, which has combined a checklist with written notes. This tool has been chosen to tally the frequency of L1 use to help answer RQ 1 and 2, as well as to ensure that L1 was used in the classroom, since the mere fact that an instructor speaks L1 does not necessarily presuppose its use. The quantitative approach contains some weaknesses, as does any approach. As pointed out by Silverman (2011), some may see it as a ‘quick fix’ that does not involve contact with people. There is also the possibility of statistical correlations that may be based on variables that are ‘arbitrarily defined’ (p. 6). Silverman goes on to defend that approach, stating that these are just simplified complaints about the quantitative approach and that most researchers using this method are aware of these problems and try to overcome them. 3.4.2 Qualitative Approach The quantitative approach had been one of the leading approaches in applied linguistics and social science research until the last two decades (Davies 1995; Duff 2002; Morgan 2007; Pennycook 2004). Rather than rely on numerical data, the qualitative method is dependent on non-numerical data to aid in understanding and describing human experiences (Creswell 1994; Glesne & Peshkin 1992). Unlike the quantitative, this approach relies on assumptions 71 (Creswell 1994; Marshall & Rossman 1995) such as natural settings, descriptions, and process rather than product. Some researchers (Morgan 2007; Silverman 2011) claim that the research needs to be examined in a variety of ways rather than according to one paradigm. For example, when researching, one should consider type, collection method, and analysis of data (Duff 2002; Nunan 1992). Denzin and Lincoln (1994) provide a broad definition of qualitative research, pointing out that this type of research is multi-faceted and directed toward interpretive as well as naturalistic approaches to the subject matter. Consequently, this type of approach focuses on studying things in natural settings and then attempts to ‘make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them’ (p. 2). Some researchers (Yin 1994; Denzin & Lincoln 1994; Duff 2002) believe that the qualitative method does not adhere to any one type of tool for collection of data; instead, a mixture, such as ‘case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational’ (Denzin & Lincoln 1994, p. 2), can be used to achieve a more complete understanding of the varying routines and their effects on the lives of individuals. Through the mixed methods approach, the analyses of tools was unrestricted, and some tools were analysed using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The classroom observation and the student questionnaire were analysed using both approaches: first to confirm the amount of L1 used as references in RQ 1, and then to explore the reasons for its use, as in RQ 1.1. The reasons may help to identify several key concepts in L2 acquisition, one of which is comprehensible input, which may be identified through exploration of student responses and perceptions associated with classroom exposure to L1. As stated earlier [2.0], comprehensible input may be a key factor in achievement of comprehensible output, especially in the form of exam scores. 72 Along with the student questionnaire, the instructor interview was analysed using the qualitative approach to illuminate new issues revealed by classroom observation. The quantitative analysis was not limited to frequency of L1 utterances by the instructor; rather, it provided an expanded perspective, facilitating its rationale to clarify the instructor’s methodology. An important concern was whether instructors were noticing any change in comprehensible output when using L1 in class, as they would be one of the first groups that could identify any change in output, especially in reference (but not limited) to exam results. It was also hoped that it would be possible to identify instructors’ perceptions of how L1 may be used in the classroom to improve comprehensible input. 3.5 Validity and Reliability Validity and reliability are both important to research (Alderson 2010; Winter 2000). One of the most cited validity definitions comes from Hammersley (1987), who states, ‘an account is valid or true if it represents accurately those features of the phenomena that it is intended to describe, explain or theorise’ (p. 69). Girden & Kabacoff (2010) also agree with the importance of validity, contending that it ‘is a central issue in measurement and testing. Tests are valid to the extent that they measure the characteristics they were intended to measure’ (p. 10). A frequent feature found in the dialogue concerning validity is the associating or combination of the concept of ‘reliability’ (Winter 2000). Reliability of research has concerned aspects of consistency of the results of the exams being assessed, whereas validity has been considered in order to ensure that research being investigated has focused on the use of L1 as a facilitator of L2 education in the domain of reading (Nunan 1992). Focus is also on replicability of the study and the assurance that it is measuring what is intended to be measured (Winter 2000), as these are the criteria of reliability. 73 Awareness of previous research conducted on similar topics has also allowed for better preparation in construction of this study, especially in reference to the previously mentioned areas of reliability and validity. One comprehensive study conducted by O’Loughlin and Arkoudis (2009) investigated language score gains in an English-medium Australian university, using the IELTS scores to investigate improvements of undergraduates as well as post-graduates. As in this study, they also used the test/retest design and compared the entry and exiting scores. Researchers for this study have listed questions of validity and reliability in their limitations sections in reference to length of time between test sessions; tests were given in a time span ranging from six months to over four years. Additionally, programme participants were enrolled after undergraduate studies for three years, while post-graduate enrollment ranged in length from 12 to 18 months. Another study that has helped in preparation of the current research was conducted by Humphreys and Mousavi (2010); this was also conducted in Australia and targeted ESL students. The researchers used a variety of means including IELTS as well as non-exam data. Earlier English class requirements to peg participant comparisons were made throughout the study of IELTS exit scores, even though not all participants had entered through the IELTS. As a result of early awareness of these types of concerns, a more efficient layout for this study was designed and potentially problematic issues were addressed. 3.6 Ethical Considerations For any research involving human subjects, ethical issues must be strongly considered (Brown 1993; Christakis 1992; Flick 2014; Neuman 2005). Most ethical guidelines relating to research concerning human subjects mandate that some sort of anonymity or confidentiality be guaranteed to study participants (Behi & Nolan 1995; Flick 2014). As Cohen et al. (2007) 74 points out, the entire research process is dependent on ethical considerations and should be considered in the overall layout of any study. The identity of the students through the use of only their university ID numbers rather than their names in any reporting was one way to protect students’ anonymity (Brown 1993; Neuman 2005). To safeguard the anonymity of participants’ ID numbers, another tactic has been used in that the university name will not be used in the study; it will simply be referred to as the ‘University.’ Once the data had been received, the names of the students were no longer used, which meant that the researcher was not aware of the participants’ identity from that point forward. As Behn and Nolan (1995) observe, ‘the collected data need to be received, stored, used, and reported in a manner that ensures that no one but the individual concerned is aware of their source’ (p. 713). Informed consent is another issue that involves the ethics of research. A researcher should give every individual participating in any research an informed consent form (Behn & Nolan 1995; Clayton 1995). For this research, each student has been given a consent form containing information about the purpose of the study as well as an explanation of the study (Appendix C). Another ethical consideration was instructor pedagogy. Both instructors were following the same departmental curriculum and syllabus, although their pedagogy was not mandated by the department. The rationale behind allowing professors to exercise individual pedagogical freedom is that it may allow instructors to perform more effectively since they are permitted to tailor their instruction to suit their individual stylistic preferences. Forcing them into a particular pedagogical style or structure may limit their instructional creativity and might prove counterproductive to instruction. 75 3.7 Background to the Research Participants as well as location have played a key role in answering the main RQ: ‘Does the instructor’s use of L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension?’ Students exposed to L1 as well as those who were not were critical to the study. Participant location has helped to determine the site at which the study would take place since policy at the University separates male and female students on opposite ends of the campus, which would affect the scheduling of classroom observations. Also, students are restricted from moving freely to campuses of the opposite gender, which would prohibit male students from submitting the student questionnaire. 3.7.1 Student and Instructor Research Participants Determination of who would take part in the study was one of the first decisions that needed to be made. This would help determine the location of the study since the University maintains separate campuses for male and female students. The decision was made to enlist female students for the study to help mitigate the factor of mixed gender results. In addition, use of females was logistically more efficient for the researcher, who was teaching on the women’s campus at the time the study was being undertaken. Once it was decided to enlist only female students, participant selection came into play. The University follows the Ministry’s minimum score requirements for both the TOEFL and IELTS exam, but since the Ministry does not have its own placement requirements for the Foundation programme, the University decided not to accept IELTS scores because of concerns with placement accuracy; they accept only TOEFL scores. 76 Table 2: TOEFL Placement ([2012] UoS.ac.ae) TOEFL Score Range Level Below 377 Foundation 1 380-417 Foundation 2 420-460 Preparatory 3 463-497 Preparatory 4 500 and above ELC Exit score Measurements of two classrooms were taken at the beginning of the term within a two-week period of when the TOEFL exam was given and before any variables were introduced. Students who achieved a score of 500 would have been able to register for their English- medium majors; students who did not achieve a score of 500 would have the option to register for the Foundation programme, which would help to prepare them to take the proficiency exams again or register for a non-English-medium major. As students registered, they would be automatically placed in the Foundation programme according to their TOEFL scores. Registration would place students in the first sections until they were filled by a predetermined quota, and then a new section would be opened. The two sections chosen were the first two sections that were filled by the registration deadline. The subjects of this study were approximately 32 preparatory Level 3 female students between the ages of 17-22, out of 150-170 studying at the English Language Centre at the University. As a means of eliminating selection bias, which would influence results (Slavin et al. 2011), students who had scored within Level 3 boundaries were randomly chosen for this study based on registration date, which would determine their assigned sections. Student demographics varied, with the majority being from the Gulf countries of the Middle East (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, and Yemen), most of these being from the UAE, whose 77 predominant language is Arabic. None of the students speaks English as a first language; however, most have studied English 4-6 years in secondary school. An awareness of the makeup of students that study in the Foundation programme is beneficial (Lazaraton 2003) and enables more effective instruction. Selection criteria for the two instructors called for participants with similar experience and qualifications; two classes were observed by the researcher for each instructor. Both instructors hold master’s degrees in TESOL. One instructor also holds a Certificate of English Language Teaching to Adults (CELTA). Both instructors have at least 20 years of experience and are near-native English speakers. Because instructor likeability is important and may affect data outcome, student evaluations had a bearing on instructor selection. Both instructors chosen for the study have above-average student evaluation scores. Foundation departments conduct student-instructor evaluations every term, and average Department scores are regularly publicised at the University. To accurately reflect the effect of L1 use in the classroom, and to provide differing viewpoints on the issue, selection has been made of one instructor who uses L1 and one who does not. The instructor who does not use L1 is a native Arabic speaker who has publicly expressed opposition to L1 use in the classroom and does not speak to her students using their primary language. The other instructor is not a native Arabic speaker; Farsi is his native language. Holding a degree in Arabic English translation, teaches part-time in the Arabic Department at the University, and having researched and published on the topic of L1 instruction, he favours its use in the classroom, contending that using a student’s first language during instruction is beneficial to the student. Selection of instructors whose viewpoints on this central topic are 78 diametrically opposite has allowed for a balanced perspective and has enriched the database for this study. 3.7.2 Site Selection All research was conducted in two different classes taking place in the College of Arts women’s campus of the University. This helped to ensure quick resolution of any unforeseen issues that may have occurred concerning classrooms, as the researcher and both instructors were assigned to the women’s campus during the study. The classrooms were chosen based on their locations on campus as well as their inside design to ensure that the rooms approximated each other as closely as possible. The classroom setting was important since it played a key role in the study. Because this study focused on the psycholinguistic approach in cognitive theory, one in which interaction is seen as helping learners activate individual, internal, cognitive processes (Long & White 1996), in order to ensure that interaction was possible, the classroom setting had to allow for both instructor and student interaction. In consideration of this requirement, classrooms with bolted down chairs were not used, nor were classrooms that had any partitions to separate students selected since this configuration would have prohibited interaction between instructor and students as well as student-to- student interaction. 3.8 Research Instruments 3.8.1 First Stage: Pre-test To ensure that students were not preselected to influence outcome and that all participating students were at the same language proficiency level, the scores of the proficiency exams, which place students in appropriate levels, was used. One of the first tools used in this study, the pre-test analysis, took the form of results of the TOEFL proficiency exam. This exam 79 includes a Reading section, and results facilitated student placement into the appropriate instructional level. This tool was useful as a basis for the study’s data collection. As stated in [1.4.2], the TOEFL tests three skills: listening, reading, and grammar (structure). The test is given at the beginning of each term over a two-week period to all students who wish to enter an English-medium major at the University. Most students are newly graduated and are taking the TOEFL for the first time; some have taken the TOEFL earlier but did not achieve a 500, so they are attempting it again. The University advertises on its website the dates for the TOEFL, and instructors and administrative staff help to register students for the exam. The PBT is administrated on campus by the American-Mideast Educational and Training Services Inc. (AMideast), an outside independent testing organisation. TOEFL exam results are received by the University three days later in the form of exam report forms, which include information on each section’s results (Listening, Structure, and Reading) as well as the overall score. Like the IELTS, the University is interested only in the overall score and not individual skill scores. Students that receive a 500 overall can register for their majors, while students that do not achieve a 500 can enter either the Foundation programme, an Arabic-medium major, or choose not to register at the University. Participants for this study have received between a 420-460 overall and have been placed in Level 3. 3.8.2 Second Stage: Midterm The Midterm Exam (MT) and Final Exam (FE) reading score results were needed to answer RQ 3: ‘What impact does the use of the L1 in the classroom have on student reading examination marks?’ Both exams are standardised in the University and for the most part follow the IELTS question concepts tested, which helps to reinforce the skill that may be found on the proficiency exams in the form of the different question types that can be asked on the exam. All students in the English Language Centre are required to sit for the MT and 80 FE in order to be promoted to the next level. The MT has a weight of 20%, and the FE is worth 30% of their final grade. All in-house exams (MT and FE prepared in the Department) are timed and follow the same exam guidelines, which means that they will test the same concepts. If students exit the programme having received an overall average of 5 on the IELTS or a 500 on the TOEFL, they can submit certificates to show they have exited the programme and are no longer taking classes. Depending on the date of achieved exit scores, they may not have to sit for the MT or FE, but all other students would have to sit for the exams. All but one student, who had dropped out of the programme before the midterm was administered, took the exam. With almost all the students taking the MT, the scores for the midterm were later analysed to check for any statistical difference. This was not the scenario for the final. Of the original 16 students in S51 (Section 51), only 8 students sat for the final exam, and from classroom S52 (Section 52), only 5 students sat for the final. With no reason available from the Department that some students did not sit for the final, speculation would be that some students may have achieved the desired score and exited the program, or that they had taken a proficiency exam and were awaiting scores, or that they may have decided to drop the programme altogether. Because a substantial amount of data was missing, the results may have been misleading and may have therefore reported an outcome that may be an incorrect representation. This would have violated the ethical parameters of the study. Consequently, the final scores were not analysed and were deemed insufficient to use to check for any statistical difference. For this reason, and to retain the reliability and integrity of the data results, the final exam scores have not been used. 81 3.8.3 Third Stage: Classroom Observation The classroom observation (Appendix A: Table A1) was the third tool that was used to collect data for this study. This tool helped achieve the objectives needed to answer RQ 1 and 1.1, which address how much Arabic an instructor uses as well as reasons for its use, and RQ 2, confirming students’ use and identifying possible reasons for using it. As Silverman (2009) points out, it is important at times not to be influenced by other tools and to ignore the obvious, especially when the study being prepared focuses on what is actually taking place: ‘In the case of the classroom, couldn’t you observe what people do there instead of asking them what they think about it?’ (p. 48). Of course this is dependent on what is being researched, and in the case of this study, the need to observe what is actually being done is of key concern. Using the interaction method for the focused description observation, this study has sought to observe a language class using a data collection device to focus and record observations. To achieve this goal, the observation has been performed on a non-participant basis. During the observation, all attempts have been made to avoid disturbing or interrupting the natural dynamic of the classroom lesson in deference to Labov’s (1972) observational paradox, which argues that the goal is to investigate how people interact ‘when they are not being systematically observed; yet we can only obtain this data by systematic observation’ (Labov 1972, p. 209). Although this paradox was intended for interviews in its original context, he further points out that an observer’s presence can affect the behaviour that is being observed. An observer must keep in mind that his/her presence will affect the interaction that is taking place in that the people who are being observed will usually be inclined to teach in a way that they believe meets with the approval of the observer (Howard 2008). For these reasons, the 82 actual role of L1 use in the classroom has not been the main concern of the research; the primary focus has been on the frequency of L1 use in the form of words or utterances, although even frequency would not escape the effects of Labov’s observational paradox. Previous studies have tried different procedures for calculating frequency of L1 used in a classroom (Polio & Duff 1994) by counting the amount of L1 and L2 words used in order to compute the proportions being used (Rolin-Ianziti & Brownlie 2002). Initially, the objective of the classroom observation was simply to confirm the use or non-use of L1 that would then answer RQ 1; however, owing to the abundance of literature on the role of L1, the scope of use has been broadened, and RQ 1.1 was included to explore the reason for the use of L1. For this study, the actual amount of L1 frequency was used for confirmatory purposes; then it could be used to clarify the student response to the questionnaire in comparing or contrasting the events to the responses, as well as to assist in assessment of the overall class atmosphere. During the lesson, the frequency of the use of L1 in the classroom has been measured using a checklist that included a list of categories for tabulation of how often L1 was used in the classroom by both the instructor and the students. Division of categories was found to be used in other researchers’ work (Walsh 2006); as a way to distinguish their pedagogical uses, this observational checklist has been divided into three categories to help with frequency tabulation and to be used later to determine if comprehensible input was a factor in the results (Appendix A: Table A1). Because one of the main claims of the interaction hypothesis is that comprehensible input is necessary for L2 acquisition, it was important to observe the classroom interactions of both instructor and student. Each class was observed on two separate occasions and then analysed using a mixed methods approach, which examined the quantitative frequency of the utterances as well as their qualitative uses in the classroom. 83 Observation of two classes allowed for a more reliable assessment and provided a basis for comparison; more classes observed would have been optimal, but time limitations were a factor. Initially, video or sound recording of the classroom observed was planned. Unfortunately, this was not deemed appropriate for the classrooms chosen to take part in the study. A request for video recording was denied by the director of the Department since classes comprised predominantly UAE female students. Voice recording of the class was initially accepted but then was also abandoned when a few female students in the classes voiced objections and commented that they would not participate in the class under those conditions. Rather than alter the classroom dynamics and run the risk of compromising the integrity of the project, it was decided to accede to the wishes of the students and maintain as much classroom normalcy and routine as possible. Ethical procedures were also a consideration, and every attempt was made to adhere to them as well. Note taking was the only documentation method employed. As O’Leary (2004) notes, this type of observation has an advantage in that the checklist will aid in organising the observation, and the written notes may lead to salient themes. The technique of note taking also allowed for clarification and discussion of any issues that were unclear immediately after the session when things were still fresh in both the instructor’s and the observer’s mind: Additional notes could be taken or existing ones could be modified or enhanced. In addition, this technique provided a full picture of the occurrences taking place in the classroom, such as gestures and movement (Wragg & Wragg 2012). Choosing the non-participant approach has allowed the researcher to function as a distant observer whose involvement did not alter normal classroom activities beyond a minimal 84 degree. Observation of how often and to what degree of frequency L1 was used in the classroom has then been cross-referenced against the test scores in hopes that possibilities and ramifications of any correlations discovered could be explored. For the purposes of organization and accuracy, the observational checklist has been categorised into three different sections: Pre-Stage, which may be considered managerial mode (Walsh 2006); In-Stage, which encompasses the actual lesson; and Post-Stage, which depicts utterances that were used after the instructor had completed the lesson (Appendix A: Table A1). Cultural correctness was kept separate from the other categories since it was used throughout the lesson but did not play any role related to lesson instruction; rather, this category addressed utterances that were used for other purposes in the classroom. Each category had its own subcategories, which allowed for ease of organisation as well as more accurate tally marking of frequency of Arabic utterances. The checklist used for this study was originally used by Al-Nofaie (2010) in her research paper, which studied the attitudes of an instructor and her students towards use of their L1 (Arabic) in an EFL public school classroom in Saudi Arabia. This checklist (Appendix A: Table A1) has helped to facilitate overall understanding of the data collected. Since the Interaction Hypothesis considers the relationship to comprehensible input (Claros 2008; Cook 1997; Krashen 1991; Long 1997), finding out where the input is coming from would present a clearer picture of the relevant factors. Another aspect of the theory is the opportunity for modification of input with the implication that this comprehensible input would then turn into comprehensible output, especially in the form of measurable exam scores. To better understand how, if at all, the input was being modified, as was the case with Al-Nofaie 85 (2010), two different checklists have been used, one for the instructor’s use of Arabic and one for the students’ use. These checklists broke down the lesson to three stages: ‘in Stage,’ ‘during lesson,’ and ‘during activity.’ This choice has been made to facilitate a better understanding of when the use of Arabic was most prevalent and to try to identify a pattern for its use, for example, while explaining new concepts, disciplining students, or setting atmosphere. The observation used the focused description studies as a way of observation because of the need to ‘narrow the scope of [their] study to a particular set of variables, a particular system of language (e.g., morphology) or to explore a particular issue (e.g., the influence of the native language on SLA) (Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991, p. 17). Additional benefits of the focused description are that it added structure to what was being observed in the classroom and offered a more objective assessment tool. Tally marks were used to document usage frequency as opposed to generalised summaries. Along with the observational survey, notes were taken by the observer during the lesson. Because the observer was consistently tallying utterances in the classroom, jotting down words was employed as a more authentic technique. As Richards (2003) explains, ‘the next step is to move from basic notes to fuller description,’ which has to be done outside of the observation and as soon as possible, ‘allowing as few events (especially interaction with others) as possible to get between notes’ (Richards 2003, p. 116). After each class, the researcher would try to record fuller, more descriptive notes of the observation for the purposes of clarification or confirmation. This attempt has been made to preserve the unique content of the class without the influence of other classes that were to be observed later. 86 Another aspect of the classroom observation is categorisation of the L1 utterances. Having been raised by parents who are native Arabic speakers, the observer was able to transcribe the words as they were spoken by both the instructor and the students. After each observation, a list of transcribed words, along with a brief context description, was examined by a member of the Arabic/English translation department to confirm that the word had been understood correctly. There were no long sentences in any of the observations, nor were there any full conversations observed, with most utterances taking the form of short expressions of one or two words. 3.8.4 Fourth Stage: Student Questionnaires The questionnaire (Appendix B: Table B5) is usually assessed as the most popular tool used by researchers in the social sciences as well as a key critical tool for most quantitative researchers, and for this study, it had the added benefit of helping to answer Question 2.1, which explores the reasons for students’ use of Arabic in reading class, especially when dealing with statistical work (Dörnyei & Taguchi 2010; Silverman 2002). Brown (2001) defines questionnaires as ‘… any written instruments that present respondents with a series of questions or statements to which they are to react either by writing out their answers or selecting from among existing answers’ (p. 6). Questionnaires can generally be divided into three categories. One includes factual questions that deal with demographic information. With reference to language, they can ask about language history and amount of time spent in an L2 environment. Behaviour-oriented questions comprise the second category, which includes questions concerning the participants’ lifestyles and habits and may include personal history. Questions referring to SLA issues in this category may focus on frequency or use. The third type of question is the attitudinal, which is used to determine what participants are thinking. This category is very broad and may comprise five perspectives: attitudes, beliefs, opinions, 87 values, and interests (Dörnyei & Taguchi 2010). To answer RQ 2.1, which explored the reasons students used Arabic in reading class, the questionnaire focused on the third category. Other reasons the questionnaire has been used are that most college students are familiar with them and would not feel apprehensive, as well as the fact that questionnaires can also help in reducing bias. If the questions are presented in a uniform way, middleman bias is left at a minimum since the respondents’ answers are not influenced by the researcher’s opinions. Because the questionnaires were given to the students to complete independently, it was assumed that they would be more likely to answer honestly; however, there is the possibility that participants will not always be truthful in answering the questions for several different reasons (Richards 2003). Students in this study were given the questionnaire by their instructors and asked to return it to the researcher’s mailbox by the due date, which was four days after they received them. Submission using physical mailboxes was chosen for convenience; all students have access to instructors’ mailbox locations for submission of assigned work. With respect to this questionnaire, submission via mailboxes could have served to reduce any anxiety students may have felt in submitting the questionnaire in person, and this method has also preserved student anonymity and mitigated the factor of social desirability bias in student responses, which occurs when the results of the questionnaire are what participants ‘reported’ rather than what they actually felt or believed (Dörnyei & Taguchi 2010). This may have happened if students in this study felt that their instructor expected them to answer in a certain way. Other factors that may influence responses may be beyond the control of the study. For example, students may be influenced by the ‘halo effect’ (Aiken 1979; Clayson 2008), wherein students rate something according to overall perceptions. 88 The questionnaire is commonly believed to be an essential component of quantitative research because it has been previously categorised by a researcher and can be quantifiable in order to collect results to test against a research hypothesis (Dörnyei & Taguchi 2010). Several researchers’ (Kharma and Hajjaj 1989; Swain and Lapkin 2000) use of the self-completion questionnaire has helped to influence the design of the questionnaire used in this research study. Consultation of previous research models has aided in design of the questionnaire for students (e.g., Swain and Lapkin, 2000). Closed questions were used rather than open-ended ones to make it easier on the students and to allow for some sort of comparison to be made (Bryman, 2004). One disadvantage of this type of tool is that because it is a structured instrument, it does not allow for deeper exploration of the responses, allowing little flexibility in the form of answers. To give students an opportunity to express themselves (if they felt so inclined), a space was made available next to each question for additional comments. To help measure student attitude, a five-point frequency scale was used; it also helped to quantify data and ensure reliability (Payne and Payne 2004). The Likert scale, which uses the ‘strongly agree to strongly disagree’ form, has not been used for this study because Al-Nofaie (2010) reported in her study that students found it confusing. Another disadvantage of the student questionnaire may be found in the structure of the question itself. Those who complete the questionnaire will be left to fill in the forms alone, and the questions need to be worded straightforwardly and simply (Dornyei & Taguchi 2010) to avoid misunderstandings. Because the questionnaire was given during the end of the semester, the present tense was used to express feelings and attitudes. The questionnaire followed the five-point Likert scale: 1 (Never), 2 (Sometimes), 3 (Often), 4 (Usually), and 5 (Always). This helped to make the tool as simple and straightforward as possible. 89 Another consideration that was kept in mind when writing the questionnaire is the prestige dilemma that participants may find in certain questions. Oppenheim (1992) cautions that what seems like a factual question may seem to be prestige-loaded; for example, some may claim they read more than they really do. Questions were written and reviewed with this aspect in mind. The extent to which the results of the questionnaire show the accuracy of the responses determines the validity of the questionnaire. Complete accuracy can never be guaranteed owing to variables such as misunderstanding or misinterpretation of questions or inattention to detail. Furthermore, some students may have even given misleading or false answers. In order to mitigate as many of these possibilities as possible, steps have been taken to try to ensure validity of the data gathered. A piloted questionnaire was administered to verify that questions were easily understood. Another step taken to ensure validity was guarantee of privacy. All students have been assured on the Consent Form that their answers will be confidential. Some responses to the questionnaire did not correspond to the classroom observation, as discussed later [4.2.2.1], and for this reason, it was analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Questionnaire data was used in conjunction with the classroom observational data to determine if there were any comparisons that could be drawn or if there were any correlations between the two. 90 3.8.5 Fifth Stage: Post-Test The final tool used in collection of student data was the gathering and analysis of the post- test, which took the form of either the TOEFL or IELTS proficiency exam, which provided empirical evidence to help answer all of the questions pertinent to this study. The University accepts only the TOEFL and IELTS as language proficiency exams. Both exams can be taken on campus and are scheduled at least twice during the term. Students are permitted to take the test any time during the term either on or off campus through an authorized exam centre. All results are reported to the University for recording in the student’s file. TOEFL results are returned to the University within 4 days, while the IELTS takes 13 days. Once scores are reported, the Department records results for students, keeping a hard copy on file. The vast majority of students graduating from a high school in the UAE are familiar with the TOEFL exam and attempt to achieve a 500 at the beginning of the term. This was evident from the majority of students that were taking the TOEFL and the minority that were taking the IELTS. In recent years (2010), the University has lowered its requirement score for the IELTS from an overall Band 5.5 to an overall Band 5, the minimum required score from the Ministry. Students found that exiting with the IELTS requirement was at times easier than the TOEFL, and as word has spread, more and more students have started to take the IELTS. Evidence of this is found when comparing the percentage of students that have chosen to take the TOEFL versus the IELTS exams. In autumn of 2010, 9% of students studying in the Foundation programme exited with the TOEFL exam, and 22% exited with the IELTS. In spring of 2010/2011, 48% of students studying in the Foundation programme exited with the IELTS versus less than 1% with the TOEFL (UoS.ae). 91 Table 3: IELTS/TOEFL Foundation-level Exiting Percentage (2012) Exit Exam Fall 2010 Spring Rate of Increase 2011 in Popularity TOEFL 9% 1% -8% IELTS 22% 48% +26% It is reasonable to assume that the IELTS exam became more popular with students as they became more aware of the lower exiting criteria. The TOEFL is still the only way to enter the programme since the IELTS is not accepted, but the IELTS has overtaken the TOEFL as the exam that students take to exit, presumably because of the lower minimum exiting requirement. The IELTS exam tests four skills: reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Each skill of the IELTS exam has been tested separately and scored individually by certified IELTS examiners not affiliated with the University. Emphasis has been placed on the reading section of the exam because the primary focus of this study is the effectiveness of the individual cognitive process of L2 reading acquisition. Testing consisted of four individual band scores, summarised with an overall band. 92 Table 4: IELTS Reading ([2012] IELTS.org) Academic Reading Band Score Raw Score out of 40 5 15 6 23 7 30 8 35 The IELTS reading section contains 40 items, and each correct item receives one mark. The highest raw score possible is a 40, and the band scores can range from 1 to 9. Taking into consideration the different levels of difficulty between individual exams, the boundaries of the band are adjusted to assure scores relate to the same type and degree of achievement. In other words, for different tests, a Band 5 may be set at different boundaries according to its raw score. 3.8.6 Final Data Collection Stage - Structured Instructor Interviews Originally, structured interviews were intended for participating instructors and students to identify reasons that they used L1. By allowing students to voice their views on the use of L1 by the instructor, and also by themselves, it was hoped that a better understanding would be gained concerning their impression of L1 use in the learning process. Students’ responses could then be used to validate the claim that L1 use was beneficial. One could then compare results from the questionnaire to the results of the quantitative proficiency exams to determine whether there was any measurable difference between students in the class who had a more positive perception of L1 use and those who did not. Then, data could be quantitatively triangulated with the proficiency exam results to determine whether there was any statistically significant difference in student scores and to further determine whether comprehensible output had been achieved. Unfortunately, however, only a small percentage of students (six 93 students’ total) participated. Owing to such a small number of participants, the student interview results have not been analysed for this study. It was decided that the limited responses could influence both the validity and reliability of the study. Further, of the students who responded, five were from the same section, a statistic that would have further skewed or biased the data. Even though the interview questions were added to the questionnaire as a convenience for students, the vast majority of students handed in the questionnaire without answering the questions, perhaps because the questionnaire was distributed toward the end of the term and students were either exiting during the examination process or busy preparing to study for proficiency exams. The instructors, on the other hand, both participated in the interview, which was used to clarify the classroom observation and answer RQ 1: ‘How much Arabic do instructors use in reading classes? What are their reasons for this?’ An interview can be seen as a purposeful conversation used to gather descriptive information from an interviewee in his own words, and it may address attitudes, behaviours, or personal opinions (Bogdan & Biklen 1992 ; Bryman 2012 ; Patton 1990). Since both instructors are near native English speakers and the interviewer is not a native speaker of Arabic, the interview was conducted in English to ensure that answers were clearly understood by the interviewer and to allow for a more mature exchange to occur. Using the interview, not only were facts gathered, but an attempt was made ‘to go deeper, to pursue understanding in all its complex, elusive and shifting forms’ (Richards 2003, p. 50). This approach has helped to document situations in which L1 was or was not used in class as well as to gather instructors’ impressions of how it was used and why. The structured interview was used because of the need to obtain instructors’ perceptions and attitudes about a pre-determined topic or concept (Lincoln & Guba 1985; 94 Manion & Morrison 2000). The interview, like the checklist, was originally used by Al- Nofaie (2010) (Appendix A: Table 40, 41 & 42); both were intended to add breadth to the quantitative data collected. Once the interview was complete and answers transcribed, they were e-mailed to instructors for verification of content. Table 5: Purpose/Chronological Order of Tools Used (2012) Tools Quantitative Qualitative Triangulation Midterm Used to Used the SPSS answer system to identify if RQ 3 and there was a statistical 3.1 difference between the two classes scores Classroom Used to Confirm the use or Identify any Compare with Observation answer non-use of L1 in possible patterns in student questionnaire Checklist RQ 1 and reading class use or role of L1 2 by both students Compare what was Tally amount of and instructor observed to what utterances of L1 use instructors interview by both instructor and results student Student Used to Tally student Identify student Compare to Questionnaire answer preferences to L1 use preferences to L1 classroom RQ 2.1 in class by instructor use. observation and student Identify any measurable difference in preference TOEFL Used to Used the SPSS /Reading answer system to identify if RQ 3 and there was a statistical 3.2 difference between the two classes scores IELTS/ Used to Used to SPSS system Reading answer to identify if there RQ 3 and was a statistical 95 Tools Quantitative Qualitative Triangulation 3.3 difference between the two classes scores Instructor Used to Identify Compare with Interview answer instructor’s use of classroom RQ 1 and L1. observation/and 1.1 student questionnaire To summarize, Table 5 provides a brief chronological order of the tools as well as their purpose in the study. As can be seen, some tools had more than one purpose in that they provided both quantitative and qualitative data. Triangulation was used in order to maintain data validity and reliability; however, until all data was collected and analysed, no clear result could be determined. Additional factors include how data were analysed as well as which RQ they were used to answer. As can be seen, certain questions required the use of more than one tool. The following chapter provides the discussion of the data results for the study. 96 CHAPTER 4.0: DATA ANALYSIS A mixed methods approach was used to answer the main RQ, ‘Does the instructor’s use of L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension?’ Tools used included the classroom observations and the student questionnaire. The instructor interview followed a more qualitative approach, and the exam data were quantitatively analysed using the Statistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS) system to minimise statistical errors and allow for more accurate interpretation of results. At times a combination of tools was used to answer the RQs. 4.1 Overview and Analysis of Research Data Data from S51 (S51/Arabic) and S52 (S52/non-Arabic), each of which was observed twice, have been compared with test scores to discern any correlation between the amount of L1 being used and L2 reading improvement. Using a mixed methods approach, the data have been analysed first qualitatively and then quantitatively. Two tools have been used to facilitate this process: the observational checklist and the instructor structured interview. The checklist (Appendix A: Table A1), which consisted of a variety of categories adapted from a previous study conducted by Al-Nofaie, reflected where and how often the L1 utterances were being used in a reading class. If an instructor or student used the L1 in the form of a word, phrase, or sentence in the course of a reading lesson, a tally mark reflects the frequency as well as the usage category. Standard reading class length at this institution is 50 minutes, and 4 of these 50-minute lessons were observed. Results are discussed in [4.2.5], followed by a general review of the observation. Arabic utterances have been written in the Roman script for clarity and ease of understanding. 97 After the observational checklist review, the instructor interview has been scrutinised to facilitate a better understanding of the observational checklist analysis, explore the instructor perspective, and to eventually answer RQ 1, which asks about the amount of L1 instructors use as well as reasons for its use. Using SPSS criteria, Levene independent sample t-tests have been performed to test for statistically significant differences between two independent groups (students exposed and not exposed to L1) by means of a continuous variable.’ This helped to answer the question of whether one group performed better on exams. Because research for this study has followed the experimental approach wherein a measurement was taken on all subjects before and after the introduction of a variable (Larsen Freeman 2007), certain precautions have been required during data analysis. Careful measures have been taken to control as many variables as possible that might have influenced results such as the amount of L1 used by the instructor or students. An observational checklist has verified that I51 (instructor of S51) used Arabic (L1) and I52 (instructor of S52) did not. 4.2 Analysis of Classroom Observation As stated in [2.1], the use of L1 in teaching L2 has been an ongoing source of debate in the field of SLA (Atkinson 1987; Cook 2001; Krashen 1985; Long 1997; Nation 2003). Stern (1992) goes further and describes it as ‘one of the most long-standing controversies in the history of language pedagogy’ (p. 279). The following section illustrates the frequency of L1 use in two different classes (S51 and S52) during two different reading lessons and verifies that L1 was used by I51 This determination is an essential component of this research, and this frequency of use needed to be established before answering the main RQ: ‘Does the instructor’s use of L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension?’ This issue was also 98 critical in answering RQ 1: ‘How much Arabic do instructors use in reading classes?’ As seen in Table 6, I51 has used L1 in a variety of situations and on different occasions throughout the class. As previously stated [1.1], the reading skill has been selected as the focus for this study because it is critical to the academic success of the student and informs all other skills. Additionally, the students’ low reading scores on the exam are indicative of a need to focus on what can be done to enhance this skill set among the students. The Foundation programme at the University consists of four levels, each assigning a set syllabus detailing required student textbooks. Since both S51 and S52 were Level 3 and were using the same book, they were for the most part on the same units during both observations. The course book used was entitled Skills for Success, Reading and Writing 3 (Graver & Ward 2011). The unit both classes were studying at time of first observation was entitled ‘Advertising.’ Objectives for the unit, as stated in the syllabus, were to ‘use photos to activate schema and anticipate content, distinguish fact from opinion, use prior knowledge to predict content, and learn and use selected suffixes.’ Each lesson observed was planned individually (solely) by the instructor. This is not to say that instructors had total control of the lesson; it was also influenced by student participation (Bailey 1996), a fact borne out in the comments and questions presented during a class. Some Arabic utterances occurred during these times, and as the following section demonstrates, in one class, Arabic was used in a variety of ways by both instructor and students. The observational checklist has played two roles in the study. The most important of these was to ensure that Arabic was being used by I51 and that it was not used by I52; this 99 information was needed to answer the main RQ. Another role of the observational checklist was the interactive part it played, that is, whether it was used to help gain comprehensible input in order to enhance L2 acquisition. Although this particular tool is not of primary relevance to this study, its results could lead to a better understanding of comprehensible output, which may in turn relate directly to SLA and the role L1 plays in achieving this output. Consequently, a general knowledge and familiarity with this tool would be useful in interpretation of any related results. Comprehensible input, addressed in [2.2] and [2.2.1], is a key factor in promoting SLA by many researchers (Cook 2001; Krashen 1985; Long 1997). The main objective of the research was not necessarily to determine the role of input but to remain aware of it as a possible contributor to language acquisition. 4.2.1 S51 Classroom Observations (Instructor) To answer RQ 1: ‘How much Arabic do instructors use in reading classes?’ tally marks measured frequency of Arabic utterances and were ordered according to frequency to discern any pattern that may aid in answering RQ 1.1, which investigates the reasons for its use . For this study, an utterance is defined as any vocal expression. The observational checklist also separated utterances made by instructors from those made by S51. This has allowed for a better understanding of for whom and for what purpose Arabic was being used. Table 6 shows the total number of Arabic utterances by I51 for two lessons. Table 6: S51 Instructor Observation Results (2012) Order of Frequency Define 1st 2nd Lesson Lesson Culturally Correct Used to denote courtesy, 7 6 tradition, and respect for the culture 100 Order of Frequency Define 1st 2nd Lesson Lesson Instructions Used to denote the 7 5 directions that help students understand what was expected of them to complete a lesson Checking Comprehension Used to confirm student 6 5 understanding in class Translating Changing words phrases or 6 3 sentences from L2 to L1 or vice versa Greetings Words or phrases used to 2 3 welcome students Encouragement Words or phrases used to 3 3 give positive reinforcement to students Asking Questions Asking questions that were 2 1 not related to comprehension or content but rather were used for instructional monitoring and lesson management Answering Questions Answering questions that 2 were not related to comprehension or content but rather were used for instructional monitoring and lesson management Assigning Homework Directions given specifically 1 to guide students on assignment dates Checking Homework Checking on due H/W 1 Explaining Grammar Words or phrases that were 1 1 used to aid in grammar comprehension Chatting Words or phrases used to 1 talk about things or topics 101 Order of Frequency Define 1st 2nd Lesson Lesson not related to the class lesson Total Utterances 36 30 The first lesson comprised 36 Arabic utterances/uses, whereas the second comprised 30, for a total of 66 Arabic utterances by I51. This may be because one of the lessons was focused on presenting new information while the other was the continuation of a previous lesson. Although Arabic was used by I51 in the lesson, it was not used as a means to teach but rather as part of a Managerial Mode (Walsh 2006) wherein the instructor conducted the teaching aspect of the class in the target language of English, using the L1 when he deemed necessary to clarify a concept or when prompted by a student. 4.2.2.1 Reading Classroom Observation Results To maintain a non-participant atmosphere and to keep students from feeling that the researcher was imposing on their classroom dynamic, an empty row of chairs was used as a barrier between researcher and students, a configuration allowing for reasonable simulation of the natural classroom atmosphere while permitting the researcher visual and auditory access to all classroom activities. Two categories have tied for the highest frequency of Arabic used by I51, ‘Culturally Correct’ and ‘Instructions.’ For ‘Culturally Correct,’ the first class observed had seven Arabic utterances; the second class had six. The ‘Culturally Correct’ category has not been used to define any utterance used by an instructor that was not directly related to the lesson; rather it has been used to denote courtesy, tradition, and respect for the culture. It is important to bear in mind that in an Arabic or Islamic environment, certain responses and expressions of courtesy carry a high degree of importance. 102 The other category that tied for the highest frequency of Arabic use was ‘Instructions,’ which denotes the directions that help students understand what is expected of them to complete a lesson. In the first lesson, seven Arabic utterances were used to give instructions to students; in the second, five were used. One factor that could account for the variance in frequency may have been lesson content: The first lesson, in which new material was explained, may have required more instruction that was easier understood in the L1. Two categories have received the same amount of utterances for the third highest frequency of Arabic use: ‘Checking Comprehension’ and ‘Translating.’ ‘Translating’ received six tally marks for the first and three for the second, while ‘Checking for Comprehension’ throughout the class also received six tally marks for the first lesson and five for the second. I51 used expressions such as ‘How do you say this?’ and would translate abstract words such as ‘implied’ and ‘reunion.’ In the first lesson, I51 used ‘Translation’ and ‘Checking on Comprehension’ for the same example, where he would translate a word and then check with students on the comprehension to confirm understanding as well as comprehensible input of an important concept, which would enable acquisition. ‘Greetings’ is the next highest-frequency category, receiving five total utterances. I51 did not use individual greetings for each student; rather, he announced ‘Assalamu Alaykum’ to all upon entering the class. Although the greeting of ‘Assalamu Alaykum’ is the more Islamic greeting, several other Arabic greetings could have been used, such as ‘Marhaba’ (‘Hello’) (Ferguson 1976) and ‘Ahlan wa sahlan’ (‘Welcome.’) In the first lesson, one student entered late and greeted the class with ‘Assalamu Alaykum,’ and the instructor responded with 103 ‘Wa’alikum salam.’ During the second lesson, two students entered late, and both received the same response in Arabic by I51. With all three latecomers who used the Islamic greeting, I51 did not interrupt his lesson to give his response. Rather, it was uttered as an ‘aside,’ and the original idea was continued, or, as previously stated by Ferguson (1976), as an echo response. I51 also used Arabic for encouragement in S51. Arabic utterances were used 3 times on April 15 and 3 times on April 30. I51 used words of encouragement and praise on different occasions in the class. For example, he praised students both when they gave an accurate response to a question and when they asked questions that he felt facilitated or enriched instruction. This technique can also be seen as a way to give positive feedback to students (Hosoda 2000; Macaro 2001) in a way that also offers useful and encouraging commentary on their language progress similar to the structure of the echo responses to greetings. Asking and answering students’ questions was another area in which students’ L1 was used, which is closely related to the ‘Checking Comprehension’ category discussed earlier. An effort has been made to keep them separated. For example, questions the instructor asked to check on comprehension were not included in this category, which was not for questions related to comprehension or content but rather for instructional monitoring and lesson management. For example, I51 asked students what page they were on and where their books were. In these categories, he used Arabic twice in the first lesson and three times in the second lesson. Several researchers have also found it beneficial to allow L1 use in these types of categories (Schweers 1999; Rolan-Ianziti & Brownlie 2002). ‘Assigning Homework’ and ‘Checking Homework’ were also categories that received tally marks for Arabic utterances. ‘Assigning Homework’ received only one utterance on April 30, and ‘Checking Homework’ received one on April 15. Several researchers believe that an instructor may use a student’s L1 to comment on homework or future lessons (Polio & Duff 1994; Rolan-Ianziti & Brownlie 104 2002). When assigning homework, after writing the page and question numbers on the board, I51 used the student’s first language to seemingly re-emphasise the points by repeating the information. This may have been done as a way to make sure they understood the information, or it may have been a way to get their attention and make sure they noticed the assignment. One of the more interesting results was ‘Explaining Grammar.’ This category received only two tally marks, one in each lesson, and addressed the use of prefixes and form changes in some words. Several researchers have advocated the use of L1 in grammar explanation (Canagarajah 1995; Polio & Duff 1994; Schweers 1999; Cook 2001; Loewen, et al 2009). What is surprising about this is that although I51 had mentioned in the interview that one of the roles L1 can play is to explain grammar, he used it only minimally. The last category on the observational checklist is ‘Chatting,’ which received only one tally mark for the lesson on April 15. ‘Chatting’ is defined as talk about things or topics not related to the lesson. I51 was heard to ask a student how he was before the lesson started. Some believe that chatting with students in the students’ L1 may help to reduce anxiety (Habord 1992), which may help to create a sense of comfort or intimacy in the overall classroom atmosphere, facilitating language learning. 4.2.2 S52 Classroom Observation (Instructor) Table 8 shows the Arabic utterances from S52 for two different 50-minute reading lessons. Utterances were made by students to other students and to instructors. It was important to distinguish not only the category of frequency of utterances by students but also to whom the utterances were made. 105 Table 7: S52 Instructor Observation Results (2012) Order of Frequency 1st 2nd Culturally Correct 0 0 Instructions 0 0 Checking Comprehension 0 0 Translating 0 0 Greetings 0 0 Encouragement 0 0 Asking Questions 0 0 Answering Questions 0 0 Assigning Homework 0 0 Checking Homework 0 0 Explaining Grammar 0 0 Chatting 0 0 Total Utterances 0 0 Although S52 classwork was similar to that of S51, I52 never used L1 during either of the two class observations. In other words, unlike I51, I52 never code-switched in the classroom setting. The observational checklist remained empty for I52 for both lessons observed. This was unexpected given that an expected Arabic utterance was assumed to be used in one of the categories, if not intentionally, then inadvertently, especially as an automatically supplied response in the ‘Greetings’ category. 106 4.2.3 S51: Classroom Observation Student Checklist Table 9 shows the Arabic utterances from S51 for two different 50-minute reading lessons. Utterances were made by students to other students (s/s) and to instructors (s/i). Table 8: S51 Student Observation (2012) Order of 1st 2nd Frequency Lesson Lesson Showing 8 5 Understanding Responding to 7 5 instructor Chatting 4 4 Working with 3 5 Peers Asking 4 3 Questions Checking 4 2 Comprehension Greeting 1 2 Asking 0 3 Instructions Translating 1 0 words Using Bilingual 1 0 Dictionaries Conformation 0 1 of Information Total 33 30 107 Unlike the instructor, who had a limited audience of students, students were able to use L1 with other students, which may influence results and is significant because it is applicable to both S51 and S52, since it relates to s/s communication. The total amount of Arabic utterances by students for the two lessons was 63, just 3 utterances fewer than the instructor utterances (66) for the same two classes. Thus, it can be determined that during these two lessons, 129 utterances were made in the L1. As indicated in Table 32, there was a slight decrease in the percentage of the students’ first language use in the second lesson (47%), as opposed to the amount in the first lesson (52%), by 5%, which may have been a result of lesson content and the need to confirm that new information had been understood. As explained earlier, there are several reasons students may choose to code-switch in a class [2.0]. Some utterances were s/s, and some were s/i or i/s. The category with the highest frequency of Arabic use is ‘Showing Understanding,’ which received 13 tally marks from students for each individual utterance. This category was very closely related to another category, ‘Translating Words’; however, the categories were kept separate to help in the classification of roles. For example, one word that was used by the instructor during the lesson was ‘messy.’ After using the word, the instructor looked at the class and asked them if they knew what ‘messy’ meant, and several students nodded. To confirm understanding, the instructor then asked: ‘What does it mean?’ One student then gave the Arabic translation of the word in response. Other forms of understanding came in the confirmation words in Arabic. This exchange was usually between student and instructor and would be considered on record since it was meant to be heard by anyone. The second highest category was response to the instructor, which received seven utterances in the first lesson and five in the 108 second lesson. These utterances varied from simple words such as ‘ana,’ meaning ‘me,’ when asked who understood a particular word or concept, to short expressions used when a student was asked where a friend was. Both the first and second highest-frequency utterances in Arabic were between student and instructor. This may be contingent on the class lesson for the days observed in that there was a limited opportunity for s/s interaction. The next three categories, ‘Greetings,’ which received three tally marks, ‘Chatting,’ which received eight tally marks, and ‘Working with Peers,’ which also received eight tally marks for Arabic utterances, were all used s/s, which was confirmed by the instructor interview, validating I52’s claim that she did not use L1 in the classroom. The next category in which students received high tally marks was ‘Asking Questions.’ The parameter for this category was s/i questions, a category that received four tally marks for the first lesson and three for the second. ‘Checking Compression’ received six tally marks, four in the first lesson and two in the second. Unlike the category of Checking Understanding,’ mentioned earlier, this is different in that the student initiated the discourse or question. Examples of this have been seen in both classes when students asked to make sure that something was correct. ‘Asking for Instructions’ was another place where students used Arabic utterances in class. For this category, the first lesson did not receive any tally marks, but the second lesson received three, which were heard in group settings where students were asking if they had to write out the questions or to determine if a group needed to have one representative to answer or if individual answers were required. Only one utterance was heard s/s, and the other two were asked s/i. ‘Translating Words,’ ‘Using Bilingual Dictionaries,’ and ‘Confirmation of Information’ received one tally mark each. ‘Translating Words’ received 109 one tally mark for the first lesson, as did ‘Using Bilingual Dictionaries, and ‘Confirmation of Information’ received one tally mark for the second lesson, on April 30. 4.2.4 S52: Classroom Observational Student Checklist Table 10 shows the frequency of Arabic utterances used by S52. Lesson 1 received a slightly lower frequency percentage, that of 44%, than Lesson 2, at 56%. The total amount of tally marks for both lessons was 18 Arabic utterances. Table 9: S52 Student Observation (2012) Order of Frequency 1st 2nd Lesson lesson Working with Peers 2 3 Chatting 3 1 Responding to Instructor 1 2 Using Bilingual Dictionaries 1 2 Greetings 1 2 ‘Working with Peers’ received the highest frequency score of five Arabic utterances with 2 and 3 utterances received in Lesson 1 and 2, respectively. Most of the students used Arabic s/s to confirm information in the group. For example, they would use Arabic to confirm what question they were on or to ask if everyone agreed with what was being done; this was usually done with lowered voices, as it was not intended as a public announcement that needed confirmation or affirmation from the full classes, or even I52’s attention. Students’ attention remained directed towards the group in the form of both eye contact and voice direction. 110 The second highest-frequency use of Arabic category was also s/s and was found in ‘Chatting.’ In the first lesson, ‘Chatting’ received three tally marks, and in the second lesson, it received one tally mark for a total of four tally marks for Arabic utterances. The difference in the amount of frequency marks may be a result of the lesson for the day and the opportunities students had to chat with each other. I52’s non-use of L1 did not seem to deter the students from taking advantage of the opportunity to chat in L1, which implies that an instructor’s use or non-use is not the only factor governing whether L1 is used in the classroom. The next two categories, ‘Responding to Instructor’s Instructions’ and ‘Using Bilingual Dictionaries’ received the same amount of tally marks, one tally mark each for the first lesson and two tally marks each for the second for a total of three marks each for the two lessons. ‘Responding to Instructor’s Instructions’ was the only category in which utterances were directed at the instructor. Students who were not able to form responses in L2 used their L1, knowing that the instructor would respond in the L2. The last category that received tally marks for Arabic utterances in the lessons is that of ‘Greetings,’ which received one tally mark for the first lesson and two tally for the second for a total of three tally marks. The utterances were either initiated s/i or s/s, since I52 did not use Arabic at all. The use of L1 in teaching L2 has been a source of ongoing discussion in the field of SLA (Atkinson 1987; Cook 2001; Krashen 1985; Long 1997; Nation 2003). The role and the amount of L1 in the classroom have been the subject of several papers (Auerbach 1993; Cook 2001), although their content is beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, an awareness of the current research and results is beneficial for better understanding of the concept, since these issues are an aspect of this study. The primary objective of the observational checklist was to confirm the use of L1 in one class and the lack of L1 use in the other. This has been 111 accomplished using a quantitative approach wherein tally marks were used to confirm use. Once this was confirmed, the tool was then studied qualitatively to facilitate a better understanding of the influence of other factors that may have led to the quantitative data results. 4.2.5 Review of Observational Checklist Qualitative Data The observational checklist provided the frequency of Arabic use in four observed reading classes. The results helped to answer RQ 1: ‘How much Arabic do instructors use in reading classes?’ as well as RQ 2: ‘Do students use Arabic in reading classes?’ The observational checklist shows that I51 did use L1 a total of 66 times, but I52 did not use it. The results also reveal that students in both classes do use Arabic in reading class. The observational checklist also identified several different categories for which Arabic was used, and no identifiable patterns emerged. Several researchers have reviewed the overall classroom atmosphere and dynamics of a class in which L1 is used (Schweers 1999; Swain 2000; Tang 2002; Turnbull 2001), and most have cited improvement in motivation (Dornyei 1994; Schweers 1999; Levin 2003) and lessened anxiety (Horwitz 2001; Kim 2009) levels in students who use L1. The observational checklist confirms the amount of use of L1 in S51 and confirms as well the non- use of L1 in S52 by the instructor. The exclusion of L1 in class is not a novel idea; as stated earlier, most educational institutes have an unwritten policy prohibiting its use [1.4]. Several researchers have echoed this by cautioning that quantity and quality input in a target language (TL) is needed from instructors (Chaudron 1988; Krashen 1991). An explanation of why the instructor chooses not to use L1 in class has been provided in the interview section of this study. 112 Regardless of the willingness or refusal to use L1, both instructors were observed to control the topic of conversation as well as to allow turn taking. S51 students responded to the instructor’s cues using the L1 by answering or asking questions 22 times, compared to S52, which did so only 3 times. S52 students participated in the lesson, asking and answering questions; however, this occurred predominantly in the TL, which is indicative that the non- use of L1 in class did not deter students from interaction. One category for which both sections used L1 was in group/peer work, with L1 Arabic utterances being used among students. This may be categorised as off-record utterances, or in the literal frame, as alluded to by Goffman (1974), which some believe would not hinder accuracy, and which is an important aspect of psycholinguistic perspectives (Long & Porter 1985). One reason for this is the negotiation of meaning that can occur during group work (Gass & Varonis 1984). Student use of L1 when conversing with other students has also been found to ‘provide learners with additional cognitive support that allows them to analyse language and work at a higher level than would be possible were they restricted to sole use of their L2’ (Storch & Wigglesworth 2003, p. 760). S51 students were found to use more L1 in groups, or the literal frame, as opposed to those in S52, which may not be surprising since S51 seemed to have an atmosphere that promoted the use of L1, with the instructor setting the tone by using L1, whereas I52’s did not. Chatting between students was also prevalent in both sections, and whereas S51 had more utterances (8), S52 received half the amount (4). An interesting point to speculate would be whether the L1 use was actually promoting the negotiating of meaning or if it was just a simple way to move ahead in the lesson. S51 students seemed more at ease using the L1 and may have found it easier, whereas S52 students seemed to use L1 more as a last resort. This was observed once during the 113 observation when S52 students who were working in groups came to a word they did not understand. One student was observed looking through notes and then was heard asking another student, ‘Doesn’t it mean this?’ The student said, ‘No, no,’ and then gave the answer in L1. In the nonliteral frame, students are role playing and use code-switching to assist in the role, similar to the ‘on-record’ idea mentioned earlier, where the code-switching utterances are intended to be overheard by the instructor or by other students. This concept is important to remember when considering the L1 used in both S51 and S52. The use of on-record L1 had the largest amount of variance between the classes. One of the categories included utterances intended to be heard because they were not whispered but rather spoken to more than one person in the class, if not the whole class. These utterances were usually accompanied by a period of waiting for confirmation or affirmation, which usually took the form of solicitation for the instructor’s attention. For this category, S51 received 42 marks, while S52 received only 6. Such utterances of greetings by both instructor and student were meant to be public. There is a large discrepancy of frequency of L1 use by students between the sections (S51 = 66; S52 = 18). Whereas I51 used L1 frequently in class, I52 neither used it nor banned students from using it. The radical difference in use may be the result of the instructors’ actions in that it can be inferred that the instructor’s decision to use or prohibit use of L1 has influenced the students’ use of L1, despite the fact that neither instructor has banned it altogether. I51 was observed asking questions in L1 a total of 3 times but received responses to questions in L1 a total of 12 times. I52 asked 0 questions in L1 but received 3 responses in 114 L1 from students. This validates the claim that students were not banned from using L1 in the class but elected to use it minimally. The observational checklist was intended to focus on the confirmation of the use of L1 in S51 and the confirmation of non-use in S52, and that is what the outcome helped to verify. The amount was considered only in terms of frequency and not in terms of amount of L1 used versus amount of L2 used in class. While all these concerns are legitimate and may play a large part in the process of SLA, they are beyond the scope of this study. The observational checklist was also used as a way to triangulate the data based on the structured instructor’s interview and students’ questionnaire answers. Ultimately, the observational checklist was able to answer RQs 1 and 2, and it was useful in exploring whether patterns exist concerning reasons for the use of L1. However, this tool was not sufficient in answering RQ 1.1, which concerns the reason for L1 use. For this question, the instructor interview tool was required. To address as many variables as possible that could influence the outcome of the quantitative aspect of the study, qualitative data analysis was needed. 4.3 Qualitative Review: Instructor Interview Instructor interview results have been analysed qualitatively to answer RQ 1.1: ‘What are instructors’ reasons for using Arabic in a reading class?’ The interview was also used to help gain an understanding of the correlations between variables that may have influenced quantitative outcomes [3.4.1]. Use of the instructor interview has allowed for a broader understanding of the reasons that instructors use L1 in the classroom. To support and provide a clearer understanding of some of the factors that may have led to the exam results, I51 and 115 I52 were interviewed using a list of six structured questions (Appendix A: Table A3) adopted from a previous researcher (Al-Nofaie 2010). Interviews, which were scheduled at the instructors’ convenience, were carried out at the end of the semester. One interview took place at 9 a.m., and the other was held two days later at 10:30 a.m. Each of the interviews was approximately 45 minutes long. The venue was selected by the instructor; both chose to have the activity conducted in their offices. To alleviate any concerns regarding the interview questions, a copy of the questions was sent to them ahead of time so they would know what was being asked, and the instructors brought the questions to the interview, along with notes for reference purposes. The interview was not recorded on audio or videotape to ensure that the instructors would feel willing to speak freely. Otherwise, they might have been inclined to respond in a manner that was more formal, official, or expected, as opposed to speaking their minds [5.5], and this type of tailored response might have influenced results as well as conclusions. The University follows the unwritten policy of English only in the class. After the transcription was complete, the data were e-mailed to the instructors for determination of any discrepancies for participant validation; the interview results were then reported, reviewed, and analysed. 4.3.1 S51/52 Instructor Interview Results I51 is a male of Persian origin in his early 40’s with a short beard. He usually dresses formally for work, and he was wearing a tie for the interview, although he had not worn his jacket. After greetings were exchanged, he took his seat behind his desk, and the interview commenced. A face-to-face context was an option; however, the instructor chose to sit at his desk, possibly in observation of the custom mandating that a respectable distance be maintained between males and females. He answered all questions. 116 I52 is a female in her early 40’s of Arabic origin; she was dressed casually, wearing slacks and a jumper. The interview commenced with the instructor coming around the desk to take a seat facing the researcher. Given that both instructor and researcher are female, there was no need for customary distance to be maintained between the two parties. The interviewee seemed at ease throughout the whole interview. Both instructors were read the same six questions. Following are the interview questions and answers. Extract 1: Question 1 Interviewer: Many language educators think that the mother tongue [student’s L1] should be excluded from ESL classes. Do you agree? Why or why not? Instructor 51: I do not agree, and I think the teacher’s familiarity with the student’s first language is an asset. Teachers who know the student’s L1 can understand the reason for the student’s errors better. They can deal with and analyse those errors more effectively. However, I also think this should be done tactfully and based on a teacher’s discretion when a need arises for an L1 intervention. Instructor 52: The use of the mother tongue in EFL classes is debatable. However, I am an advocate of the monolingual approach to teaching. The target language should be the only medium of communication. I believe that the use of L1 may become a habit that both learners and teachers may resort to whenever a difficulty is encountered. My students are mainly Arab learners. Using the mother tongue may negatively affect them when teaching them to put a simple sentence together because they will encounter difficulties related to the syntactic structures of sentences. In Arabic, the sentence structure is V-S-O, while English sentences are built following the S-V-O structure. Arabic and English also differ morphologically. Instructors’ responses to Question 1 are reflective of the teaching methods they have used during the observed classes. I51 does caution that L1 should be used only ‘when a need arises,’ implying that there are certain roles that L1 can play and that it should not be used indiscriminately. He also believes that an instructor who is familiar with his students’ L1 can 117 add to the cognitive understanding of the SLA process in that it will allow the instructor to ‘analyse those errors more effectively.’ However, I52 had a somewhat opposite view in that she was firmly against use of it in her class and pointed out that allowing the use of L1 can ‘negatively affect’ the acquisition of L2. She does not point to the policy of not using L1 in class; rather, she mentions the actual hindrance to the acquisition, if it does take place. This implies that her main concern was not in following rules or regulations; although that mandate may be part of the institution she works for, her belief is based on what she considers a proven method to teach the target language. Extract 2: Question 2 Interviewer: Do you use a student’s first language [Arabic] in your reading classes? If so, for what purposes [instructions, greetings, grammar instruction]? Instructor 51: Yes, I do use Arabic in my reading classes. I use it when greeting students, and I use it when certain grammatical terms and terminologies are taught. I do not use it to teach the whole grammar lesson, but I use it to make it easier for the students to grasp some grammatical concepts. Instructor 52: I don’t use the student’s first language in my reading classes. However, I do allow some of the better students in class to translate some words, especially if the majority of the students were weak. Some students struggle, particularly at the beginning of the semester, and mainly when explaining grammar rules. I51, while admitting his use of L1 in class, seems to be implying that the use of L1 is reserved for two main categories: greetings and grammar. While the use of L1 for greeting and grammar has been validated in the classroom observation, these were not the two highest- frequency uses in the two lessons, although they were the only two categories mentioned. I52, who states that she ‘[doesn’t] use the student’s first language’ at all, does concede that the use of L1 in class is inevitable, especially among the weaker students. The concession she allows 118 is for students to use it, but she will not model its use in class. It can be inferred that rather than teach a concept to a student that is weaker in L1, she would allow another student to teach it with the tools she has (native Arabic speaker) but refuses to use. Extract 3: Question 3 Interviewer: Have you ever asked students if they liked to read in their first language? If so, what was the response? Instructor 51: Yes, I have. I get mixed responses. Some say they enjoy reading in their first language, while others do not seem to like reading at all. Instructor 52: No, I have never asked students to read in their first language. Interviewer: Do you mean they don’t like reading in their first language, or reading in any language? Instructor 51: Some don’t like reading at all in any language. Interviewer: You never asked this class, or any class in the past? Instructor 52: No, I never asked any class now or in the past. These responses imply that I51 is interested in the students as a whole, being engaged with what they do outside of class and trying to connect their reading routine outside of class to 119 their language acquisition, while I52 seems to be more interested in just the classroom student; anything outside of the class is deemed irrelevant to her classroom. .Extract 4: Question 4 Interviewer: Do you think that your students’ first language reading level has an effect on reading in English? In other words, are students who read a lot in Arabic better readers of English? Instructor 51: Definitely. The ones who like reading in Arabic and have developed a habit of reading in their first language would eventually like and develop a similar interest in English. Instructor 52: I don’t think so because Arabic is from the Semitic language family, hence its grammar is very different from English. There is a large potential for errors of interference when Arab learners produce written or spoken English. The alphabets, phonology, grammar and vocabulary are very different between these two languages. Interviewer: Have you actually found this to be true, or is this a belief? Instructor 51: From the students I have asked in the past, I have found that most of them that have said they like to read in their first language are better readers in L2. Question 4, like Question 3, assumes that instructors would have some knowledge of students’ reading habits outside of the classroom. I51, who answered with the absolute ‘Definitely,’ implies that he is aware of students’ reading practices outside of the class, while I52 answered with the uncertain ‘I don’t think so’ rather than the absolute negative or positive. This implies that she is uncertain of the students’ reading habits outside of class but goes on to justify her impression using what she does know about the languages. 120 Extract 5: Question 5 Interviewer: Do you think that using Arabic is a sign of less creative teaching? Instructor 51: Not at all. In fact, using Arabic in teaching English is a credit, and teachers who are bilingual are an asset to the institutions they work in. Instructor 52: I think that English language teachers must be competent enough to deliver the information and the lesson to their students in the target language. Using Arabic by the teacher in class is sometimes interpreted as lack of confidence on the teacher’s part. In addition, the use of L1 means that students get less practice of English. Question 5, which asks students if they think that using Arabic is a sign of less creative teaching, received opposite responses from the two instructors. The responses each instructor made correspond with that instructor’s behaviour and the demeanour observed during the classroom observation. I51 has found L1 to be an asset that should be used to its fullest capacity and uses his L1 in class, and I52 views the use of L1 in a negative light, not considering its use a sign of ‘competence’; instead, she holds that using it may show a lack of confidence. Extract 6: Question 6 Interviewer: Do you allow your students to use Arabic in class? Why or why not? Instructor 51: It depends. If there is an activity or task where students will need to respond in English, Arabic cannot be allowed. However, students are free to choose the language they use when communicating together and when explaining things to each other like scaffolding and peer review tasks. 121 Instructor 52: I try my best to prevent them from using Arabic when they are talking to me. However, I can’t stop them from using it among one another, especially in group activities or discussions. I always try to motivate them to use English, but they feel more comfortable discussing their opinions with each other in Arabic. I always stress one point with them and that is that there are a lot of non-Arab teachers who teach them; in that case, how do they communicate with them? Question 6, unlike the previous questions, elicited more agreement from the instructors. Both have agreed that when communicating with their peers, students are allowed, for the most part, to use their L1. Although communication among peers in L1 is not encouraged by I52, it is not aggressively discouraged; consequently, there is a measure of tacit consent. Each instructor has acknowledged it as inevitable and lets it happen. 4.4 Analysis of Instructor Interviews The objective of the instructor interview was to help answer RQ 1.1 through identification of the reasons for the use of Arabic in a reading class. The results were not able to identify specific reasons for L1 use; however, they did provide justification for opposing views on L1 use. These views can be found reflected in responses to the first question posed, which is in reference to the belief that L1 should be excluded from the ESL classroom. The instructor who advocated the use of L1 (I51) cautions that the quantity of L1 used needs to be minimal. The classroom observation shows that this instructor has used L1 frequently, not to help facilitate the lesson but as a way to set atmosphere or to abide by tenets of cultural correctness. This has been confirmed in the response to the second question, which is in reference to the purpose of the use of L1, if any, in class, when I51 points out, ‘I use it when greeting students, and I use it when certain grammatical terms and terminologies are taught.’ Greeting students is seen as one way to set the atmosphere for students. The idea of its use limitation is echoed again by I51 when he confirms that he does not use it to teach the whole 122 grammar lesson. This is confirmed in the classroom observation. Whereas L1 has been used more than 66 times by I51 in two lessons, it has not been used to conduct the whole lesson. By using L1 to greet students, the instructor may have been employing a tactic that helps lower the affective filters of students and facilitates a more positive and affable learning environment. Anecdotal evidence from this observer’s classes, as well as many she has observed, confirms that teachers who demonstrate an interest in their students’ welfare that extends beyond the in-class environment create an academic atmosphere that is more conducive to the learning experience. Students who feel that their instructor cares about them likely consider them more credible and easily accessible as academicians. It appears that I51 is trying to be tactful in explaining that he uses L1 only as the ‘need arises.’ It is not uncommon for instructors to feel negatively about using the L1 because the English- only attitude is considered the standard, and reverting to L1 produces feelings of guilt (Auerbach 1993; Cook 2001; Mitchell 1988). This is not to say that this instructor felt guilty, but he did seem to feel the need to qualify the use of L1. However, I52 seems to be acutely aware of its overuse by some instructors, explaining in her response to Question 1 that ‘the use of L1 may become a habit that both learners and instructors may resort to whenever a difficulty is encountered.’ In answering Question 2, she admits that she does not use L1 in her reading class but that she does not forbid the students to use it. The instructors’ responses to Question 3, which asks if instructors posed the question to students about reading in their first language, and Question 4, which asked if a student’s reading in L1 affects reading in L2, are also very different. Question 3 alludes to the students’ lives outside of the classroom. One instructor (I51) is apparently interested in their outside 123 lives; the other (I52) is apparently not. The instructors’ responses to Question 4 are also very different in that I51 feels that transferability of language skills is attainable from the different languages targeted in this study (Arabic and English), whereas I52 feels that the languages are very different and that the transferability could cause more problems and boasts few advantages. I51 appears to view the students’ outside activities as related to their learning experience. It may be assumed that this view would correspond to this instructor’s choice to use students’ L1 in class as a way to validate that their lives outside of the classroom are important to the learning process. On the other hand, I52 seems to assess anything exclusive of the academic realm as irrelevant; consequently, it would logically follow that this instructor, who opposes L1 classroom use, may feel that one language has no place in a classroom where another language is being taught. Question 5, which asks students if they think that using Arabic is a sign of less creative teaching, elicited opposite responses from the two instructors. The responses each instructor gave correspond with each instructor’s behaviour and the demeanour observed during the classroom observation. I51 has found it to be an asset that should be used to its fullest capacity and uses his L1 in class, and I52 views the use of L1 in a negative light, not considering its use a sign of ‘competence’; instead, she holds that using it may show a lack of confidence. Question 6, unlike the previous questions, elicited more agreement from the instructors. Both agree that when communicating with their peers, students have been allowed, for the most part, to use their L1. Although communication among peers in L1 is not encouraged by I52, it is not aggressively discouraged. Each instructor acknowledges it as inevitable and lets it 124 happen. This was an interesting finding and suggests that the use of L1 is beyond the control of any instructor, regardless of methodology. Both instructors seemed to agree with this concept, and rather than waste valuable class time trying to avoid or change what they deemed to be a natural occurrence, they accepted it and incorporated it into their curricula as it suited their individual styles. Another interesting finding is that I52 made the following statement: ‘I always stress one point with them, and that is that there are a lot of non-Arab teachers who teach them; in that case, how do they communicate with them?’ Several researchers (Cook 2001; Hall & Cook 2013; Lucas & Katz 1994) have noted that instructors who know the students’ L1 do use it in class often, even when its use is prohibited by policy. This is an intriguing comment; she is acknowledging that she shares the same language as her students, even though she refuses to use it in class. Although both instructors appear to have been forthcoming and genuine in their responses, one observation bears mentioning. During the interview transcription process, the researcher has noted that the responses are well formulated and in complete sentences. In other words, they are lacking in spontaneity. Unfortunately, the follow-up responses given by the instructors were very brief and did not generate any of the impulse responses. For Question 3, the follow-up question to both instructors generated a simple, one-sentence response, and the follow-up for Question 4, even though a bit more complicated, was only one sentence. All follow-up responses by the instructors were given serious consideration before they were provided. The instructors did not rush to answer, pausing to think about the question posed. Their answers were very brief and concise. There is no way to determine whether or to what extent interview results have been influenced by these formalized responses; however, it is reasonable to assume that at least a minor influence was in effect. 125 The instructor interview has uncovered several intriguing points concerning the instructors’ pedagogical views. Apparently, I51 sees a student’s classroom experience as only half of the learning experience and finds a student’s outside experiences as relevant to the learning process, while I52, who does not appear to find a student’s outside experiences relevant, feels that the classroom is the key to learning. One assumption that may be drawn from these divergent standpoints is that one instructor (I51) wants to teach the whole human (the student as well as the person), while the other (I52) perceives her role as simply instructor to student. 4.5 Student Questionnaire To answer RQ 2.1, which explores reasons for using Arabic in a reading class by students, the student questionnaire tool (Table 10) was needed. This tool was given to all students by their instructors three weeks before the end of the term with directions to return the questionnaire to the researcher’s mailbox. The instructor interview results allow for a better understanding of the instructor’s perspective, which provides a better understanding of the way L1 is being used in the classroom; the questionnaire allows for a better understanding of the way students have been using L1 in the classroom. Like the classroom observation, the interview has also been analysed first quantitatively and then qualitatively in order to provide an understanding of not only the ranking of the preferences but also an understanding of how these preferences would impact the exam scores that will be analysed to help answer the main RQ: ‘Does the use of L1 aid students in L2 reading comprehension?’ A questionnaire was given to students in S51 and S52 to complete independently to collect data that would lend more breadth and depth to the study; it comprises 15 questions that have been asked using the Likert scale format. A total of 14 students from S51 have completed the questionnaire, and 15 students in S52 have completed it, for a total of 29 students. A total of 2 126 students from S51 and 1 student from S52 have dropped the programme and are no longer students at the University. The following section presents the pertinent data. Several of the questions’ responses were intended to give a better overall understanding of students’ perceptions towards an instructor who uses L1 in class versus one who does not. The questions addressed students’ perceptions of L1 use by an instructor in class. The intent was to phrase the questions such that understanding and insight would be gained regarding the question of whether the class whose instructor used L1 had more favorable responses, which would imply that comprehensible input may have been possible through L1. A sample question was Question 3: ‘I can understand the lessons much better if my teacher uses Arabic.’ Increased understanding of a lesson in this context would imply that comprehensible input has been achieved. This may lead to comprehensible output in the form of exam results. Table 10: Student Questionnaire (2012) Question 1 I prefer my teacher to use Arabic in English classes 2 I feel more comfortable when I talk to my teacher in Arabic. 3 I can understand the lessons much better if my teacher uses Arabic. 4 I prefer the teacher to use Arabic if the lesson is boring. 5 Arabic can help me to express my feelings and ideas that I cannot explain in English. 6 I prefer to ask my teacher questions in Arabic. 127 Question 7 I prefer to do an activity with a partner in Arabic. 8 I understand new vocabulary only when I use a bilingual dictionary 9 The teacher should clarify difficult activities in Arabic 10 English grammar should be explained in Arabic. 11 New vocabulary should be translated in Arabic. 12 Class instructions should be given in Arabic. 13 I feel more comfortable if exam instructions are given in Arabic. 14 It is necessary to explain the differences and similarities between Arabic and English in Arabic. 15 Using Arabic prevents me from learning English. 128 Question 1 Table 11: S51/52 Student Question 1 Results (2012) Sectiion 51 Question 1 S52 Question 2 Always Always Often 0% 0% 0% Never Often Sometim 29% 29% Never es 40% 40% Rarely 0% Sometim es Rarely 42% 20% I prefer my teacher to use Arabic in English classes. In both S51 and S52, no students preferred the instructor to use Arabic in class. These findings are interesting, considering that I51 used Arabic 66 times, as observed in the classroom observation, in the course of 2 lessons, although the students in S51 did not find the need to mark ‘Always.’ Instead, 29% of students in S51 marked ‘Often.’ On the other hand, the same amount (29%) marked ‘Never.’ Close to 42% of the class had a mixed view and responded with ‘Sometimes.’ In S52, an equal amount of students (40%) marked ‘Sometimes’ and ‘Never’ for Question 1. This is similar to the results in S51, where 42% of students marked ‘Sometimes,’ but unlike S51, no one marked anything above ‘Sometimes’ for Question 1. The rest of the students (20%) marked ‘Rarely.’ This may give the implication that students in S52 may have felt they did not need the instructor to use L1 in class because they believed their English to be strong enough and did not require the extra help in L1. This would tend to lend more credibility to the instructor’s rationale for not using L1 as stated in the teacher interview. 129 Question 2 Table 12: S51/52 Student Question 2 Results (2012) S51 Question 2 S52 Question 2 Always 0% Often Always Never 14% Never 13% 21% 27% Often 13% Rarely 14% Sometim Rarely Sometime es 13% s 51% 34% I feel more comfortable when I talk to my teacher in Arabic. For S51, ‘Often’ and ‘Rarely’ both received the same 14% result, while ‘Never’ received a 21% response to Question 2. More than half of the students (51%) responded with ‘Sometimes.’ S52’s results were interesting in the sense that the instructor never used Arabic in the class, but a little more than 13% of the students responded ‘Always,’ and 13% responded with ‘Often.’ The same amount responded with ‘Rarely.’ Almost half of the students (46%) in S52 responded with the two lowest choices, which would be in line with the actual students’ use of Arabic in the class. Unlike S51, which claimed 66 utterances of Arabic as per the classroom observation, S52 had only 17 utterances of Arabic use by a student, and of the total number of utterances in the category of ‘Chatting and Working with Peers,’ 54% of the utterances were made in off-task situations between students and not directly to an instructor. Unlike the previous question, this question may have been interpreted to be addressing the non-academic usage of L1; students may have seen use of L1 here as a way of connecting with their instructor through a commonality of language, and this perception may have been responsible for a more positive response with respect to L1 use. The issue of 130 gender may have also played a role in student response in that S51’s instructor was a male, which may have influenced female students’ reaction to the question in that they may not have felt comfortable when conversing with their instructor regardless of the language used. Question 3 Table 13: S51/52 Student Question 3 Results (2012) S51 Question 3 S52 Question 3 Always 0% Never Often Never 13% Always 21% 20% 29% Rarely Sometime 20% Often s 13% 14% Sometimes Rarely 34% 36% I can understand the lessons much better if my teacher uses Arabic. This question was intended to help determine whether L1 can aid in comprehensible input, which has been found to be a key aspect of SLA (Claros 2008; Long 1996; Price & Devlin 2011). A more positive response to this question may imply that L1 was aiding in achievement of comprehensible input for students because they identified it as aiding in the ‘understanding’ of a lesson. As was the case with the previous two questions, no students in S51 marked ‘Always’ for this question. More than 60% of students responded with the lower two choices. This was a slightly higher percentage than expected since approximately 16% of the utterances (‘Asking Questions’ and ‘Asking About Instructions’, observed in the reading class) in S51 were used 131 for understanding the lesson. This did not correspond with what the instructor reported in the instructor interview about L1 being used to aid students in understanding. S52 again had unexpected results. A total of 20% of the students responded with ‘Always’ to this question, and 13% responded with ‘Often,’ which means that a little more than a third of the students (33%) felt that using Arabic would give them a better understanding of the lesson. The remainder, at almost 34%, responded with ‘Sometimes.’ Only 18% of the Arabic utterances were used to ‘Respond to teacher’s questions,’ with no utterances taking place in the two lessons during which students asked questions using Arabic. This may be a result of the fact that the instructor did not use Arabic, which may have prompted the students to assume that they could not ask questions in Arabic. Question 4 Table 14: S51/52 Student Question 5 Results (2012) S51 Question 4 S52 Question 4 Always Always Often 0% 0% 0% Often 7% Never Sometime Sometime27% s s 33% Never 21% 51% Rarely 21% Rarely 40% I prefer the teacher to use Arabic if the lesson is boring. In S51, no students responded with ‘Always,’ and 7% of the students responded ‘Often.’ Both ‘Sometimes’ and ‘Rarely’ received a little more than 21% response, and the highest 132 percentage responded ‘Never’ (50%), which means that the majority of the students (more than 70%) chose the two lower choices of ‘Rarely’ (21%) and ‘Never’ (51%) to show they did not prefer the instructor to use Arabic if the class was boring. In S52, the students did not prefer the instructor to use Arabic when the class was boring, and an overwhelming 67% said they ‘Rarely’ (40%) and ‘Never’ (27%) wanted the instructor to use Arabic in this situation. The remaining 33% said they preferred it only ‘Sometimes.’ It is likely that the students did not see how use of their native tongue would serve to enhance an uninteresting class; a class that was boring in one language would be no more engaging if instructed in another. Another factor that may have influenced results is connotative meaning: the word ‘boring’, for instance, would not be defined in exactly the same way by each student. Question 5 Table 15: S51/52 Student Question 5 Results (2012) S51 Question 5 S52 Question 5 Rarely Never 0% 0% Often Always 0% Never 14% Always 28% 33% Sometime Sometim s es 47% Rarely 37% Often 21% 20% Arabic can help me to express my feelings and ideas that I cannot explain in English. 133 Question 5 dealt more with students’ abilities to express themselves. The question did not specify whether expression was directed to an instructor or uttered in a classroom setting; that was left open for the student to interpret. Students in S51 were not, for the most part, as enthusiastic about the idea as were students in S52. Only 14% of students answered ‘Always,’ and no one answered ‘Often.’ A total of 37% of students answered ‘Sometimes,’ and 21% of students answered that they ‘Rarely’ or ‘Never’ (28%) felt that Arabic was needed to help them better express their feelings. S52 had more unanticipated results in that, unlike S51, for which a majority of the students answered with the last three options, the majority of S52’s students answered with the first 2 options. Thirty-three percent of students answered ‘Always,’ and 20% answered ‘Often’ to the question of whether Arabic was helpful in expressing their feelings. The remainder of students (47%) answered ‘Sometimes.’ Unlike S51, no one in S52 answered with the last two options of ‘Rarely’ or ‘Never.’ These results were surprising given that the classroom observations show that S51 students were far more willing to use L1 in class when asking questions, showing understanding, and responding to questions, yet they did not answer as favorably as S52 students, who used L1 minimally. This disparity may result from the nature of the question, which dealt with expression of feelings. Cultural standards and values may have played a role here, as was likely the case during the instructor interview process [Section 3.7.9]. These students, who were from a very conservative background, may have felt discussion of feelings with a male instructor to be inappropriate. 134 Question 6 Table 16: S51/52 Student Question 6 Results (2012) S51 Question 6 S52 Question 6 Often Always Always 0% 0% 0% Never Often 20% 20% Sometim Never es 47% 34% Sometimes 20% Rarely Rarely 40% 19% I prefer to ask my teacher questions in Arabic. The purpose of this question was to explore the premise of negotiation of comprehensible input (Claros 2008; Guidi 2012). The need to ask questions in L1 may imply an attempt to negotiate comprehensible input and that use of L1 is necessary to complete the process. In S51, none of the students answered ‘Always’ or ‘Often’ to this question, and 34% answered ‘Sometimes.’ This was unexpected given that 15% of the L1 use, according to the observational checklist, involved either asking either questions or instructions. Close to twenty percent of the students said they ‘Rarely’ preferred to ask an instructor questions in L1, and half (47) responded to this question with ‘Never.’ This gives the implication that students may not be aware of the amount of L1 they are using in the class. S52’s students, like those in S51, had no responses of ‘Always’ but did have responses of 20% for both ‘Often’ and ‘Sometimes.’ The remaining 60% of students responded with the 135 last two items. According to the observational checklist, no L1 utterances were used for asking questions of instructors in the two lessons observed. Question 7 Table 17: S51/52 Student Question 7 Results (2012) S51 Question 7 S52 Question 7 Always 0% Never 0% Always 0% Often 21% Often Rarely 27% 33% Never 50% Sometimes 29% Sometimes 40% Rarely 0% I prefer to do an activity with a partner in Arabic. This question, like Question 6, was intended to aid in exploring the negotiation of comprehensible input. In using their L1, students might find the negotiation of meaning to be an easier task, which would facilitate achievement of comprehensible input. Question 7 primarily addresses peer work and activities observed in both sections. In S51, no students responded with ‘Always,’ and 21% responded with ‘Often.’ No students chose ‘Rarely,’ and the majority of students chose the last option of ‘Never,’ at 50%. The observational checklist showed that almost 13% of the L1 utterances were used during peer work in S51, but the majority responded with ‘Never.’ 136 In S52, no students responded with ‘Always,’ and 27% responded with ‘Often’ to the question. Forty percent of the students responded with ‘Sometimes,’ and 33% responded with ‘Rarely’; no students responded with ‘Never.’ Almost 67% of students responded that they would prefer to do an activity in Arabic, which was confirmed in the observational checklist, with 30% of the l1 utterances observed being in peer activities. This implies that an instructor’s use or non-use of L1 did not affect students’ perceptions of L1 in reference to peer work, as opposed to the negative responses that Question 1 received, which addressed L1 use by an instructor. Question 8 Table 18: S51/52 Student Question 8 Results (2012) S51 Question 8 Always S52 Question 8 Never 0% Never 0% 0% Often Rarely Rarely 21% 20% 29% Always 34% Sometime Sometimes s Often 50% 33% 13% I understand new vocabulary only when I use a bilingual dictionary. Unlike the previous two questions, which used negotiation of meaning between teacher and student or student and student, this question explored the psycholinguistic matter of negotiation of meaning from a cognitive perspective. The intent was to try to determine if negotiation of meaning was beneficial in a social or psychological (individual) setting. 137 For S51, only one use of a bilingual dictionary was observed during the two reading lessons according to the classroom observation checklist, yet in the questionnaire, even though no students responded with ‘Always,’ 21% responded with ‘Often.’ This means that more than a quarter of the class indicated that they use a bilingual dictionary to understand new vocabulary. Half of the students responded with ‘Sometimes,’ and the remaining 29% responded with ‘Rarely.’ No students responded with ‘Never,’ which was not what the observational checklist portrayed. S52 showed that 34% of students responded with ‘Always’ and 13% with ‘Often.’ That means that close to 46% of students used bilingual dictionaries. This corresponded to the observational checklist in that students in S52 were observed using a bilingual dictionary in class approximately 18% of the time. Thirty-three percent of students also responded to ‘Using a Bilingual Dictionary’ with ‘Sometimes,’ and the remaining 20% responded with ‘Rarely.’ No students responded with ‘Never’ in S52, as was the case in S51. Question 9 Table 19: S51/52 Student Question 9 Results (2012) S51 Question 9 Always S52 Question 9 Never 0% 0% Always 7% Rarely Often Never 29% 13% 33% Often 50% Sometimes Sometimes Rarely 34% 21% 13% The teacher should clarify difficult activities in Arabic. 138 S51 questionnaire results showed that no student responded with ‘Always’ to Question 9, and that 50% responded with ‘Often.’ A percentage of a little more than 21 students responded with ‘Sometimes,’ and the remaining 29% responded with ‘Never.’ No students responded with ‘Rarely.’ In S52, 7% of the students responded with ‘Always,’ and 13% responded with ‘Often.’ Less than a quarter of the students in this section felt that an instructor should clarify difficult activities in the L1. Thirty-four percent of students responded with ‘Sometimes,’ leaving the last two options to receive almost 47% of the responses. I52 had no utterances in L1 during the two lessons that were observed. This leaves one to speculate whether the 22% that responded with the top two choices would benefit more from having the L1 used for clarification. Question 10 Table 20: S51/52 Student Question 10 Results (2012) S51 Question 10 S52 Question 10 Often Always 0% Always 0% 0% Sometime Often s 13% 0% Never 29% Sometime s 42% Rarely 20% Never 67% Rarely 29% English grammar should be explained in Arabic. 139 S51 students, for the most part, did not feel the urgency to have grammar explained in L1, which was reflected in the fact that no students responded with the first two options of ‘Always’ and ‘Often.’ Forty-three percent of students did feel that ‘Sometimes’ an explanation in L1 was necessary. The remaining 58% responded with the last two options of ‘Rarely’ and ‘Never,’ each receiving an equal amount of response. The lack of urgency the results show may be a result of the type of skill and lesson content that is being given. I51 had a very small percentage of utterances that were used for grammar in the two lessons, which corresponds somewhat to the responses of the questionnaire. S52 students also had zero response to ‘Always,’ as did S51 students; however, S52 students, unlike those in S51, had 13% of ‘Often’ responses. Twenty percent also responded with ‘Rarely,’ and the highest percentage of students (almost 67%) responded with ‘Never.’ The vast majority of students (87%) responded with the last two options. Question 11 Table 21: S51/52 Student Question 11 Results (2012) S51 Question 11 S52 Question 11 Always Never 0% 0% Never Often 14% 14% Rarely Always 23% 23% Sometimes 21% Often 14% Sometimes Rarely 40% 51% New vocabulary should be translated in Arabic. 140 For Question 11, no students in S51 responded with the first option of ‘Always,’ and 14% responded with ‘Often.’ A total of 21 percent of students responded with ‘Sometimes,’ and almost 64% of students responded with the last two options. 51% of the Arabic utterances by I51 were used for translation, which may not correspond with the results of the questionnaire. Zero percent of students responded with the first option, yet the instructor felt it necessary to use 15% of the utterances to correspond to grammar. One reason for the discrepancy is that students were already receiving the translation in the class, so they were not aware that they were experiencing the situation without the L1 translation. S52, like S51, had no students respond with ‘Always’ to Question 11,’ and 20% responded with ‘Often.’ Almost 57% of students responded with ‘Sometimes’ to the question, and the remaining 33% responded with ‘Rarely,’ leaving zero students responding with ‘Never.’ The majority of students felt that translation of new words might be needed. Question 12 Table 22: S51/52 Student Question 12 Results (2012) S51 Question 12 S52 Question 12 Always Often Always 0% 0% 0% Often 21% Sometimes Never 20% 37% Rarely Sometime 13% s Never 21% 67% Rarely 21% Class instructions should be given in Arabic. 141 In S51, zero students responded with ‘Always,’ and 21% of the students responded with the next three options evenly, those being ‘Often,’ ‘Sometimes,’ and ‘Rarely,’ all of which received the same amount of response. A total of 36% responded with ‘Never.’ Examination of the observational checklist shows that more than 18% of the L1 utterances by the instructor were directed towards giving instructions to students, while in actuality, the majority of students, 57%, answered with the last two choices of ‘Rarely’ and ‘Never.’ This may imply that students were not aware of the role for which L1 was being used. S52 results showed that the majority of students, 80%, responded with the lower two choices, and only 20% responded with ‘Often.’ Question 13 Table 23: S51/52 Student Question 13 Results (2012) S51 Question 13 S52 Question 13 Often 0% Always Never 12% Always 29% 28% Sometim Never es 50% 19% Often Rarely 14% Rarely 29% 19% Sometim es 0% I feel more comfortable if exam instructions are given in Arabic. The intent of this question was to explore the role of affective filters in learning. If a student is ‘comfortable’, it is reasonable to assume that her affective filters are lowered, allowing for achievement of comprehensible input. 142 Question 13 received the highest amount of response for the first option of ‘Always’ at 29%. Fourteen percent of the responses were for ‘Often, which means that almost 43% of all students responded with the first two options. On the other hand, even though no students responded with ‘Sometimes,’ close to 57% of students responded with the last two options, with ‘Rarely’ receiving 29% and ‘Never’ receiving 29%. S52 students responded with 12%, choosing ‘Always,’ and ‘Sometimes,’ and ‘Rarely’ received 19%. No students chose ‘Often.’ This left the majority of students, 50%, responding with ‘Never.’ The majority of students in S52 responded with the lower two responses, which gives rise to speculation that because exam formats may have been familiar to them, no need for further explanation was necessary, whereas S51 students still needed the confirmation of L1. Question 14 Table 24: S51/52 Student Question 14 Results (2012) S51 Question 14 S52 Question 14 Never Always 0% 0% Always Rarely 14% 20% Never Often 36% 40% Often 21% Sometime Sometime s s 40% Rarely 29% 0% It is necessary to explain the differences and similarities between Arabic and English in Arabic. 143 For S51, 14% of students responded ‘Always,’ and 21% responded ‘Often.’ Nearly 29% responded with ‘Sometimes.’ This means that the first three options received 64% of student response, while 36% of students responded with ‘Never.’ The first two options received less than 37%, showing that students felt strongest towards the last option of ‘Never.’ In S52, no students responded ‘Always,’ but 40% responded with ‘Often.’ This is almost two times more than S51’s response to ‘Often.’ The same amount of students (40%) responded with ‘Sometimes,’ and only 20% responded with ‘Rarely,’ with no students responding with ‘Never.’ This question seems to have more students feeling stronger about the upper portion of the options than the bottom, which is the opposite of the S51 response. Question 15 Table 25: S51/52 Student Question 15 Results (2012) S51 Question 15 S52 Question 52 Often Often Always 0% 0% Never Always Sometim 21% 14% 20% es 0% Sometime Never s 60% Rarely 36% Rarely 20% 29% Using Arabic prevents me from learning English. In S51, 14% of students responded with ‘Always,’ and no students responded with ‘Often.’ This response would correspond with the observational checklist given that both instructor and students used L1 in the course of the lessons for a variety of categories. Thirty-six percent of students responded to this question with ‘Sometimes.’ A significant amount of students feel 144 that L1 use can sometimes prevent them from learning L2, which prompts the question of when L1 usage proves a hindrance versus when that is not the case. Twenty-nine percent responded with ‘Rarely,’ and the remaining 21% responded with ‘Never.’ Fifty percent of students chose the last two options, which may lead one to believe that L1 usage does not prevent students from learning L2. In S52, 20% of students responded with ‘Always’ to this question. The remaining students in S52 felt that using L1 did not, for the most part, prevent them from learning L2, with 20% choosing ‘Rarely’ and the remaining 60% choosing ‘Never.’ 4.5.1 Summary of Student Questionnaire Results The results of the student questionnaire did not answer RQ 2.1 in that there was no clear reason indicated for the use of Arabic by students in class, but the tool did provide some insights on student perceptions and feelings regarding the use of L1 in the classroom. Results of the questionnaire also provided data that contrasted with results of the classroom observation. Table 26: S51 Student Questionnaire Results (2012) Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Always 2 4 2 2 Often 4 2 3 1 3 3 7 2 3 2 3 Sometimes 6 7 2 3 5 5 4 7 3 6 3 3 4 5 Rarely 2 5 3 3 2 4 4 7 3 4 4 Never 4 3 4 7 4 7 7 4 4 2 5 4 5 3 145 Table 27: S52 Student Questionnaire Results (2012) Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Always 2 3 0 5 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 Often 2 2 0 3 3 4 2 2 2 3 3 0 6 0 Sometimes 6 4 5 5 7 3 6 5 5 0 7 0 2 6 0 Rarely 3 3 3 6 0 6 5 3 2 3 5 2 3 3 3 Never 6 4 2 4 0 3 0 0 5 10 0 10 8 0 9 After review of the data, it has become apparent that in both sections, the option that received the lowest responses was ‘Always,’ with .05% of students responding in S51 and .09% students responding in S52. These results were not expected, considering the amount of L1 that was being used. The results suggest that neither one of the sections preferred the use of L1 in class, although in actuality, one section (S51) used it repeatedly, as reflected by a comparison of classroom results to classroom observations [4.2.1]. Many factors may have influenced the results, as mentioned earlier [4.5.1]; rather than students reporting what they actually preferred, some were likely reporting what was expected of them for a variety of reasons. More students answered ‘Never’ and ‘Sometimes’ to the different uses of L1 than any other option in S51 and S52, as seen in Table 10. Thirty percent of the students were not favorable to the use of L1 and responded with ‘Never,’ which was higher than expected for S51. In S52, ‘Never’ also received the highest frequency of response, at 27%, which was still less than in S51, whose instructor as well as students used L1 on a variety of occasions [7.2.4]. Data mentioned to this point reflects a generalised review of the results; the following paragraphs offer a more specific breakdown of the responses given. 146 In S51, Questions 4, 6, and 7, which addressed the classroom use of L1, received the most unfavorable responses from students. All questions requiring first-person responses elicited lower-category answers, which may imply that students felt that answering with the higher categories would somehow reflect negatively on them when they ‘reported’ as opposed to answering according to what they did or felt [6.5]. Using L1 when a lesson was ‘boring,’ asking questions, and working with partners (Q4 = 7, Q6 = 7, Q7 = 7) were responded to in the category of ‘Never,’ and zero students (Q4 = 0, Q6 = 0, Q7 = 0) responded with ‘Always,’ as seen in Chart 29. Table 28: S51 Responses Q4, Q6, Q7 (2012) S51 8 6 4 Never 2 Always 0 Q4 Q6 Q7 Concerning Question 4, the tendency is to believe that students would prefer to use their L2 when they were bored as the result of being constantly compelled to decipher or translate their instructor’s remarks. This may lead them to miss some important content and explanation while constantly engaged in the attempt to figure out the meaning of words (Ragawanti 2009). Yet this is not what the results showed. Instead, Question 4 was one of the lowest-scoring questions in terms of students preferring the use of L1. Student perception may also have led to the surprise findings for Question 6 (I prefer to ask my teacher questions in Arabic.). No students responded to the first two categories, which may imply that only a small amount of students were using the L1, as opposed to the class in 147 general. However, that is not what the observational checklist illustrated. Another scenario contributing to this result may be that students were not aware that they were using the L1. Studies have indicated that instructors are not always aware of the use (Edstrom 2009; Polio & Duff 1994); consequently, it would stand to reason that students are also unaware of the extent to which they are using it. A variety of reasons influences student responses, one being that they may feel the need to be loyal to their instructor, but this was not the case in S51, where none of the students marked ‘Always’ to Question 1 (I prefer my teacher to use Arabic in English classes.), even though their instructor used their L1 in class. One reason for this may be that students preferred English based on the assumption that they might be adjudged inferior if their class was not taught in English (Cook 1999). The majority of students (50%) had marked ‘Sometimes.’ The results for Question 2 (I feel more comfortable when I talk to my teacher in Arabic.) were not expected because the observational checklist showed that there were 43 utterances of Arabic to the instructor of S51. Of the 43 utterances, approximately 17 (‘Asking Questions,’ ‘Checking Comprehension,’ ‘Asking About Instructions,’ and ‘Confirmation of Information’) were initiated by the students, yet students seemed somewhat hesitant to answer with the upper two categories. Another scenario is that students in S51 may not necessarily have connected the observational checklist with the questionnaire; they may have been answering in a manner intended to portray their instructor positively (in other words, they may have felt that a response that they used L1 would cause both them and their instructor to be viewed negatively). 148 The questions that received the most favorable responses in S51 were Question 13, with 29% of students responding with ‘Always,’ and Questions 14 and 15, each with 14% of students responding with ‘Always.’ The largest percentage of students felt more comfortable with use of L1 to give exam instructions. The use of L1 to reduce stress has been mentioned by several researchers (Cook 2001; Macaro 2001; Schweers 1999). This prompts the belief that some students felt strongest about L1 being used for exam instructions, which may relate to the purpose of the Foundation courses, which is to enable students to pass proficiency exams as well as to prepare them for their majors. Perhaps the assumption can be made that students perceive anything relating to exams as worthy of a higher priority. Both S51 and S52 answered favorably to Question 14, which dealt with comparing and contrasting L1 and L2. There has been some research on the benefits of contrastive analysis and how it may lead to better learning (Ghabanchi & Vosooghi 2006; Kupferberg 1999). This premise of comparing and contrasting the language does open the door for potential problems in that an instructor has to be proficient enough in both languages to be able to accomplish this; otherwise, it may lead to confusion. On the other hand, one of the two questions that received the most favorable responses in S52 was Question 5, which concerned the expression of feelings and ideas. This question, unlike any other question, received no responses in the category of ‘Rarely’ and ‘Never,’ which implies that it was high on the minds of the majority of students in S52. Since a learner’s native language is bound to his self-identity, it is critical that it not be ignored (Brown 2000). If his native language is disregarded, the student may feel threatened, which will have a negative impact on his affective filters, hindering language acquisition to an even greater 149 degree, as discussed earlier [2.5.2]. Also, as previously stated [2.0], L1 can be seen as scaffolding that links to L2. At times, students may feel that the L1 has been imposed on them, producing very negative attitudes about the class. Here in the Middle East, some students feel that English is being forced on them because of the influence of a more powerful Western country. This can leave students with a feeling that English has not only been imposed on them but that it threatens and subjugates the very essence of their identities. As Canagarajan (1999) states, English ‘…struggles for dominance against other languages, with conflicting implications for the construction of identity, community, and culture of the local people’ (Canagarajan 1999, p. 56). The lack of enthusiasm for Question 5 reflected in S51’s response may have been influenced by the fact that the instructor was male. As has already been mentioned, conservative Islamic students may have felt that expression of feelings and ideas to a male was inappropriate. Question 8, like Question 5, also received very favorable responses from S52. The observational checklist showed that less than .015% of students used bilingual dictionaries in class in S51, but more than 20% answered ‘Often’ on the questionnaire for Question 8 (I understand new vocabulary only when I use a bilingual dictionary.). This may be explained by the fact that the question was left open to interpretation, and perhaps the respondents included those instances when the usage of the bilingual dictionary occurred outside of the classroom. Students may very well use a bilingual dictionary outside of the classroom to do homework or in their personal lives. The questionnaire illustrated student perceptions concerning the use of L1. The data of the questionnaire has helped to place central focus on the fact that there are two major 150 stakeholders in this research, one being the instructor and the other being the student. Student perception of L1 use has been surprising and at times has contrasted with what the instructor perceived to be the role of L1, as noted during the observation, as well as with what was observed in the reading class observation. 4.6 Quantitative Data Analysis: Inferential Data Midterm Exam Scores The next section reports on the results of the SPSS tests that were conducted on the students’ reading MT results, which provided empirical data that was used to answer the main RQ as well as RQ 3. As this research focuses on the impact of L1 in teaching L2 reading, the next section will examine the MT grades of both classes. Rather than just use the data of the proficiency exam, the MT was used to give a more detailed picture of the progression of students throughout the term. This was the first tool that followed the quantitative approach in data collection. The following results assist in answering RQ 1.2: ‘Is there any significant difference between the midterm scores of students who are exposed to L1 in reading comprehension classes and those who are not?’ Table 29: S51/52 Midterm Exam Results (2012) N Mean Std. Deviation Sec. 51 16 11.1181 4.09293 Controlled (Arabic) 16 13.8200 3.21469 Sec. 52 Experimental (non-Arabic) 151 Table 29 illustrates the mean scores between S51 and S52. The test shows there exists a difference in mean, a measurement arrived at by taking all the scores of the MT and dividing them by the number of exams, when comparing the mean scores for S51 (Mean = 11.1181, N = 16, SD = 4.09293) and S52 (Mean = 13.82, N =1 6, SD = 3.21469) groups. The test shows there is a slight difference in the overall average between S51 (controlled) and S52 (experimental) groups. The results for S52 are higher (13.8200) than S51 (11.1181) by 2.7019. This test does not answer the question of whether there is statistical difference. In order to determine if there is any statistical difference and if the difference in mean was statistically significant, another test, the independent sample t-test, was needed. Table 30: S51/52 Statistically Significant Midterm Scores (2012) Midterm Independent Samples Test Levene's t-test for Equality of Means Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. T df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% (2- Difference Difference Confidence tailed) Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Equal - - - variances .053 .819 30 .047 -2.70188 1.30111 2.077 5.35910 .04465 assumed Equal variances - - - 28.405 .047 -2.70188 1.30111 not 2.077 5.36537 .03838 assumed To answer RQ 3: ‘Is there any significant difference between the midterm scores of students who are exposed to L1 in reading comprehension classes and those who are not?’ Levene’s 152 test for equality of variances was needed. To establish whether this difference is statistically significant, independent sample t-tests have been carried out, and they showed that there exists statistically significant difference in mean when comparing the mean scores of S51and S52 groups (t = 2.077, df = 30, p<0.05). The independent sample t-test answered RQ 3 by showing that S52 midterm scores were statistically significant higher scores than S51, which indicates that the class whose instructor was not using the students’ L1 (S52) was performing better in the reading skill. 4.7 Inferential Proficiency Exam Results The next section reports on the results of the SPSS tools that were conducted on the students’ IELTS and TOEFL proficiency exam results to answer the RQ 3.2 and 3.3 in finding if there is any significant difference between the TOEFL/IELTS reading scores of students who are exposed to L1 in reading comprehension classes and those who are not. Both of these proficiency exam results have been analysed given that they are the only proficiency exam results that the University accepts for students to enter their English-medium majors. These were independent exams provided by an outside institution, unlike the MTs that were provided by the University. 153 Table 31: IELTS Reading/Overall Correlation Test (2012) IELTS IELTS Reading Avg. Correlation 1.000 .493* IELTS Coefficient Reading Sig. (2-tailed) . .032 Spearman's N 19 19 rho Correlation .493* 1.000 Coefficient IELTS Avg Sig. (2-tailed) .032 . N 19 20 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). The correlation test is used to help understand if one score can help predict the other. For example, can the IELTS reading score help predict the overall score? Based on the sample, the correlation test indicates that the scores can be predicted. The test above shows that there exists a statistically significant correlation between IELTS reading and the overall IELTS average score (Rho = .493, n = 19, p = 0.032, two tailed) because the sig .032 was less than .05. In other words, the higher the IELTS reading score, the higher the overall average score, which seems to imply that reading is a key factor in helping to determine performance of other academic skills. This helps reinforce the theory that the reading skill is critical to academic success. 154 Table 32: TOEFL Reading/Overall Correlation Test (2012) TOEFL TOEFL Avg Reading Pearson 1 .668** TOEFL Correlation Reading Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 25 25 Pearson .668** 1 Correlation TOEFL Avg Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 25 27 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The correlation test is used to help determine if one score can help predict the other. For example, can the TOEFL reading score help predict the overall score? In order to answer this question, the Pearson correlation test was used and reveals that there exists statistically significant correlation between TOEFL reading scores and the overall TOEFL scores (r = .668, n = 25, p<0.01, 2 tailed). In other words, the higher the reading scores in TOEFL, the higher the overall TOEFL scores. The association between the scale parametric variables is high, which would imply that the prediction would be stronger. According to the available sample, the correlation test indicates that the scores can be predicted. In conclusion, the test indicates statistical significance between reading scores and the overall scores, and a prediction can be assumed. Both correlation tests reveal that there was a statistically different correlation between the IELTS reading scores, TOEFL reading scores, and the overall scores achieved on the exams, reinforcing the theory that reading skills is a critical aspect of academic success. 155 Table 33: S51/S52 IELTS Reading Average (2012) Group IELTS Reading IELTS Avg. (Arabic) Mean 4.563 5.125 S51 N 8 8 Std. Deviation .4955 .4432 ( Non) Mean 4.682 5.083 S52 N 11 12 Std. Deviation .4045 .6337 Mean 4.632 5.100 Total N 19 20 Std. Deviation .4360 .5525 Table 33 was used to help illustrate if there is a difference in the mean S51 and S52 IELTS scores. The table shows that there is a slight difference in mean and also illustrates the average in IELTS reading and the overall average. An outcome where there is no standard deviation, or sd = 0, would show that the results were homogenous, with all scoring the same. Unfortunately, this is highly unlikely to impossible. This is usually referred to as the ‘bell curve,’ wherein some students will score high and some low. As long as the sd is not 0, some sort of bell curve will apply. For these results, there is a difference in mean between S51 (mean =, n = 8, sd = .4955) and S52 (mean = n = 11, sd =. 4045) in the Reading section of the IELTS, as S51 mean is 4.563, and for S52, the mean is 4.682. This is also found in the overall average between S51 (mean = n = 8, sd = 4432), and S52 (mean = n = 11, sd = .6337) in the overall Reading section of the IELTS, where the mean for S51 is 5.125, and the mean for S52 is 5.083. The results help to illustrate that S51 had a slightly higher average in the overall 156 scores, although they did not perform better on the reading. To determine if the results for the reading scores or the overall scores were statistically significant, more tests are needed. Table 34: S51/S52, TOEFL Reading Average (2012) Group TOEFL TOEFL Reading Avg Mean 36.27 391.00 N 15 16 S51 Std. 3.770 26.525 Deviation Mean 39.10 405.73 N 10 11 S52 Std. 5.915 28.852 Deviation Mean 37.40 397.00 N 25 27 Total Std. 4.839 27.937 Deviation Table 34 was used to help illustrate if there was any difference in the mean S51 (Arabic) and S52 (non-Arabic) TOEFL scores. The table shows that there was a slight difference in mean and illustrates the average in TOEFL reading and the overall average. There is a difference in mean between S51 (mean = n = 15, sd = 3.77), and S52 (mean = n = 10, sd = 5.915) in the Reading section of the TOEFL, where the mean for S51 = 36.27, and the mean for S52 = 39.10. This is also found in the overall average between S51 (mean = n = 16, sd = 26.525), and S52 (mean = n = 11, sd = 28.852) in the overall TOEFL average, where the mean for S51 is 391.00, and the mean for S52 = 405.73. The results illustrate that S52 had a slightly higher average in both. The class whose instructor did not use Arabic had a slightly higher average than the class that did use the students’ first language. In order to establish if this was statistically significant, more tests are needed. 157 Table 35: Group Statistics for IELTS (2012) Group Statistics Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 51 8 4.563 .4955 .1752 IELTS Reading 52 11 4.682 .4045 .1220 51 8 5.125 .4432 .1567 IELTS Avg 52 12 5.083 .6337 .1829 Table 35 illustrates a summary of the mean scores between the two groups. The table shows there is a difference in the mean in S51 IELTS reading scores (mean = 4.56, n = 8, SD = .4955) and S52 (mean = 4.682, n = 11, SD = .4045) and between the overall average in S51 (mean = 5.125, n = 8, SD =. 4432), and S52 (mean = 5.083, n = 12, sd = .6337). The test does not answer the question of whether these differences are statistically significant. The previous tests have shown that there is a slight difference in the overall average between S51 and S52. The results for the IELTS scores show a slightly higher average in the non- Arabic IELTS reading class (S51 = 4.563, less than S52 = 4.682), as opposed to the second set of tests, which show a slightly higher average in the Arabic IELTS overall average class scores (S51 = 5.125 greater than S52 = 5.083). This test does not answer the question of whether there is a statistical difference. To determine if there is any statistical difference and whether the difference in mean is statistically significant, another test, the independent sample t-test, was needed. 158 Table 36: Group Statistics for TOEFL (2012) Group Statistics Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 51 15 36.27 3.770 .973 TOEFL Reading 52 10 39.10 5.915 1.871 51 16 391.00 26.525 6.631 TOEFL Avg 52 11 405.73 28.852 8.699 Table 36 illustrates the mean scores between the two groups. The table shows there is a difference in the mean in S51 TOEFL reading scores (mean = 36.27, n =15, sd = .3.77) and S52 (mean = 39.10, n = 10, sd = .5.915) and between the overall average in S51 (mean = 391.00, n =1 6, sd = 26.525) and S52 (mean = 405.73, n = 11, sd = 28.852). The test does not answer the question of whether these differences are statistically significant. The above tests have shown that there is a slight difference in the overall average between S51 (Arabic) and S52 (non-Arabic). The results for the TOEFL scores show a slightly higher average in the S52 TOEFL Reading class (S51 = 36.27, less than S52 = 39.10); this was also found in the overall TOEFL average, which showed again a slightly higher average in S52 TOEFL overall average class scores (S51 = 5391.00 is less than S52 = 405.73). This test does not answer the question of whether there is statistical difference. To determine if there is any statistical difference and whether the difference in mean is statistically significant, another test, the independent sample t-test, was needed. 159 Table 37: Independent Sample t-Test for Statistical Significance in IELTS (2012) Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means for Equality of Variances F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Equal - variances .029 .868 17 .571 -.1193 .2064 -.5548 .3162 .578 assumed IELTS Equal Reading variances - 13.251 .586 -.1193 .2135 -.5796 .3410 not .559 assumed Equal variances .158 .696 .161 18 .874 .0417 .2589 -.5023 .5856 assumed IELTS Equal Avg variances .173 17.911 .865 .0417 .2409 -.4645 .5479 not assumed To answer RQ 3.3, the independent sample t-test was needed, and the results revealed the difference in mean between S51and S52 IELTS reading. The test shows that the difference in mean between the two groups is not statistically significant (t = -578, df = 17, p = .571, 2- tailed). The same test also reveals that the difference in mean between S51 and S52 IELTS overall average is not statistically significant (t = .161, df = 18, p =. 874, 2-tailed). The results have no statistical significance and may be due to chance. It can be assumed that using a student’s L1 in the class to teach L2 did not have any statistical significance towards improving a student’s IELTS reading or overall score. 160 Table 38: Independent Sample t-Test for Statistical Significance in TOEFL (2012) Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means for Equality of Variances F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence (2- Difference Difference Interval of the tailed) Difference Lower Upper Equal - variances 3.234 .085 23 .156 -2.833 1.930 -6.825 1.158 1.468 assumed TOEFL Equal Reading variances - 13.879 .201 -2.833 2.109 -7.360 1.693 not 1.344 assumed Equal - variances .337 .567 25 .183 -14.727 10.763 -36.894 7.440 1.368 assumed TOEFL Avg Equal variances - 20.405 .193 -14.727 10.938 -37.515 8.061 not 1.346 assumed To answer RQ 3.2, an independent sample t-test was used, which helped to establish if there is any statistical difference between S51 - Arabic and S52. In reference to the TOEFL reading and overall scores, an independent sample t-test was used. The independent sample t-test reveals that the difference in mean between S51 and S52. TOEFL reading is not statistically significant (t = -1.468, df = 23, p = .156, 2-tailed). The test also reveals that the difference in mean between S51 and S52 TOEFL average is not statistically significant (t = -1.368, df = 25, p = .183, 2-tailed). The results have no statistical significance and may be due to chance. 161 The tests above have shown that even though there was a slight difference in mean between the TOEFL reading and the TOEFL overall average, it may be due to chance, as well as many variables and factors that may have influenced a class or student’s performance, such as amount of studying, background knowledge, outside help, exposure to L1, or a variety of motivational factors that were not being tested for this study. 4.8 Inferential Quantitative Results Analysis The analyses of the two previous sections have provided empirical evidence for the study and help answer RQ 3, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. Both the midterm grades and the proficiency exam scores have been used to explore the effectiveness of using a student’s L1 to teach L2. A main objective of the data was to answer a primary question: ‘Was there any statistical difference in the test scores of the classes?’ to answer the main RQ: ‘Does the instructor’s use of L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension?’ If there was a difference, the next question would ask whether this difference was statistically relevant. The last question that was investigated sought to determine which class had better exam score results. The first section, [4.7], answered RQ 3.1, analysed midterm scores for both sections, and has revealed that the results for S52 (non-Arabic) were higher (13.8200) than those of S51 ( Arabic) (11.1181) by 2.7019. After approximately seven weeks of class, S52, the class whose instructor did not use L1, outperformed S51, the class whose instructor did use L1. The midterm exam was the first standardised exam that students would have taken in the class, and the numbers showed that in the short term (approximately seven weeks), the students who were exposed to L1 in the classroom did not perform as well as those who were not. 162 Several factors may explain why students performed as they did on the midterm exam. One may be that the midterm exam was tied to classroom lessons in that some of the themes and vocabulary were used. This is not to say that the same questions were found on the midterm as were given in the class, rather that the theme that was used in class was carried forward to the midterm. This may have given students an advantage in that they had readings that were thematically similar and studied certain vocabulary words that would have been practiced in class. Given that students were reading thematically similar text in the class, it would be reasonable to assume that some of the vocabulary words recurred on the MT. This might have given students somewhat of an outline to study for the exam, which may have led to the higher scores. This surmise may help to explain why some got higher scores; however, it also leaves open the question of why the other class did not. Both instructors followed the same syllabus and covered the same material. This means that both classes should have been exposed to the same material. However, the variable that was not the same was the amount of exposure to L2. The class that received more exposure seems to have benefited more, but this did not answer the question of whether the difference was statistically significant. To answer this question, an independent sample t-test was needed, which revealed a significant statistical difference in MT scores between the two classes. The independent sample test shows that the non-Arabic group’s midterm scores had a statistically significant higher score than the Arabic group’s scores. The extra exposure may have been a contributing factor to the higher student MT scores. This is not to say that there may not have been other factors that contributed to the results. One possibility that surfaced was that student motivation may also have played a role. As mentioned earlier in this study [2.6], motivation has been cited as a key contributor to student performance. Neither the classroom observation nor the student questionnaire has shown any significant difference between the two classes in student motivation. Neither tool 163 was designed to explore motivation; rather, the observation confirmed the use or non-use of L1in the class and tried to identify patterns in the roles L1 played; the questionnaire sought to provide a better understanding of student perceptions and attitudes. Both the TOEFL and the IELTS exams have been used to answer RQ 3.1 and 3.2, and they have been analysed, with the results yielding some unexpected results. As was the case for the MT, the TOEFL exam reading scores have shown that the students who were not exposed to L1 in class had a higher mean average than the students who were exposed to L1 in class. From the previous correlation test that was conducted, a prediction proved accurate in that in the TOEFL overall scores for S52, the class not exposed to L1 also had a higher mean average than students exposed to L1. The assumption that most would make is that this would be followed through on the IELTS exam. Surprisingly, however, this was not the case in that the IELTS results proved to be more complicated than the TOEFL’s. To establish if L1 aided in L2 reading comprehension, the IELTS exams results were also analysed. The analysis revealed that S52, the class that was not exposed to L1 in class, did achieve higher scores on the IELTS reading section of the exam; however, they did not perform better on the overall. Rather, the class that was exposed to L1 achieved higher scores overall. This pattern was not the same as was found when analysing the TOEFL exam scores in that S52 received higher scores for the TOEFL reading section and for the overall TOEFL exam. One factor that may have contributed to the difference in results is the types of questions that comprised each exam. Both the MT and the IELTS exams tested similar concepts. Students would have had practice/experience in answering these types of concepts in class when they were reviewing for the MT as well as taking the actual exam. 164 The difference in types of concepts present on the exams may be a contributing factor to the end test results. This may imply that the students that were not exposed to L1 were able to answer the different types of questions more accurately than the students that were exposed to L1. The implication of the results leads to the hypothesis that L1 did not aid in the comprehension of L2 reading, as all three reading exam (MT, TOEFL, IELTS) results reported, and there is a need to establish whether these results are statistically significant or may be due to chance. With the class that was not exposed to L2 achieving higher scores on the midterm, IELTS, and TOEFL reading section of the exams, and with the class that was exposed to L1 achieving higher scores in the overall IELTS section of the exams, an independent t-test exam was conducted to determine whether the overall scores were statistically significantly for either one of the classes. The results have proven that there was no statistical significance in overall scores for the classes, and that scores are perhaps due to chance. No statistical significance for the four results was unexpected since initially a pattern seems to have been identified in midterm reading, IELTS reading, and TOEFL reading results, showing that S52, the class that was not exposed to L1, was performing more effectively. These results have helped to reaffirm the importance of fully conducting all necessary tests to answer the RQs. Initial response was that there was a difference, and a pattern was found that may prove the difference. It cannot be conclusively determined whether this was a chance pattern until all relevant analysis has been performed; completion of this analysis is necessary to establish reliable results. 165 Table 39: Summary of Inferential Results (2012) Midterm IELTS IELTS TOEFL TOEFL Statistically significant Reading Overall Reading Overall T I S51 Scored No Higher (Arabic) S52 Scored Scored Scored Scored No Higher higher higher Higher (Non- Arabic) In conclusion, the study’s results have not validated the UAE’s assumption that not allowing the use of L1 in the classroom will aid in the acquisition of L2. However, test scores on midterm exams did reveal a statistically significant difference between the two classes; S52, which is the class that did not use L1, scored higher. With the initial findings implying that the use of L1 did not aid in the comprehension of L2 reading, tests given to reveal if the results were statistically significant or if they may be the result of chance revealed no statistical difference between S51, the class that used L1, and S52, the class that did not use L1. The study has not been able to justify the expenditures needed to maintain the program. Instead, the study has found that for both proficiency exams, there is no statistical significance between using L1 in the classroom and not using it. 166 CHAPTER 5.0: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The need to learn a second language, namely English, has become a necessity for many ESL students, including those in the UAE, where students must achieve a minimum required language proficiency score to study in their chosen accredited University English-medium majors. With the discovery of oil in 1962, monies became available to offer educational opportunities to UAE residents with more than 2 billion dollars having been allocated (ECSSR 2010) to help pay for the funding provided to UAE citizens pursuing higher education. This means that more than a third of the tertiary budget is now going to fund Foundation-level courses to help teach L2 to students. With the increasing number of stakeholders, it is only logical that the policy instituted in the 1970’s concerning tertiary education, which dictated that “instruction would be in English,” (UAEMOHESR 2007) would be reexamined through this study. The purpose of this study has been to evaluate the effectiveness of using L1 to teach reading in L2 at a university in the UAE. With several researchers advocating the use of a student’s first language to facilitate competency in the target language (Cook 1999; Schweers 1999; Warford 2007), a programme that uses L1 to teach L2 would likely be advocated; however, the UAE’s assumption appears to be that placing major limitations on the use of L1 will promote the acquisition of L2, and in so doing will reduce the expense of funding Foundation- level courses given that almost 83% of students do not achieve the minimum score required and must enter Foundation programmes (Lewis 2010). A detailed analysis of the research questions employed in this study has been undertaken to further clarify the role of L1 in L2 acquisition. 167 5.1 RQ 1 and 2 This study’s aim has been to investigate the effectiveness of L1 use to teach L2 in a reading class by answering the main RQ: “Does the instructor’s use of L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension?” To answer this question, data has been collected using a variety of tools employing a mixed methods approach that allows both quantitative and qualitative data analysis. This data has been a valuable tool in providing validation for parts of the study, although it has also raised some questions. Tools employed in this study reflect three perspectives, which have been triangulated in order to present a complete picture of factors that may have influenced results: the observational checklist, the student questionnaire, and the teacher interview. These perspectives (Table 5) reflected through these tools have been critical in answering the RQs. The purpose of the classroom observational tool has been to answer RQ 1 and RQ 2. RQ 1 has focused on the amount of L1 use in class by an instructor. The observation checklist has confirmed the use of L1 by I51 in two 50-minute reading classes and confirmed that L1 was not used by I52 in the reading class. It has shown that L1 was used by I51 in two 50-minute classes 66 times, whereas I52 used it zero times in two 50-minute classes. RQ 2’s focus has been on students’ use of Arabic in a reading class. The data has shown that students did use Arabic in their reading classes with S51’s students using 63 Arabic utterances in classes and S52’s students using 17. The classroom observation tool alone has served to answer both RQs because the answers relied on empirical evidence in the form of tally marks that could be achieved using one tool. The classroom observation has not only served to answer these two 168 questions but has also been used in conjunction with the teacher interview tool as well as the student questionnaire tool to answer RQ 1.1 and 2.1. 5.2 RQ 1.1: “What are the reasons for instructor use of Arabic in a reading class?” With the role that L1 plays in the classroom dependent on variety of factors [2.5.1], the debate on the use of L1 in the classroom has been ongoing in the field of SLA (Auerbach 1993; Cook 2001; Nation 1997; Ellis 1999). The observational checklist reveals that individual instructor beliefs ultimately determine the role played by L1, but it has not determined the actual reason for its use. The question of amount of use has been answered by the classroom observational tool, but the reasons for its use, as posed in RQ 1.1 and 2.1, have not been easy to determine. To answer RQ 1.1, the instructor perspective in the form of the teacher interview was needed along with the classroom observational tool to explore the reasons for L1 use. For example, I51 used L1 to greet students but did not distinguish its purpose. His rationale for using L1 to greet his charges was never clarified or delineated, although he must have felt that its use was necessary. For the most part, language instructors have developed an individualised approach to teaching a target language (Levin 2003). Several different factors have influenced these approaches, including pedagogical experiences, knowledge of current SLA literature, and institutional policies, as well as the teaching experience of practitioners, to name just a few (Levin 2003; Schweers 1999). With no one clear answer to the query of what role L1 plays in the classroom emerging, it is necessary to consider the influence of several different ideas that place the subject in varying perspectives. A number of studies have tried to investigate the reasons behind the varying roles of L1 in class as utilised by instructors. Some researchers (Duff & Polio 1990; Johnson 1994; Norris & Ortega 2000; Dekeyser 2003) have examined instructors’ use of L1 at a college level and 169 have found a variety of reasons for its use, including lesson content, grammar instructions, review of test and quiz content in the form of vocabulary, and empathy or solidarity, to name just a few. According to most theorists, the goal of using L1 is to provide comprehensible input that can aid in L2 comprehension (Long 1996; Claros 2008; Guidi 2012; Schmidt 2012). The implication would then prompt the assumption that students exposed to L1 would have more access to comprehensible input, as opposed to students who were not exposed, enabling students exposed to it to comprehend L2 more quickly. This would result in an affirmative answer to the main RQ: “Does the instructor’s use of L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension?” Additionally, it would help to determine if L1 can be an effective tool for teaching L2. It is important to keep in mind the depth of the field of SLA. A better understanding of the concepts relating to the reasons for use of the first language is beneficial, even though the main concern of the observation tool has been to answer RQ 1 and 2 and aid in answering RQ 1.1 and 2.1. Several researchers have explored the use of L1 by instructors in class (Auerbach 1993; Cook 2001), but fewer have focused on classroom use of L1 or code-switching (Bennink & Van Dam 2006; Ellwood 2008). In a classroom atmosphere, some have tried to categorise the alternation of language, or code-switching, that students use. For example, the terms ‘off-record’ or ‘off task’ refer to those instances when students use their first language to converse with other students on topics outside of the lesson; messages in this category are not necessarily meant to be heard by all (Ellwood 2008; Hancock 1997). Both classes have been observed to have this feature in common in that the utterances were not directed to the class but rather to a preset individual or individuals. One way this feature has been categorised during the classroom observation has been in the lowering of the voice. This has 170 usually taken the form of chatting to other students or questioning or answering other students’ questions that were not directed to the instructor. ‘On-record’ or ‘on-task’ are terms used to denote when the conversation is related to the lesson and meant to be heard. This is an interesting concept to keep in mind when considering the frequency of Arabic use by students. To obtain a better understanding of the complexities of code-switching, some have (Hancock 1997) turned to the idea of ‘frame’, by Goffman (1974), who tries to concentrate on “the structure of experience individuals have at any moment of their social lives” (1974, p. 13). He contends that compromise of two types occurs, that of the social and that of the natural. Hancock (1997) presents an interesting interpretation of this theory by applying the idea of framing to an experiment he conducted on code-switching. He uses a more simplified definition of ‘frame’ as being the category of activity in which a student is involved. To better understand this complex idea, it is important to distinguish between two forms, that of literal frame and that of nonliteral frame (Goffman 1974). Literal frame assumes that student behaviour is normal, as opposed to non-literal frame, where students are acting, or role- playing. This can be found in different categories such as “Chatting” and “Working with Peers” in the literal role and “Greetings” and “Responding to Instructors’ Questions” in the nonliteral role. In the nonliteral role, students may feel that they are being observed, either by an instructor or by peers, but in the literal frame, they feel as if they are being observed by a preselected audience. Each frame involves different relationships. In the first frame (literal), students are equals with other classmates. This dynamic has usually been found in group work: Students code-switch without fear of anyone outside the group hearing them and without fear of being penalised for using their L1 in class, which is the case for both sections observed, since both allowed students’ use of L1. This is similar to the ‘off-record’ or ‘off- task’ idea mentioned earlier that has been found in both sections observed. The category of 171 “Greeting Students,” which did receive several uses in the L1, and “Cultural Correctness” have a special role in the UAE because of their place in the Arabic language, with which one should be familiar in order to understand its significance as used in the classroom. One factor that may have influenced these uses of L1 is the gender of the instructors. Because the study has been conducted in a conservative Islamic setting and one of the participants was a male teaching an all-female class, the interaction of students in the presence of a male may have influenced the use of L1 by the students. There is no way of knowing whether this issue of gender may have prompted students to participate more or less, but a degree of influence may have been present. As the next paragraph points out, communicative responses are heavily influenced by many factors, some of which are cultural and religious. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that in a culture where gender roles are conservative and distinct, the gender of an authority figure will have some degree of influence upon student response in an educational environment. Arabic, the native tongue, plays a central role in the UAE, as well as in the other Arab- speaking countries [1.3]. It is considered “the lifeblood that circulates in the hearts and minds of the peoples of twenty-five nations and carries with it the blueprint of a whole civilization” (Sayed 2010, p. 82). Not only is it the only language referred to in the constitution of the UAE, but it is the language of Islam, the religion of the country that was previously mentioned. Another important fact, which was cited by Ferguson (1976), is that “Arabic has a sizeable number of what have been called ‘root-echo responses’” (Ferguson 1967, p. 141), which means that each has a formula with an appropriate response. For these reasons, an instructor may use Arabic in certain classroom situations either as a response or as an 172 expression, comment, or utterance that traditionally provokes a response. As has been mentioned previously [2.5.2], reversion to Arabic can be seen as an answer to the dilemma that students may encounter when their native language is not used, which may impact negatively on their affective filters and hinder language acquisition. In the UAE, as in most Islamic cultures, it is common to greet students with “Assalamu Alaykum” (Ferguson 1976), which is the Islamic greeting meaning “Peace be upon you.” This may be seen as a way “…to establish good rapport with members of a class” (Yusof & Shamsudin 2008, p. 101) when entering a room; a response of “Wa’alaikum salam” (p. 101) usually follows. This is the greeting used in S51 by the instructor. There are many reasons an instructor may feel a need to greet students in their native language. As has been mentioned, it may be a way to set the groundwork for a good relationship, and as Auerbach (1993) states, using L1 in the classroom may give students a sense of security, which will allow students to feel that they are less threatened, functioning in a safe haven, and operating within the traditional religious context of their society. Another important reason to use L1, especially in this region, would entail the use of Arabic in the category of greetings. Religious overtones of the language are significant and founded in the Islamic religion (Kharrat 2000). God (Allah) is imbedded in several speech acts. For example, in English, the common response to a sneeze is, "Bless you,” but in Arabic, the sneezer says "Alhumdullilah" (“Praise be to God”) right after the sneeze, and the common response by others would be “Yarhamukumu Allah” (“May God have mercy on you”). There is then one more necessary response by the sneezer, which is "Athabakumu Allah" (“May God reward you”) (Kharrat 2000). This transaction took place once in the first lesson, in S51. Other utterances that were in this category were the use of the Arabic word “Insha`allah” 173 (“God Willing”), “Mashallah” (“Well done”), and “Bismillah” (“in the name of God”). The important role that these and other words in the same category play in the Arabic language may be one reason the words were not translated into English and instead were uttered in Arabic by one instructor. However, the other instructor determined that these considerations about the language did not justify its use in teaching L2 and made a conscious decision not to use it in class, believing that the main concern of an instructor is to teach L2 and that the exposure to L2 is more important than using a student’s L1 for the reasons already mentioned. It is interesting to note that traditional religious greetings made in L1 by students who entered the class were not met by corresponding L1 responses from the teacher, yet students did not appear shocked or surprised that their L1 greetings were not reciprocated in kind. These considerations have helped allow for more breadth and depth in viewing the classroom results as well as provided the opportunity to test (however small) the theory. Given the benefits of using L1, the logical assumption is that there would be a significant difference between exam scores and that this difference would help to answer the main RQ. The classroom observation confirmed that L1 was being used in S51 by the instructor as well as students for a variety of reasons. The variety of uses of L1 by both instructor and students has been assumed to provide an opportunity to validate the premise of the noticing hypothesis [2.6.1], which had been examined for the literature review and provided what was perceived to be a reasonable hypothesis in that it would promote L2 acquisition with its affirmation that input will not automatically become intake unless it is noticed (Schmidt 2012); L1 would help to promote this by gaining a learner’s attention. Noticing may have been taking place in S51 when the instructor used a word that meant the same for them; they may have noticed the similarity between the concepts being taught. However, this could have also been the case 174 when I52 used synonyms to explain a concept or word in L2. Unfortunately, no pattern has been established, nor was any ‘attention’ observed to have been given by one class over the other when L1 was used. While the premise of noticing is valuable, the tools of this study have not been able to validate or justify its effectiveness. It would then stand to reason, based on the previously presented review of its uses, that students exposed to L1 in class would outperform students that were not exposed to L1; however, the purpose of the classroom observation tool has not been to establish or confirm if the use of L1 was more effective than the non-use but has actually been to confirm that L1 was used in one class and not the other. The supposition has been that the data from the observational checklist, student questionnaire, and teacher interview would help to identify roles that L1 played in the classroom in hopes that it could later be used to help determine if these roles helped to improve the overall performance of students. This determination would be instrumental in answering the main RQ: “Does the instructor’s use of L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension?” An additional unplanned benefit of the observation has been confirmation of the importance of the instructor participants. Instructors in both classes were chosen because they received above average student evaluations and were well experienced and respected in the Department [5.7.1]. This claim has been supported by students, who have appeared to be attentive throughout both classes, asking and answering questions when necessary and engaging in only minimal side distractions, such as playing with phones or fiddling with personal items. Both instructors have used several tools to help students with L2 comprehension; these have consisted of realia, examples, and physical features. I51) chose the tool of L1, but I52 chose not to use L1, even though it was made available. The reason this tool was not used has been discussed in the teacher interview [4.4]. Although all possible 175 attempts have been made to avoid interrupting the natural dynamics of the class, citing Labov’s [1972] observational paradox as discussed earlier [4.0]), instructors in an observed situation will still be prone to teach in a manner they believe the observer will approve of (Howard 2008). Still, the inference can be made that the students genuinely found the class interesting. I51 seemed to freely use expressions that were advocated in the literature [2.0] to help students learn L2, whereas I52 made a conscious decision not to use the students’ L1, which would, according to the theories, influence the students’ self-identity and may cause anxiety [2.6] or feelings of insecurity. However, according to the observation, and confirmed by the student questionnaire, S52’s students did not seem any more anxious or insecure than did the students in S51, for whom L1 was being used. Students in both classes seemed to be participating and enjoying both classes. They were attentive and focused, answering and asking appropriate questions as well as affably interacting with their fellow students. No students in either section were observed to be napping or sitting with bowed heads for an extended period of time. Both instructors kept a watchful eye on all students and made sure they were comprehending class material, regardless of whether L1 or L2 was being used. The lessons ran so smoothly that the researcher found herself wondering whether the lesson being presented was especially designed to show off a particularly successful teaching approach. Regardless, the observation has yielded valuable information; although a lesson may be well planned, it is impossible to predict or manipulate all student responses and reactions to presented lessons. Student reaction is unplanned and spontaneous. Because of the genuine and authentic nature of that student interaction, the observation results have been indispensable to 176 this study; however, as the observation was not able to answer RQ 1.1 and 2.1, an additional tool was needed. To gain the instructor’s perspective, as well as answer RQ 1.1, the structured interview tool was needed to identify reasons for the use of Arabic in a reading class. During the observation of both classes, it has become more evident that the role of the instructor has been key in helping to answer the main RQ: “Does the instructor’s use of L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension?” Both instructors had opposing views of the use of L1 to promote the comprehension of L2; these may be categorised in two camps. The first of these is the natural approach, which advocates the use of the TL for maximum exposure (Duff and Polio 1990; Ellis 1999; Johnson 1995; Krashen and Terrell 1983). This category utilises some of the same concepts as the monolingual approach, the one that the S52 instructor was confirmed to use, and later in the interview, it was confirmed vocally by I52 that she uses the monolingual approach [4.3.1]. The other camp, of which I51 is an advocate, contends that the choice not to use L1 is unrealistic and misguided (Auerbach 1993; Cook 2001; Macaro 2001; Nation 1997); this ideological stance takes its cue from the bilingual approach, whose advocates feel that a native language utterance by an instructor in a classroom “may be more meaningful to students when it comes in their native language” (Yough & Fang 2010, p. 30). One reason for its benefits could be in the form of offering comprehensible input (Long 1996), which will then aid in the achievement of comprehensible output, the focus of this research, specifically with respect to exam scores. A newer teaching method, the New Concurrent Method, even advocates L1 when praising students (Cook 2001; Faltis 1990; Jadallah & Hasan 2011). In general, proponents of the two sides of this ongoing debate have based their views on anecdotal evidence as well as personal classroom experience (Auerback 1993; Cook 2001; 177 Levin 2003; Schweers 1999), rather than empirical evidence. This has been the case with both instructors that took part in the study; both have seemed able to quote theories or ideas that legitimise their own approach used in class, although neither one has offered empirical evidence as support. The instructor interview tool has provided the instructor’s perspective that was needed to help to answer RQ 1.1 and to identify reasons for the use of Arabic in class. The interview tool alone has not been used to investigate the reasons for Arabic use in class but rather has been used along with the classroom observation. This analysis of the classroom observational tools against the instructor interview has added a measure of reliability to the study, which is critical considering the opposite viewpoints held by the instructors. Throughout the interview, each instructor confirmed the teaching style that was observed in the classroom. Instructors defended the use or non-use of L1 in class, as was expected, since both of them represent opposite views regarding the use of L1. While the instructor who used L1 found it to be an ‘asset’, the other found it necessary to warn against its use, contending that if teachers and students are not careful, it may become a ‘habit’ and may be used “whenever difficulty is encountered.” This adamant and oppositional tone was maintained through the interview by the instructor that did not use L1, and she even later alludes to an instructor’s competence, stating: “Teachers must be competent enough to deliver the information and the lesson to their students in the target language,” which implies that a teacher who is using the L1 is not competent [4.3.1]. This issue has been discussed in [2.4.1]. If teachers felt guilty about using L1, it would stand to reason that those teachers not using L1 might have had negative views of those who used it. The forceful nature of this tone has not been exhibited by the other instructor. When asked if he agreed with the exclusion of L1 from class, his answer began 178 with an absolute tone; however, he qualified his answer four times, cautioning that L1 needs to be used “tactfully” and “with discretion” and only when “need arises.” When comparing the interview to the classroom observation, the observer did not discover this same attitude consistently reflected. L1 has been used in class in a variety of situations and categories, and at times, it has been used indiscriminately for everything from explaining lesson components to freely chatting with students. There has not seemed to be any particularly identifiable reason for which L1 is used, even though I51 does point out that he uses it explicitly for ‘greeting students’ and ‘grammar’, which were not the highest-frequency uses in the two classes observed. One explanation that may reconcile the inconsistency that appears when comparing the results may be that, like the students, he was not aware of the amount of L1 he was using in class, nor was he aware of the purpose for which the L1 was being used. The two categories he did mention have received considerable attention (Cook 2001; Macaro 2001; Nation 1997; Scott 2008); these may have been mistakenly assumed to represent the categories that had the most frequent L1 use. The observation of the two classes has produced no clear pattern role for L1 use; usage seems to have been based mostly on need. If a student asked a question in L1, the instructor responded in L1; if the student asked in L2, the instructor responded in L2. At this point, the limitations of the study may play a part: A pattern of some sort may have emerged upon further observation; the two classroom observations were likely not enough to allow for a comprehensive picture of the L1/L2 classroom use dynamic to emerge. Also, there has been no clear answer to RQ 1.1 that identified reasons for using Arabic in a reading class that were apparent in both tools. The interview tool has not been able to answer RQ 1.1 but has provided valuable insight on situations that may have been overlooked during the observation. 179 Some interview results were contradictory, however, in that I51 cautioned against the random use of L1 while apparently using it randomly in class. One concept that emerged through the interview is one instructor’s interest in a student’s L1 reading habits, which is advocacy of the Linguistic Interdependency Hypothesis [2.5]; he asked his students if they read in L1. This hypothesis was valuable in understanding the field, especially in that it may have been a factor influencing the acquisition of L2. However, its underlying principle, that a learner’s L1 ability is directly linked to L2 reading ability, would be difficult to impossible to establish in this study. When comparing the interview to the classroom observation, one commonalty could not be ignored: that of how well prepared each instructor was to offer the response that would most effectively endorse his or her views. Both instructors offered well-conceived and structured responses, likely because they had been sent the questions ahead of time via email to minimise any response-related anxiety or apprehension. In retrospect, this may not have been the best choice since some degree of spontaneity and naturalness was lost. It is difficult to discern whether providing the instructors with the interview questions ahead of time was more or less beneficial to the interview activity. 5.3 RQ 2.1: “What are the reasons for a student’s use of Arabic in a class?” To help answer RQ 2.1, which focuses on the reasons for students’ use of Arabic in class, a tool that was able to ascertain student perspective has been used in the form of the student questionnaire. The observational checklist has provided valuable insight on the actions of students with reference to L1 use but has not provided the reasons for its use. The results of both tools have been valuable in answering RQ 2.1. Student questionnaires have been used to 180 try to determine the most effective roles of L1 as well as to collect student perspectives on the issue. Although the questionnaire is usually assessed as one of the most popular instruments (Dörnyei & Taguchi 2010; Silverman 2002), the results for this study have proved to be the most disappointing in terms of validation of data. The prepared lessons and the interview responses have lacked spontaneity, as mentioned earlier, but they have still provided a certain degree of valuable insight and useful data. However, the questionnaires have been problematic in the sense that they do not appear to have been taken seriously by the students. Additionally, the assumption has been that the questionnaire would to some extent correspond to the observation; however, this has not been the case in several of the questions since L1 was observed to be used frequently by instructors and students, yet the questionnaire has showed a lower preference for its use. This has been found in the category of questions to teachers, wherein 15% of the L1 use was directed to that category, yet the question “I prefer to ask my teacher questions in L1” has received one of the most unfavorable responses. One scenario that can be explored as a reason for this discrepancy is that students were not aware of when they were using L1. There has been research done regarding instructors not being aware of when they use L1 (Edstrom 2009; Polio & Duff 1994), leaving the implication that students are also not aware of when they are using L1. Another factor that may influence responses is the “halo effect” (Aiken 1979; Clayson 2008), wherein students will rate something as ‘good’ or ‘high’ based on one characteristic trait rather than on other variables that may not be associated with what they believe to be ‘good’. Basically, if they ‘like’ an instructor, they may answer in a way that reflects what they believe that instructor wants to hear. Some studies have even presented research wherein students reported “information on the evaluations that they know is not true. Whether this is malicious or even done consciously is not always evident” (Clayson 2011, p. 102). Students have filled out evaluations on 181 instructors who did not exist and on presentations that never took place (Clayson 2011). These factors could have influenced the overall data results and might have conflicted with what was observed in the classroom. Both instructors were chosen because they were ‘well liked’ by the students, as shown by their above-average evaluations [3.7.1]. This presents an interesting and rather complicated scenario in that if students felt that using L1 would somehow present the teacher in a negative light (since they would be aware of the L2-only policy in class), they would then likely be inclined to answer questions that would portray the instructor in a more positive light. The questionnaires were given to the students to complete independently towards the end of the term, the assumption being that they would prefer to complete them more honestly; however, the truthfulness of the participants in light of the results is questionable and cannot be confirmed. One factor that could have influenced responses is the social desirability bias, which may have occurred when students may have “reported” rather than answered according to preference (Dörnyei & Taguchi 2010). Most students are aware that L1 is not supposed to be used in an English-medium classroom, and they may feel as well that using L1 in some way is a testament of their own failures or guilt (Auerbach 1993; Cook 2001; Mitchell 1988); consequently, they might be inclined to choose an answer that would be expected of them. This has been most apparent in reviewing the results and finding that the class who used L1 responded “Always” .05%, and 30% answered with “Never” in the preference category. Student responses to the questionnaire may not have yielded reliable data for several reasons. The timing of the questionnaire activity may have played a role in response to it. The questionnaire was given towards the end of the term when most students had either passed a 182 proficiency exam or were studying for one. The level of interest in participating in the questionnaire was far from enthusiastic, and at times, several reminders had to go out to students to please turn in their questionnaires. Because of this attitude, responses have been at times found to be contradictory to observations. Only by using a mixed methods approach and analysing the questionnaire both quantitatively and qualitatively have these discrepancies been clearly visible. With several inconsistencies in data, the questionnaire has proved to be one of the most difficult tools to analyse; moreover, it has yielded results that have not necessarily been valuable to this study since their validity and reliability were both being questioned. Another factor that may have contributed to the results is the language that was used in the wording of the questions. Even though questions were piloted to a previous class, for which no problems arose, and although these questions were adapted from another study that did not report any problems in wording, some questions may have implied different situations outside of the classroom, as discussed in 4.5.1. The potential for these situations may have influenced responses. Unfortunately, the complicated nature of the results, coupled with the fact that said results have not appeared to mirror that which was observed, have rendered a useful analysis difficult. Moreover, because students were no longer accessible after the responses were compiled, there has been no opportunity to perform follow-up and clarify certain answers given by the students. One important factor that has emerged during the qualitative analysis of the data is the ease of finding scholarly references that advocated almost every conceivable use of L1 [2.0]. This fact has been discussed in 2.0 and echoed in Greene’s (1998) statement that scholarly research can be found to support several different claims that use of L1 is either effective or non- effective, provided the researcher is selective in his choices, as seen in (Norris & Ortega 183 2000). Utterances may be implicit or explicit (DeKeyser 2003), and this type of feedback may also provide benefits (Long 1998; Norris & Ortega 2000). The classroom observation has presented numerous utterances by students and instructor, and almost every one of these utterances can be validated or justified through existing academic research. This is not to say that a few theorists have not tried to narrow and outline specific roles for which L1 can be used to help lessen anxiety and increase motivation. One researcher or another is always advocating an additional role or use that may encompass several other roles. As Long (2006) has cautioned [2.1], the development of the SLA field by people with different disciplinary backgrounds and epistemological allegiances has left the field fragmented with the variety of theories being proposed. This has also been found to be true in the instructor interviews, where selection of scholarly research has been found to promote each instructor’s views, even though they were both fundamentally opposite. The abundance of scholarly research on the topic of SLA serves to give breadth and depth to the field, but it can also prompt interested observers to lose sight of the fact that several of these theories do not have the empirical evidence that is needed to legitimise their effectiveness, a feature that has prompted serious criticism of Krashen’s theories (Ellis 1997; Larsen & Freeman 1991; Long 2006) and is a critical focal point of this study. The observational checklist, teacher interview, and student questionnaire have produced a variety of results, all of which have confirmed that all the discussions and controversy dealing with SLA have been justified. Review of tools using qualitative analysis has proved to be complicated and at times contradictory. The data results have not answered the main RQ: “Does the instructor’s use of L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension?” nor were they expected to answer the main questions without a prior investigation of RQ 3. Instead, the 184 qualitative data has been used to help balance and produce a better understanding of what contributed to the end results. This data has assisted in the determination of whether those results are accurate or if they may have been influenced by undetermined variables such as motivation and anxiety. Two of the tools (observation and instructor-structured interview) appear to have supported each other; however, the questionnaire was another matter entirely in that at times, the data have been both contradictory and questionable. Interestingly, the tools have not identified any pattern that would help to identify a specific influential factor. 5.4 RQ 3: “What impact does the use of the L1 in the classroom have on student reading examination marks?” The objective of this study is to try to answer the main RQ: “Does the instructor’s use of L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension?” To answer this question, the answer to RQ 3, which comprised three different sub-questions, first needed to be answered, and this response has required quantitative data in the form of the MT, IELTS, and TOEFL exam scores analyses. The intent of this study has been to determine if exposure during one term to an instructor who uses L1 during a reading lesson will help students achieve higher scores than students that are not exposed to a teacher that uses L1 during a reading lesson. The importance of attaching numbers to things is prevalent in society, [3.2] giving importance to test results (Spielberger and Vagg 1995) that are assigned numerical form, which can then establish a sense of reassurance that results are scientific and valid (Kohn 2000). Using quantitative methods, data has been collected and measured to attain a statistically mathematical outcome (Cunning 2012). The qualitative analysis of data has reflected a certain intent of this approach to help facilitate a better understanding of any influences that may have affected the results by exploring variables that may have led to those results rather than just reporting them in a one-dimensional manner. The main results and conclusions would be 185 based on the quantitative analysis of the data. Once data had been collected and analysed, an attempt to answer the RQs was possible. The results of the quantitative analysis could then be used to support the UAE’s 1970 policy concerning tertiary education, which dictated that English would be the mode of instruction (UAEMOHESR 2007), as well as answer RQ 3. However, before RQ 3 could be answered, the answer to RQ 3.1 was necessary. 5.5 RQ 3.1: “Is there any significant difference between the midterm scores of students who are exposed to L1 in reading comprehension classes and those who are not?” Empirical evidence was needed to answer RQ 3.1 in the form of MT scores. To ensure reliability and validity of the results, all scores have had to follow a two-test procedure. The first SPSS test would establish if there was any difference in the scores, and the second would then establish if this difference was statistically significant. Both steps are needed to confirm the correct test for what needs to be measured. The MT was the first to be analysed, and a test has been conducted to compare the mean results of the two groups. If the test showed that one group’s mean score was higher than the other, then the next test would be conducted to find if the score was statistically significant, which would then answer RQ 3.1. The tool needed to answer RQ 3.1 was the independent sample t-test, which has been conducted, and the results have shown that there was a significant difference between the MT scores, with the class that did not use L1, S52, receiving higher midterm grades. This implies that L1 did not aid in achievement of higher reading MT scores, which would seem to justify the UAE stance on not using L1 in class and to fully answer RQ 3.1: “Is there any significant difference between the midterm scores of students who are exposed to L1 in reading comprehension classes and those who are not?” 186 5.6 RQ 3.2 and 3.3: “Is there any significant difference between the TOEFL/IELTS reading scores of students who are exposed to L1 in reading comprehension classes and those who are not?” The same tool, the independent t-test, has been used to answer RQ 3.2 and 3.3. Before the proficiency exam scores were analysed to answer the main RQ, correlation tests were established to learn if there is any correlation between the reading scores and the overall scores. Both of the correlation tests have shown that there was a correlation between the reading and the overall scores of both proficiency tests, with the TOEFL prediction deemed stronger because the association between the scale parametric variables was high, which means that the reading scores could predict the overall exam scores. Because the IELTS exam comprised four different skills and the TOEFL exam comprised three, it was beneficial to be able to confirm how important the reading skill was in predicting scores, which helped to confirm the importance of reading to academic success [1.1] If the reading skill is key in prediction of the overall score, it can be inferred that reading should be the central focus of educational institutions. With the MT score results yielding that S52 mean scores were higher, and given that these results were statistically significant and the correlation tests conducted were showing that a prediction can be made for the proficiency exams, the next step was to analyse the TOEFL and IELTS reading scores with the intent of answering RQ 3.2 and 3.3. The supposition has been that the class that was not exposed to L1, S52, would have higher scores since the IELTS reading exam had the same type of concepts tested as the midterm; the implication was that the class that was not exposed to L1 would perform better (as they had on the MT). When using a correlation test, the initial test results have shown that S52 (the class that did 187 not use L1) scored better on the IELTS reading, which suggests that non-use of L1 would aid in student comprehension. This implication has only been made stronger with the analysis of the TOEFL reading results, which has also shown that S52 performed better on the reading section than S51, but they did not provide the answer to RQ 3.2 or 3.3. These first tests have seemed to indicate that S52, the students who were not exposed to L1, performed better. These results would imply that the answer to the main RQ: “Does the instructor’s use of L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension?” is negative in that it does not aid students, thereby justifying the UAE policy of mandating English (L2) as the mode of instruction. A pattern seemed to have developed which would quiet any reservations about the results; this pattern might well indicate that no more data testing was required and force a conclusion, especially in light of the fact that the MT results have proved statistical significance. Before the validity of any pattern could be confirmed, however, and prior to confirmation of any results as statistically significant and not just due to chance, the independent t-test tool was needed to analyse data whose results would then answer RQ 3.2 and 3.3. Failure to run these tests could lead to misconceptions about the effectiveness of L1. An independent sample t-test tool has been used for both the TOEFL and the IELTS results, which would aid in establishing answers to RQ 3.2 and 3.3. The data analysed by the tool has revealed that there is no statistically significant difference between the TOEFL and IELTS reading scores of students who were exposed to L1 in class and implies that the initial pattern identified for S52, who did not use Arabic and outperformed the class that did, may have been due to chance. 188 Answers for RQ 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 were dependent upon set data from exam results. Each question related to a specific exam, but because the MT results have proved to be different from the other two, the impact that L1 had in the classroom has not been easily defined. As a result of these factors, a complete response could not be provided for RQ 3. Several factors may explain why students performed as they did on the exams. The midterm exam was tied to classroom lessons in that some of the same themes and vocabulary were used. This is not to say that the same questions were found on the MT as were given in the class, rather that the theme that has been used in class was carried forward to the MT. This may have given students an advantage in that they had readings that were thematically similar and studied certain vocabulary words that would have been practiced in class. Given that students have been reading thematically similar text in the class, it would be reasonable to assume that some of the vocabulary words recurred on the MT. This might have given students somewhat of an outline to study for the exam, which may have led to the higher scores. This surmise may help to explain why some got higher scores; however, it also leaves open the question of why the other class did not, given that both instructors followed the same syllabus (Appendix D1) and covered the same material. However, one variable that was not the same was the amount of exposure to L2. As mentioned by Slavin & Cheung (2005), a number of intrinsic issues arise when dealing with SLA. Consideration has to be given to age as well as to the duration of time L2 has been taught. Learners’ ages have been the focus of several studies (Bialystok & Hakutaas 1999; Birdsong 2005; DeKeyser 2000), and although most suggest that age does affect SLA, several questions remain unanswered, including those concerning the length and extent of exposure 189 of learners, and as observed by Birdsong (2005), not all researchers are in agreement concerning the effects of this exposure. This may have been a factor that influenced exam scores: Age of participants differed no more than three years, and all had graduated from a UAE school, which means that the degree of exposure in school was approximately the same. One factor that was beyond this study was the extent and exposure of learners to the L2 outside of the classroom. Instructors were asked in the interview questions about students’ reading habits outside of the classroom (Question 3 and 4), but only one of the instructors had explored the issue with students. This was an unforeseen factor in that neither of the two instructors had explored the topic in class, and by the time the interview had been conducted, the term was over, which left the factor not fully investigated in this study. This issue may have had some influence on exam scores, which is an issue that has been cited by researchers (Bernhardt & Kamil 1995; Nuttall 1996; Taillefer & Pugh 2002), who have connected students’ reading in their native language to reading in a second language. The amount of exposure to L2 is not a concept that has gone unnoticed by researchers. Many advocating the use of L1 have cautioned against its overuse and against not providing enough exposure to L2 in the classroom (Cook 2001; Cook 2007; Duff & Polio 1990; Prodromou 2002), which may have been a pivotal factor in influencing MT scores. However, based on this assumption, it may also be assumed that the class that did not use L1 should have scored statistically significantly higher in both the IELTS and TOEFL reading exam, since their exposure was greater. However, this was not the case in that the initial score did not prove to be statistically significant. 190 Failure to complete the two-step test would have yielded different results. All three reading tests initially showed that the class that was not exposed to L1, S52, scored higher on the reading exams and that after the two-test procedure, only one result was actually statistically significant. Many factors may have influenced the results, such as motivation (Dornyei 1994; Schweers 1999; Levin 2003) and lessening of anxiety (Horwitz 2001; Kim 2009), which have been mentioned by researchers as having a positive effect when L1 is used, and these are also factors that may have influenced scores. The assumption that students who were exposed to L1 in class would be more motivated and have less anxiety leads to the inference that they would outperform students that were not exposed to L1 in class. Motivational factors for both classes to attain a preset score that was needed to continue their education was the same for both classes. Temporal factors that would contribute to anxiety were also the same in that all the exams were timed. Unfortunately, however, the results did not validate this assumption. The MT results showed that S52 had statistically significant higher scores, but the other test not only did not confirm this; on one occasion, it even contradicted it. 5.7 Main RQ: “Does the instructor’s use of L1 in class aid students in L2 reading comprehension?” The results of all of the secondary RQs have been required to formulate an answer to the main RQ, but as these results were inconclusive, a definitive response to the main RQ was not possible. Two of the questions, those related to the TOEFL and the IETLS, have yielded an answer of no statistical difference, but one answer has revealed a statistical difference in MT scores that favoured the class that did not use L1. Summarily, then, the answer to this question is that the results were not strong enough to definitively indicate that L1 was an aid 191 or a hindrance to reading comprehension. The empirical evidence does not validate the UAE’s current policy cautioning against L1 classroom use, nor does it justify the expenditures needed to maintain the program. To better understand the complicated outcome of the main RQ, a broader look at the proficiency exam results was undertaken in light of the fact that the reading skill is crucial for academic success [1.1]. An independent t-test has been conducted to determine whether the overall scores were statistically significant for one class over the other. Results have proved that there was no statistical significance in overall scores for the classes in terms of both the TOEFL and IELTS scores, which indicates that there was no difference between the class that used L1 and the class that did not. 5.8 Review of Research Results Because RQs 1 and 2 were dependent on empirical evidence, clear and straightforward answers to these questions were possible. However, RQ 1.1 and 2.1 results were more complicated in that they revealed no particular reason that students or instructors use L1 in a reading class, which implies that that no particular reason for use of L1 can be identified in a reading class. During reading classes, the use of L1 did not hinder student acquisition of L2 according to two of the three tests on exam scores, as found in RQ 3.2 and 3.3, but use of L1 did seem to hinder student acquisition of L2 based on the results of 3.1. One factor that may have influenced the results is the differing roles that have been advocated for L1 use in the form of grammar instruction. I51 was observed using L1 while teaching grammar in his reading class and also confirmed this use in the instructor interview, wherein he stated that he did use L1 when teaching certain grammatical aspects of his class. However, I52 did not use L1 to teach grammar during his reading class. The assumption that may reasonably be 192 reached is that the class that did receive some instruction in L1 when being taught grammar would perform better in grammar. However, this study has not proved that assumption to be valid. The reading class that did receive instruction in L1 while being taught grammar did not achieve a higher score on the TOEFL exam, which has a grammar/structure section. The class that did not receive instruction in L1 in grammar did achieve higher scores on the TOEFL exam. Admittedly, other factors may have had an effect on the overall exam scores. The overall scores of the proficiency exams yielded results suggesting that there was no difference between the two sections; therefore, it cannot absolutely be determined that L1 hindered the learning process. One other factor that may have influenced the results is the issue of time. The Foundation programme at the University where this research took place is a two-year programme with four levels, each level equalling one term. Ideally, students move through the levels as a cohort and exit together as a group; however, this has not proved to be the reality. As this study has shown, students exited at different times, which is an uncontrollable variable relative to the examination data needed for this study. Exiting students’ scores were still used, but the different times that students exited may affect the statistical outcome of the scores since a student who completes the term may achieve a higher exiting score than a student who exits early. For example, in S51, 13% of the students took the IELTS exam prior to Week 3 of the term, whereas in S52, 17% of the students had sat for the IELTS. Data may have been influenced by the fact that students who took the exam early and achieved the minimum required score may have not had as much time in class because they were able to leave the class as soon as they attained the desired result. 193 An attempt was made to control for as many variables as possible. Both teachers used for this study followed the same curriculum and had the same set of objectives (set by the Department), which indicated that they were all deemed to share a similar level of difficulty; in addition, they spent the same amount of time on each lesson in class. Unfortunately, what the students did at home and on their own time was a variable that could not be controlled in this situation. Some students may have spent more time studying than others, and this too may have had an effect on the results. Another limitation was the cultural background of the students. Some students may have had more access to English than others (friends, family and life style), giving them an advantage over other students with very limited access to English outside of the classroom. It is probable that the initial exam to place them in the control group alleviated most, but not all, of these concerns. The use of L1 in reading classes has been the primary focus for this study, and the instructor’s use or non-use of the L1 has been one of the key factors that has needed to be verified for the research. This has been accomplished through the classroom observations as well as teacher interviews. What has not been controllable has been the use of L1 in a classroom setting. Students in both classes used L1, although S51 used it much more than S52. No matter how infrequent the usage, student use of L1 in class could have influenced the results. Many other factors might have been influential as well; hence, the need for a mixed methods approach. Given that the data has not indicated that use of L1 hindered the L2 reading skill, it may be assumed that this study’s findings have not supported opposition to L1 use in the classroom, nor have they justified opposition to the consensus of most of the literature, which is that L1 instruction aids in SLA. Although initial results show a slight difference in scores between 194 students exposed to L1 and those who were not exposed, the difference has not been sufficient to justify or validate the expenditures and resources allocated to the current policy, nor have the differences been great enough to answer the main RQ. If use of L1 can contribute to the acquisition of L2, rather than continuing to spend money and time adhering to the "policy" of prohibiting regular use of L1 in the classroom, the arbiters of the institution’s financial management might better spend their time exploring learning methods that would benefit the students, especially since failure to pass these important exams might negatively affect students’ ability to pursue their majors, and in some cases, even their futures. Further support for this position is offered by several researchers, who have cited (previously noted) that instruction in a student’s L1 helps with motivation and can contribute to a better learning environment. Although the main RQ has not been satisfactorily answered, tools used in this study, as well as the study itself, have prompted a number of recommendations that may prove useful to those who are currently grappling with the issue of effective use of L1 in the classroom. 5.9 Recommendations In this section, recommendations will be presented based on the classroom observation, the student questionnaire, the SPSS analysis and the results of the RQs. During preparation, many considerations came to mind concerning the different techniques, methods, and ideologies currently in use and how these principles and methods could be incorporated in order to improve and enhance SLA instruction. The first recommendations presented are from the qualitative data that was collected for the study, namely the classroom observation and the student questionnaire. 195 Recommendation 1 For teachers to engage students in conversation, it is important for them to have an awareness of their students’ background and culture to connect more easily and to allow them to feel less threatened and more willing to practice the language. Student interaction is also key in a language classroom, and this has been evident in the classroom observation [4.2], where the instructor who greeted the students in their culture’s traditional manner experienced greater classroom participation. RQ1 and RQ2 focus on students’ use of L1 as well as reasons for its use, the rationale for this emphasis being that greater teacher awareness of their students’ environments and culture may influence the frequency with which students use their L1 and interact. This phenomenon may be observed in S51, wherein the instructor who was actively aware of his student’s culture experiences a significantly higher level of interaction in class than the instructor who does not show an interest in her students’ culture and background. Recommendation 2 To answer RQ 1 and 1.1, the amount of L1 use by an instructor in a reading class was investigated. The instructor that used L1 in class (S51) had stated in the interview that L1 should only be used sparingly and not randomly. However, during the classroom observation, it was observed that there was no clear pattern for its use. This observation leads to the implication that the instructor may not be aware of the amount of L1 actually being used. It is also important that instructors remain aware of the possibility of overuse of L1 in the classroom. As many theorists and studies have noted, L1 is used most effectively only as a last resort; students need the maximum amount of exposure in L2 (Cook 2007; Cummins 2007; Krashen 1985). If L1 is used excessively, students may use L1 as a crutch and revert to it simply because it is easier, rather than attempting the more difficult use of L2. Once an instructor has introduced the concept that the use of L1 is acceptable at any time in the class 196 for any task, students may take advantage of the concept and find the reversion (reuse) to L1 to be a convenient option. One way that an instructor can be made aware of the amount of L1 being used in the classroom is to do self-checks, recording more than one lesson and using the recording to hear and monitor first-hand how often he is using L1. The recommendation is for this to be a self-check rather than a peer observation or an observation done by someone in a supervisory role. The reason for this was mentioned earlier: That which is observed by others may not be an accurate reflection of what is actually happening in class. Also, rather than a tool used punitively, this is most effectively employed as a way to make the instructor aware of the extent of L1 use. The recommendation is to limit L1, not banish it. This was also echoed in the student questionnaire: 0% of the students “preferred” the instructor to use Arabic in the classroom. 5.10 Research Challenges and Limitations Working with samples that represented the population has been a major concern during the selection process. The study used only 32 female students: ideally, a larger group of female students would be more advantageous. This has been a factor with multiple facets, including not only the actual number of students enrolled in the programme, but also the language proficiency level of those students enrolled in Level 3. Another factor that has limited the study has been the instructor participants. Increasing the study to include more than just two instructors would have been beneficial, but finding more instructors that fit the criteria that were required for the study has been one barrier, especially given the touchy subject of L1 use in class [2.0]. Another issue concerning instructor participants was the requirement that the participants be teaching reading to the same level of students, and that they be doing so on the same campus. Furthermore, finding willing 197 instructor participants for this study has proved to be a difficult task, and this proposition has been complicated further by the gender issue: any mention of gender as a study criterion would have served to limit the pool of willing participants even more. Other difficulties (previously addressed) have included the research instruments used for the study, although it is not easy to determine whether different tools would have produced more definitive results. Structured questionnaires, which have been used for all study participants, can offer valuable feedback; however, they can have limited effectiveness owing to their dependence upon factors such as honesty of the participants as well as resistance of participants to factors such as social bias and perception of desired response. This holds true both for instructors and students. While the class observation is an indispensable, real-time tool, its primary drawback is found in the phenomenon of Labov’s Observational Paradox (1972), which is a virtually unavoidable factor of any study involving a researcher whose databank necessitates face-to-face commerce with her target group for research purposes. Related limitations affecting this study have included the alternative of video recording, which was eliminated from consideration owing to certain cultural issues associated with the female student participants. The time factor has proved a limitation as well; a study performed over multiple terms might have produced more definitive or useful results. Finally, teaching schedules of all three instructors had to be kept in mind when conducting observations as well as instructor interviews. Another limitation of the tools has been the triangulation of data that was needed in order to answer the RQs. Most RQs required more than one perspective (researcher, instructor, or student), which meant that more than one tool was needed to answer the main RQ. This 198 limitation has been further complicated when data results were not in conjunction with each varying perspective, as found in answering RQ 2.1, which focuses on the students’ reasons for using Arabic in a reading class, where the student observation tool from the research perspective and the student questionnaire tool at times showed contradicting results. 5.11 Conclusion It may be reasonably assumed that that acquisition of a second language is no longer a luxury but that it is almost a necessity if one is to compete in the contemporary employment market of the Middle East. The UAE is one country that has taken this idea to heart, having moved forward to ensure that it is providing as many opportunities to its citizens as possible to achieve bilingual status. However, in pursuit of this goal, the UAE, along with many other countries, has faced many obstacles along the way but has still demonstrated a firm commitment to this objective, having pledged almost a third of its national budget to education (Rojewski 2004). One issue that is still under consideration is the most effective way to teach English, especially reading, to students whose first language is Arabic. The purpose of this study has been to evaluate the effectiveness of using L1 to teach reading in L2 in response to major limitations on its use resulting from the UAE’s position that use of L1 will not aid in the acquisition of the target language. An attempt has been made to validate this assumption in order to justify the significant monetary expenditure required to support the policy of prohibiting use of L1 in the classroom, and although results have been by no means conclusive, they have been provocative and merit further research. For students who are being educated in a foreign or second language medium, reading presents particular challenges that exceed the difficulty of comprehending, digesting, and analysing the reading material because the language barrier makes the material prohibitive from the standpoint of more fundamental linguistic features such as vocabulary, idiom, and usage (Adamson 1993). It may generally be 199 assumed that ESOL students will have more problems comprehending the reading throughout their courses because they lack the necessary L1 language development and knowledge (Grabe 1991). Through this research, exploration of the never-ending debate of the role of L1 in teaching L2 has been undertaken. A mixed methods approach has been employed in combination with a quantitative survey approach. The mixed methods approach permits exploration of not just the results, which have been analysed using the SPSS system, but it also explores the reason these results were achieved. Qualitative methods such as the observational checklist, the student questionnaire, and the teacher interview have all helped to clarify the results analysed using a quantitative method. With the analysis of the qualitative data, no pattern has emerged from the classroom observation concerning the role of L1 use during reading classes. The teacher interview has assisted in establishing the pedagogical reasons for the use or non-use of L1 in class by an instructor, while the student questionnaire has yielded unreliable data with several contradictions in comparisons to the classroom observation. To provide empirical evidence, the SPSS system has been used to help analyse quantitative data. The results of the midterm scores have revealed that scores of S52, the non-Arabic group, were higher and more statistically significant than those of S51. The next step was to attempt to determine whether there was any correlation between the reading and the overall scores on the proficiency exam. Using the correlation test, it has been confirmed that both the IELTS and TOEFL exams indicate that a prediction can be reasonably assumed. To answer the RQs, scores have been analysed to attempt to determine whether there was any difference between the reading proficiency scores and the overall. While the test did indicate that there was a difference in the reading scores, these differences were not statistically significant and 200 could be due to chance. These were the same results that were yielded for the overall scores, a fact that is indicative that the difference in scores may be due to chance. In conclusion, it seems that perhaps the results yield more questions than answers. The aim of this study has been to attempt to validate the assumption that not using L1 in the classroom will have a positive effect on students’ ability to acquire L2 because the ‘policy’ in the UAE of prohibiting L1 use in the classroom has been in place for several years; the study has also attempted to find empirical evidence that will justify the expenditures being made to maintain the program. The study has not been able to justify the expenditures of the UAE policy of prohibiting the use of L1 in classroom. Instead, it has been found that there is no statistical significance in using or not using L1 in the reading classroom based on both proficiency exams. The findings may be the result of several variables that have been beyond the scope of this study; however, more research is needed to identify and address the factors and variables that may have influenced the results. If factors influencing the effect of SLA can be identified, such as the manner or extent to which it can be used, it will be easier to determine the most effective way to use the learner’s native language in the reading classroom. Given the high stakes involved in the acquisition of English, this is an especially important objective. As the world becomes more globalised, every ESL instructor must address the need to educate students to communicate in the world’s most widely used language. On the front lines, instructors find themselves facing obstacles in the form of policies from their administrations that affect teaching and time constraints that limit the depth of learning. Additionally, instructors must constantly work to increase student motivation to pass required proficiency exams, a mandate in competition with the primary pedagogical objective, which is to teach a language. A certain level of English-language proficiency is certainly needed, and therefore, a competency mandate in that area is reasonable and justifiable. However, because 201 of the tremendous pressure placed upon students to pass these English-language entrance exams, teachers as well as students feel the pressure to prioritize them above all other tasks. The pitfalls of “teaching to the test” are obvious and not easily avoided. The mandate of the instructor is to reconcile the need and passion to provide a liberal education with the strictures and pressures posed by the necessity to prepare students to pass an all-important exam that will directly influence their academic futures and, in many cases, the lives of their families. This is a challenge that is not easy to meet, yet it remains in the forefront of the battle to prepare students to engage both professionally and academically in the commerce of the English-speaking world. With respect to the use of L1 as an educational tool, if it has been determined that L1 is an effective in-class enhancement to student comprehension; consequently, I would have no hesitation in using it, and given that much of the literature advocates at least some limited use of L1 as beneficial, and with the results of this study showing that L1 has not hindered the acquisition process, a decision not to use it would appear to be an unnecessary obstacle to the already difficult learning process. 202 References Abu-Dhabi Urban Planning Council (ADUPC). (2011). Abu Dhabi Vision 2030. [Accessed 7 August 2011] Available at: http://www.upc.gov.ae/abu-dhabi-2030/capital-2030.aspx?lang=en-US. Adams, M. (1978). ‘Methodology for examining second language acquisition.’ In Hatch, E (ed.), Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings. Massachusetts: Newbury House. pp. 278- 96. Adams, M, & Collins, A. (1979). A schema-theoretic view of reading. New Directions in Directions in Discourse Processing. New Jersey: Ablex. Adamson, H. D. (1993). Academic competence: Theory and classroom practice--preparing ESL students for content courses. New York: Longman. Aiken, Lewis R. (1979). Psychological Testing and Assessment. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Al-Alawi, T. M. (2008). Teachers’ Beliefs and practices about the use of L1. In S. Borg (Ed). Investigating English language teaching and learning in Oman. Oman: Ministry of Education 1-9. Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does Washback Exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), pp. 115-129 Alderson, J. C. (2010). Language testing-informed SLA? SLA-informed language testing? Communicative Proficiency and Linguistic Development: intersections between SLA and Language testing research, (1) pp. 239-248. Al-Hinai, M. K. (2006). The use of the L1 in the elementary English language classroom. Class room research in English language teaching in Oman. Muscat: Ministry of Education, Sultanate of Oman. [Accessed 10 August 2010] Available at: http://www.moe.gov.om/Portal/sitebuilder/sites/EPS/English/MOE/baproject/Ch2.pdf Al-Nofaie, Haifa. (2010). The Attitudes of Teachers and Students towards using Arabic in EFL classrooms in Saudi Public Schools - A Case Study. Novitas Royal research on youth and language. [online] vol 4(1). [Accessed on 4 September 2011] Available at http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_4_1/al-nofaie.pdf. Alsheikh, N. O., & Elhoweris, H. M. (2011). United Arab Emirates (UAE) high school students’ motivation to read in English as a foreign language. International Journal, vol. 5 (4), pp. 53- 69. Ammon, U., & McConnell, G. D. (2002). English as an Academic Language in Europe. Frankfurt: Peterlang. Anderson, D. (2005). What is Reading?: What is the best way to teach reading? Reading Literacy [Accessed on 5 September 2011] Available at http://www.admc.hct.ac.ae/hd1/documents/Reading%20Literacy-1.pdf 203 Anderson, J. (1993). Is a communicative approach practical for teaching English in China? Pros and cons. System, 21(4), pp. 471-480. Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3), pp. 314-342. Anttiroiko, A. V., & Mälkiä, M. (Eds.). (2007). Encyclopaedia of digital government. London: IGI Global. Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource? ETL Journal, 41(4), pp. 241-247. Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), pp. 9-32. Bachman, L. F., & Purpura, J. E. (2008). ‘Language Assessments: Gate-Keepers or Door-Openers?’ In Spolsky, B. & F. Hutt (eds). The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing LTD. 456-468. Bailey, K. M. (1996). Voices from the language classroom: Qualitative research in second language education. London: Cambridge University Press. Baker, D. (2003). Why English Teachers in Japan need to learn Japanese. The Language Teacher. [online], [Accessed 22 December 2009]. Available at http://www.jalt-publication. Baker, K. A., & De Kanter, A. A. (1981). Effectiveness of Bilingual Education: A Review of the Literature. Washington: Office of Planning and Budget [Accessed 23 October 2009] Available at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED215010.pdf Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), pp. 122-147. Bandura, Albert. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), pp. 191-215. Bardsley, D. (2009), State pupils’ English skills delay degree programs. The National. [online] 3 February 2009. [Accessed 20 September 2012]. Available at: www.thenational.ae/news/uae- news/education. Behi, R., & Nolan, M. (1995). Ethical issues in research. British Journal of Nursing (Mark Allen Publishing), 4(12), pp. 712-719. Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (2005). Writing the qualitative dissertation: what motivates and sustains commitment to a fuzzy genre? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), pp. 187-205. Bell, J. S. (1995). The relationship between L1 and L2 literacy: Some complicating factors. TESOL Quarterly, 29(4), pp. 687-704. 204 Bernat, E., & Data, B. (2008). Beyond beliefs: Psycho-cognitive, sociocultural and emergent ecological approaches to learner perceptions in foreign language acquisition. Asian EFL Journal, 10(3), pp. 7-27. Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16(1), pp. 15-34. Bialystok, E., & Fröhlich, M. (1978). Variables of Classroom Achievement in Second Language Learning. The Modern Language Journal, 62(7), pp. 327-336. Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1999). ‘Confounded age: Linguistic and cognitive factors in age differences for second language acquisition’. In D. Birdsong (ed).Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assicateds pp. 161-181. Biggs, John (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology. [online]. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com [Accessed 15 August 2011]. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University 4th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill International. Birdsong, D. (2005). ‘Interpreting age effects in second language acquisition’, In J Kroll (eds). Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. London: Oxford University Press. 109-127. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas Accountability System. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), pp. 231-268. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language teaching, 36(2), pp. 81-109. Brantmeier, C. (2005). Nonlinguistic Variables in Advanced Second Language Reading: Learners' Self Assessment and Enjoyment. Foreign Language Annals, 38(4), pp. 494-504. Breen, D. (2009). Inside Muslim schools: a comparative ethnography of ethos in independent and voluntary-aided contexts (Doctoral dissertation, University of Warwick). Brisbois, J. E. (1995). Connections between first- and second-language reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 27(4), pp. 565-584. British Council. (2011). A guide for applications to IELTS Examiner Recruitment [online]. London. [Accessed 8 Sept 2011]. Available at: http://www.britishcouncil.org/france-english-ielts examiners-guide-applicants.pdf. 205 Brown, H. D. (1980). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Brown, H. D. (1980). Second Language Acquisition/Learning: Psycholinguistic Factors. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), pp. 108-123. Brown, H. D. (2000) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching 4th ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New Yrok: Pearson Education. Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (2002). Criterion-referenced language testing. London: Cambridge University Press. Brown, K. H. (1993). Descriptive and normative ethics: class, context and confidentiality for mothers with HIV. Social Science & Medicine, 36(3), pp. 195-202. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. New York: Oxford Univesity Press. Butler, F. A., & Stevens, R. (2001). Standardized assessment of the content knowledge of English language learners K-12: Current trends and old dilemmas. Language Testing, 18(4), pp. 409- 427. Call, M. E. (1985). Auditory ShortTerm Memory, Listening Comprehension, and the Input Hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 19(4), pp. 765-781. Canagarajah, A. S. (1995). Functions of codeswitching in ESL classrooms: Socialising bilingualism in Jaffna. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 16(3), pp. 173-195. Carrasquillo, A., & Rodríguez, V. (2002). Language Minority Students in the Mainstream Classroom. New York: Multilingual Matters Limited. Carrell, P. L., Devine, J., & Eskey, D. E. (Eds.). (1988). Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). Focus on multilingualism: A study of trilingual writing. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), pp. 356-369. Cenoz, J., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2000). English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language. New York: Multilingual Matters. Chastain, K. (1975). Affective and Ability Factors in Second-Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 25(1), pp. 153-161. 206 Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Choi, I. C. (2008). The impact of EFL testing on EFL education in Korea. Language Testing, 25(1), pp. 39-62. Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of BF Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Language, 35(1), pp. 26-58. Chomsky, N. (1975). The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York: PlenumPress. Christakis, N. A. (1992). Ethics are local: engaging cross-cultural variation in the ethics for clinical research. Social science & medicine, 35(9), pp. 1079-1091. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2001). Connectionist psycholinguistics: Capturing the empirical data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(2), pp. 82-88. Cianflone, E. (2009). L1 use in English courses at university level. ESP World, 8 (22), pp. 1-6. Clarke, M. (2007). Language policy and language teacher education in the United Arab Emirates. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), pp. 583-591. Claros, M. (2008). Psycho-linguistic and socio-cultural approaches to language learning: A never- ending debate. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, (10), pp.142-154. Clayson, D. E., & Haley, D. A. (2011). Are students telling us the truth? A critical look at the student evaluation of teaching. Marketing Education Review, 21(2), pp. 101-112. Clayton, E. W., Steinberg, K. K., Khoury, M. J., Thomson, E., Andrews, L., Kahn, M. J. E and Weiss, J. O. (1995). Informed consent for genetic research on stored tissue samples. Journal of the American Medical Association-US Edition, 274(22), pp. 1786-1792. Clément, R., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1980). Social and individual factors in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 12(4), pp. 293. Cohen, A. D. (1999). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge. Cole, S. (1998). The use of L1 in communicative English classrooms. Language Teacher-Kyoto- Jalt, no. 22, pp. 11-14 Connick-Hirtz, S (2001). Using the first language in second language instruction. TESL-EJ Forum (online). [Accessed 3 March 2010] Available at http://www.aitech.ac/iteslj.hml Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL quarterly, 33(2), 185-209. 207 ---. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), pp. 402-423. ---. (2007). ‘The Goals of ELT’. In Cummins. J and Davison. C (eds). International handbook of English language teaching New York: Springer. pp. 237-248. Cook, V. J. (1997). Monolingual bias in second language acquisition research. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 34(1), pp. 35-50. Copland, F., & Neokleous, G. (2011). L1 to teach L2: complexities and contradictions. ELT, 65(3), pp. 270-280. Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. IRAL 5(4), pp. 161-170. Cox, S. R., Friesner, D. L., & Khayum, M. (2003). Do Reading Skills Courses Help Underprepared Readers Achieve Academic Success in College? Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33(2), pp. 170-96. Crawford, J. (2004). Language Choices in the Foreign Language Classroom: Target Language or the Learners' First Language? RELC Journal, 35(1), pp. 5-20. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. LA: Sage Publications. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of educational research, 49(2), pp. 222-251. ---. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), pp. 221-240. Cunnings, I. (2012). An overview of mixed-effects statistical models for second language researchers. Second Language Research, 28(3), pp. 369-382. Danesi, Marcel. (2003). Second Language Teaching: A view from the right side of the brain. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Davies, A. (1992). Is Proficiency Always Achievement? Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 1(1), pp. 1-16. Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in SLA, 22(04), pp. 499-533. DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). ‘Implicit and explicit learning’, In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 313–348. 208 Denzin, N. K., & Keller, C. M. (1981). Frame analysis reconsidered. Contemporary Sociology, 10(1), pp. 52-60. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications, Incorporated. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. LA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. LA: Sage Publications Doman, E. (2005). Current Debates in SLA. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly 4 (7), pp. 131. Donato, R. (1994). ‘Collective scaffolding in second language learning’, In Lantolf, J. and Appel, G. (eds). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. CT: Ablex . pp. 33-56. Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), pp. 273-284. Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53(S1), pp. 3-32. Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. New York: Routledge. Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74(2), pp. 154-166. Duff, P. (2002). Research approaches in applied linguistics. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 13-23. Dulay, H. C. & Burt, M.K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, (24)1, pp. 37-53. Edstrom, A. (2006). L1 use in the L2 classroom: One teacher's self-evaluation. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(2), pp. 275-292. Edstrom, A. M. (2009). Teacher reflection as a strategy for evaluating L1/L2 use in the classroom. Babylonia, 1(09), pp.12-15. Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2010). ETS: TOEFL. New Jersey: ETS. [online]. [Accessed 15 November 2010]. Available at: http://www.ets.org/toefl/pbt/about. Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development: A study of classroom interaction and language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy. Studies in SLA, 19(01), pp. 69-92. 209 Ellis, Rod. (1991). The Interaction Hypothesis: A Critical Evaluation. Singapore Regional Language Centre Seminar Temple University Japan. Singapore. 22-25 April. Ellis, N. (1999). Cognitive approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 22-42. Ellis, N. (2011). ‘Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface’. In Sanz, C and Leow, R. (eds). .Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism. NY: Georgetown University Press. pp. 35-47. Ellwood, C. (2008). Questions of classroom identity: What can be learned from codeswitching in classroom peer group talk? The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), pp. 538-557. Fahim, M., Bagherkazemi, M., & Alemi, M. (2010). The Relationship between Test Takers’ Critical Thinking Ability and their Performance on the Reading Section of TOEFL. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(6), pp. 830-837. Farah, S., & Ridge, N. (2009). Challenges to Curriculum Development in the UAE. Dubai School of Government Policy Brief [online]. No16, [Accessed 10 March 2010]. Available at http://www.dsg.ae/En/Publication/Pdf_En/DSG%20Policy%20Brief%2016%20English.pdf Farhady, H. (2005). The effect of coaching on TOEFL type and task-based tests. Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji [online]. no. 9, [Accessed 3 December 2010]. Available at http://www.aua.am/academics/dep/hf publications/7%20Coaching.pdf. Felder, R. M., & Henriques, E. R. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language education. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), pp. 21-31. Ferguson, C. A. (1976). The structure and use of politeness formulas. Language in Society, 5(2), pp. 137-151. Findlow, S. (2006). Higher education and linguistic dualism in the Arab Gulf. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27, pp. 19-36. Finnegan, R. (1970). A note on oral tradition and historical evidence. History and Theory, 9(2), pp. 195-201. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), pp. 285-300. Firth, A, & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), pp. 800- 819. Flick, U. (2014). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. [5th ed]. London: SAGE Publications. Ford, K. (2009). Principles and practices of L1/L2 use in the Japanese university EFL classroom. JALT Journal, 31(1), pp. 63-80. 210 Forman, R. (2008). Using notions of scaffolding and intertextuality to understand the bilingual teaching of English in Thailand. Linguistics and Education, 19(4), pp. 319-332. Fox, W. (2008), ‘The United Arab Emirates and policy priorities for higher education,’In Davidson, C. and Smith, P. (eds). Higher Education in the Gulf States: Shaping Economies, Politics and Culture, London: SOAS. pp. 110-125. Fung, I. Y., Wilkinson, I. A., & Moore, D. W. (2003). L1-assisted reciprocal teaching to improve ESL students’ comprehension of English expository text. Learning and Instruction, 13(1), pp. 1-31. Gallagher, K. (2011). Bilingual education in the UAE: factors, variables and critical questions. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 4(1), pp. 62-79. Gao, Y., Li, L., & Lü, J. (2001). Trends in research methods in applied linguistics: China and the West. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), pp. 1-14. Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A. (1997). Towards a full model of second language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), pp. 344-362. Gass, S. M. (1988). Integrating Research Areas: A Framework for Second Language Studies. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), pp. 198-217. Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1984). ‘Task variation and NNS/NNS negotiation of meaning’. In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition Massachusetts: Newbury House. 149–161. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working Memory and Language: Essays in Cognitive Psychology. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ghabanchi, Z., & Vosooghi, M. (2006). The Role of Explicit Contractive Instruction in Learning Difficult L2 Grammatical Forms: A Cross-Linguistic Approach To Language Awareness. The Reading Matrix, 6(2). pp. 121-130 Girden, E. R., & Kabacoff, R. (2010). Evaluating research articles from start to finish. London: SAGE Publications. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row. Goldenberg, C. (2010). ‘Reading instruction for English language learners’, In M Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E. Moje, & P. Afflerback (eds). Handbook of reading research Vol 4. Newark: International Reading Association. pp. 684-710. Goodman, K. (1988). ‘The reading process’, In P. Carrell and J. Devine and D. Eskey (eds). Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp. 11-21. 211 Gorard, S. (2003). Quantitative Methods in Social Science. New York: Continuum. Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375-406. ---. (2002). ‘Dilemmas for the development of second language reading abilities’. In J. Richards and W. Renandya (ed). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp. 250-280 ---. (2004). 3. Research on Teaching Reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), pp. 44- 69. Graver, M. and Ward, C. (2011). Q: Skills for Success, Reading and Writing 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Green, A. (2007). Studies in Language Testing 25:IELTS washback in context- Preparation for Academic Writing in Higher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Green, B. A., & Andrade, M. S. (2010). Guiding principles for language assessment reform: A model for collaboration. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), pp. 322-334. Greene, J. P. (1997). A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of Bilingual Education Research. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(2), pp. 103-122. ---. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. [online]. [Accessed 28 September 2009] Available at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/biling.pdf Gregg, K. R. (1984). Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razar. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), pp.79-100. Grotjahn, R. (1991). The Research Programme Subjective Theories: A new approach in Second language Research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(1), pp. 187-214. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1985). Effective evaluation: improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responses and naturalist approaches. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). ‘Competing paradigms in qualitative research’. In N.K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds). Handbook of qualitative research California: Sage pp. 163- 194. Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y (2005) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, {3rd edition} London: Sage. Guidi, C. (2012). Glossing for meaning and glossing for form: a computerized study of the effects of glossing and type of linguistic item on reading comprehension, noticing, and L2 learning [online]. Ph.D. Thesis. Georgetown University. [Accessed 12 May 2013]. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1714004 212 Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning: The state of the art. Language Teaching, 45(3), pp. 271-308. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2013). Own-language use in ELT: exploring global practices and attitudes. Papers 13-01. TeachingEnglish, papers 13-01, (online teachingenglish.org.uk) Hamp-Lyons, L. (1998). Ethical Test Preparation Practice: The Case of the TOEFL. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), pp. 329-37. Hamp-Lyons, L. (2000). Social, professional and individual responsibility in language testing. System, 28(4), pp. 579-591, (online ScienceDirect) Hamp-Lyons, L. (2008). ‘Ethics, fairness (es) and developments in language testing’.In Elder. C (eds). Experimenting with uncertainty: Essays in honour of Alan Davies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 222-227. Hancock, M. (1997). Behind Classroom Code Switching: Layering and Language Choice in L2 Learner Interaction. Research Issues, 31(2), pp. 217. Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal, 46(4), pp. 350-355. Hariz, A., & Dulaimi, M. (2010). Cultural Diversity in the UAE Construction Industry: Its impact on Project Team Performance. Abu Dhabi:Verlang Dr.Muller. Henning, G. (1986). Quantitative methods in language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), pp. 701-708. Henrichsen, L. (1984). Sandhi-variation: A filter of input for learners of ESL. Language Learner, 34(3), pp. 103-26. Horwitz, E. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), pp. 112-126. Howard, A. (2008) ‘Teachers being observed: Coming to terms with classroom appraisal’. In S. Garton & K. Richards (eds). Professional encounters in TESOL: Discourses of teachers in teaching, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 87–104. Humphreys, P., & Mousavi, A. (2010). Exit-testing–a whole of university approach. Language Education in Asia, 1(1), pp. 8-22. Hyland, F., Hyland, P., & Kelly, K. (2009). Toward a Culture of Reading. Journal of Research, 19. pp. 97-113 Jackson, C. M. C. G. L., Hedgcock, J., & Morgan, J. (2000). Lidia Woytak. Dialog on Language Instruction, 14(1), pp. 2. Jadallah, M., & Hasan, F. (2011). A review of some new trends in using L1 in the EFL classroom. First Nation Conference [online]. Al Quds Open University 2011.[Accessed 12 213 December 2012]. Available at http://www.qou.edu/english/conferences/firstNationalConference/pdfFiles/drMufeed.pdf. Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), pp. 157-181. Jiang, X. (2011). The Role of First Language Literacy and Second Language Proficiency in Second Language Reading Comprehension. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 11(2). pp. 177-190 Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). ‘Data collection strategies in mixed methods research’ In Tashakkori, A & Teddli, C (eds). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research California: Sage. pp. 297-319. Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice English as a second language teachers. Teaching and teacher education, 10(4), pp. 439-452. Johnson, K. E., & 逊翰约. (1999). Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in action. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher, 33(7), pp. 14-26. Joniak, L. (2002). The qualitative paradigm: An overview of some basic concepts, assumptions, and theories of qualitative research. Faculty Fellow Seminar. slis.indiana.edu. [online]. University of Indiana. Indiana. [Accessed 9 December 2012]. Available at. http://www.slis.indiana.edu/faculty/hrosenba/www/Research/methods/joniak_qual_par.pdf. Kachru, B. B. (Ed.). (1992). The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Kern, R. G. (1994). The Role of Mental Translation in Second Language Reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4(16), pp. 441-461. Khan, S. Z. (2009). ‘Imperialism of international tests: An EIL perspective’. In F. Sharifian (ed) English as an International Language. Perspectives and Pedagogical Issues, London: British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. pp. 190- 205. Kharma, N. N., & Hajjaj, A. H. (1989). Use of the Mother Tongue in the ESLClassroom. IRAL, 27(3), pp. 223-35. Kharma, N., & Hajjaj, A. (1989). Errors in English among Arabic Speakers: Analysis and remedy. London: Longman. Kharrat, M. Y. (2000). Learning the Culture as well as the Words. Human Language Teaching, 4 (1) pp 18-20. 214 Kohn, L. (1992). Early Chinese Mysticism: Philosophy and Soteriology in the Taoist Tradition. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Kiely, R., & Rea-Dickens, P. (2005). Program Evaluation in Language Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kim, S. Y. (2009). Questioning the stability of foreign language classroom anxiety and motivation across different classroom contexts. Foreign Language Annals, 42(1), pp. 138-157. Koda, K. (2005). Insights into Second Language Reading: A Cross-Linguistic Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. San Francisco: The Alemany Press Krashen, S.D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Longman: London and New York. Krashen, S. (1991). ‘The Input Hypothesis: An Update’. in J. Alatis (ed) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics Washington: Georgetown University Press. pp. 410-470 Kumaravadivelu, B. (2005). Understanding Language Teaching: From Method to Postmethod. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kupferberg, I. (1999). The cognitive turn of contrastive analysis: Empirical evidence. Language Awareness, 8(3-4), pp. 210-222. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns (Vol. 4). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J.P and Thorn S.L (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2004). CA for SLA? It all depends... The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), pp. 603-607. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Reflecting on the cognitive–social debate in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), pp. 773-787. Lazaraton, A. (2003). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in applied linguistics: Whose criteria and whose research? The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), pp. 1-12. 215 Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. & Jiang, Z. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman. Legaretta, D, (1979). The Effects of Program Models on Language Acquisition by Spanish-speaking children. TESOL Quarterly, 13, pp. 521-534. Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), pp. 343-364. Lewis, K. (2010), Students entering university still stuck on remedial treadmill, The National (UAE), 25 May, p 5. Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. London: Language Teaching Publications. Li, S. (2010). The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Meta‐Analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), pp. 309-365. Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Anniversary article. Classroom SLA Research and Second Language Teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), pp. 431-462. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry (Vol. 75). London: SAGE Publications. Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press. Liu, D., Ahn, G. S., Baek, K. S., & Han, N. O. (2004). South Korean High School English Teachers’ Code Switching: Questions and Challenges in the Drive for Maximal Use of English in Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), pp. 605-638. Liu, J. (2004). Methods in the post-methods era: report on an international survey on language teaching methods. IJES, International Journal of English Studies, 4(1), pp. 137-152. Liu, S. H. (2011). Factors related to pedagogical beliefs of teachers and technology integration. Computers & Education, 56(4), pp. 1012-1022. Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners' beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), pp. 91-104 Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second‐language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), pp. 259-278. Long, Michael. (1996). ‘The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition,’ In. W. Ritchie and T. Bhata (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 413-468 216 Long, M. H. (1997). Construct validity in SLA research: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), pp. 318-323. ---. (2006). Problems in SLA: Second Language Acquisition Research Series. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Long, M. H., & Adamson, H. D. (2012). ‘SLA Research and Arizona’s Structured English Immersion Policies’ in M. Arias & C. Faltis (eds). Implementing Educational Language Policy in Arizona: Legal, Historical and Current Practices in SEI, New York: Multilingual Matters. pp. 39-58. Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Groupwork, Interlanguage Talk and Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), pp. 207–227. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study (25-81). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lynch, B., & Hudson, T. (1991). ‘EST reading’. In M. Celce-Murcia (ed) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (2nd edition). New York: Newbury House. pp. 216-232. Macaro, E. (2000). ‘Issues in Target Language Tteaching’. In K. Field (ed). Issues in Modern Foreign Languages Teaching, London: RoutledgeFalmer pp. 171-189. ---. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4), pp. 531-548. ---. (2005). ‘Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy’. In Llurda, E. (ed) Non-Native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challengers and Contributions to the Profession New York: Springer. pp. 63-85. MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clément, R. (1997). Biases in Self Ratings of Second Language Proficiency: The Role of Language Anxiety. Language Learning, 47(2), pp. 265-287. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (2006). Language Anxiety: Its Relationship to Other Anxieties and to Processing in Native and Second Languages. Language Learning, 41(4), pp. 513-534. Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), pp. 279-301. McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second-Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold. ---. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), pp. 113-128. Meiring, L., & Norman, N. (2002). Back on Target: Repositioning the Status of Target Language in MFL Teaching and Learning. Language Learning Journal, 26(1), pp. 27-35. 217 Miles, Richard (2004). Evaluating The Use of L1 in the English Language Classroom [online]. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Birmingham. [Accessed 20 December 2009]. Available at: http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/Milesdiss.pdf. Mitchell, R. (1988). Communicative Language Teaching in Practice. London: CILT Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and content: Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Moore, D. (2002). Code-switching and learning in the classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(5), pp. 279-293. Mouhanna, M. (2009). Re-examining the role of L1 in the EFL classroom''. UGRU Journal, 8, pp. 1- 18. Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), pp. 48-76. Mustafa, G. S. H. (2002). English language teaching and learning at government schools in the United Arab Emirates (Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Exeter). Muysken, J., & Nour, S. (2006). Deficiencies in education and poor prospects for economic growth in the Gulf countries: the case of the UAE. Journal of Development Studies, 42(6), pp. 957- 980. Myles, F. (2011). Second language acquisition (SLA) research: its Significance for Learning and Teaching Issues. Center for languages Linguistics & Area Studies, no 18. pp1-10, (online LLAS) Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema Theory and Knowledge Based Processes in Second Language Reading Comprehension: A Need for Alternative Perspectives. Language Learning, 52(2), pp. 439- 481. Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 5(2), pp. 1-8. National Admissions and Placement Office (2011) Your Guide to Higher Education. [online]. [Accessed 3 June 2011]. Available at: https://www.mohesr.gov.ae/en/Documents/napo1.pdf. Neal, D., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2010). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), pp. 263-283. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of curriculum studies, 19(4), pp. 317-328. Neuman, W. L. (2005). Social Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Pearson. 218 Ni, H. (2012). The Effects of Affective Factors in SLA and Pedagogical Implications. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(7), pp. 1508-1513. Norris, John & Ortega Lourdes, (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-Analysis, Language Learning. 50 (3), pp. 417-528. Numrich, C. (1996). On becoming a language teacher: Insights from diary studies. TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), pp. 131-153. Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ogilvie, G., & Dunn, W. (2010). Taking teacher education to task: Exploring the role of teacher education in promoting the utilization of task-based language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 14(2), pp. 161-181. O’Leary, Zina. (2004). The Essential Guide to Doing Research. London: Sage Publications. Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), pp. 1-28. Ortega, L. (2005). For what and for whom is our research? The ethical as transformative lens in instructed SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), pp. 427-443. Ortega, L., & Iberri-Shea, G. (2005). Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), pp. 26-45. Ortega, L. (ed.). (2009). Second Language Acquisition: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. New York: Routledge. O’Sullivan, A. (2009). Reading in the Gulf: Is it time for a re-focus? http://marifa.hct.ac.ae/files/2009/04/Reading-in-the-Gulf-Is-it-Time-for-a-Re-Focus.pdf. Oxford Business Group (2009). The Report: Abu Dhabi 2009. London: Oxford Business Group. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), pp. 307-332. Palfreyman, D., & Khalil, M. A. (2003). “A Funky Language for Teenzz to Use:” :Representing Gulf Arabic in Instant Messaging. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, [online]. vol 9(1). [Accessed 5 May 2009]. Available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00355.x/full Palfreyman, D. (2006). Social Context and Resources for language Learning. System, 34(3), pp. 352- 370. 219 Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), pp. 589-618. ---. (2004). ‘Critical Applied Linguistics’. In Davies, A. & Elder, C. (eds) The Handbook of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Blackwell Publsihing. pp. 784-807. ---. (2010). Language as a Local Practice. New York: Routledge. Pennycook, A., & Pennycook, A. (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Longman. Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2000). English learners reading English: What we know, what we need to know. Theory Into Practice, 39(4), pp. 237-247. Pfaff, C. W. (1979). Constraints on language mixing: intrasentential code-switching and borrowing in Spanish/English. Language, pp. 291-318. Phillipson, R. (2009). English: from British Empire to Corporate Empire. Sociolinguistic Studies, 5(3), pp.441-464. ---. (2013). Linguistic Imperialism Continued. ELT Journal, 67(1) pp. 126-130. Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(1), pp. 63- 90. ---. (2013). ‘From Input, Output and Comprehension to Negotiation, Evidence, and Attention’ In Mayo, M. D. P. G., Mangado, M. J. G., & Adrián, M. M. (eds.). Contemporary Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 49-70. Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers' language use in university foreign language classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), pp. 313-326. Porter, P. (1986). ‘How Learners Talk to Each Other: Input and Interaction in Task-Centered Discussions. In R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn. Cambridge: Newbury.pp. 200-222. Pretorius, E. J. (2000). "What they can't read will hurt them": Reading and Academic Achievement. Innovation (21). pp. 33-41. Prodromou, L. (2002). The Role of the Mother Tongue in the Classroom. IATEFL Issues (April- May), pp. 6-8. Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage Publications Limited. 220 Qian, D. (2004). Second Language Lexical Inferencing: Preferences, Perceptions, and Practices. In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer (eds) Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, Acquisition and Testing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 155-169. Rabionet, S. E. (2011). How I Learned to Design and Conduct Semi-Structured Interviews: An Ongoing and Continuous Journey. The Qualitative Report, 16(2), pp. 563-566. Randall, M., & Samimi, M. A. (2010). The status of English in Dubai. English Today, 26(1), pp. 43- 50. Ragawanti, D. T. (2009). Constructions and Obstructions of Teacher Explanation to Students’ Learning: Perspectives of Stiba Satya Wacana Students. TEFLIN Journal 18(1). pp 1-14. Raimes, A. (1990). The TOEFL Test of Written English: Causes for Concern. TESOL Quarterly, 24(3), pp. 427-442. Raven, J. (2011). Emiratizing the Education Sector in the UAE: Contextualization and Challenges. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 4(2), pp. 134-141. Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002). How should reading be taught? Scientific American – American Edition, 286(3), pp. 70-77. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New York : Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, Keith. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Robinson, P. (2001). ‘Task Complexity, Cognitive Resources, and Syllabus Design: A Triadic Framework for Examining Task Influences on SLA’ In P. Robinson (ed). Cognition and Second Language Instruction, New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 287-318. ---. (2002). Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ---. (2003). ‘Attention and Memory During SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (eds) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing LTD. pp. 631-678. Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge. Rojewski, J. W. (ed). (2004). International Perspectives on Workforce Education and Development. New York: Information Age Publishing. 221 Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher Use of Learners' Native Language in the Foreign Language Classroom. Canadian Modern Language Reviews, 58(3), pp. 402-426. Rolstad, Kellie, Kate Mahoney, and Gene V. Glass.(2005). The big picture: A Meta-Analysis of Program Effectiveness Research on English language learners.Educational Policy 19(4) pp. 572-594. Rosenthal, J. W. (1994). The Limited English Proficient Student in the College Science Classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 22(3), pp. 182-86. ---. (1996). Teaching Science to Language Minority Students: Theory and Practice. New York: Multilingual Matters Limited. Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an Interactive Model of Reading. Attention and Performance, (6), pp. 573-603. Sanz, C. (2000). Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence from Catalonia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(1), pp. 23-44. Schmidt, R. (ed). (2012). Attention, Awareness, and Individual Differences in Language Learning. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press Schütz, R. (2007). Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition. English Made in Brazil. 2(2), pp. 1-8. Schweers Jr, C. W. (1999). Using L1 in the L2 Classroom. English Teaching Forum 37 (2), pp. 6-9. Scott, M. L. (1986). Student Affective Reactions to Oral language Tests. Language Testing, 3(1), pp. 99-118. Scott, V. M. (1996). Rethinking Foreign Language Writing. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Scott, V. M., & Fuente, M.. (2008). What's the Problem? L2 Learners' Use of the L1 During Consciousness-Raising, Form‐Focused Tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), pp. 100- 113. Scovel, T. (2001). Learning New Languages: A Guide to Second Language Acquisition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Searle, J. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press. Segalowitz, N., Lightbown, P. M., & Patsy, M. (1999). Psycholinguistic Approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, pp. 43-63. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10 (1-4), pp. 209-232. Shihab, I. A. (2011). Reading as Critical Thinking. Asian Social Science, 7(8), pp. 209. 222 Short, D. J. (1993). Assessing integrated language and content instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 627-656. Silverman, D. (2002). Qualitative research: meanings or practices? Information Systems Journal, 8(1), 3-20. ---. (2009). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practicial Handbook. London: SAGE Publications Limited. ---. (2011). Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: Sage Publications Limited. Skela, J. (1998). The Role of the Native Language in Teaching English as a Foreign Language. Advanced Discourse Processes, 63, pp. 93-108. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Skinner, B. F. (2002). Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Hackett Publishing. Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), pp. 247-284. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N., Calderón, M., Chamberlain, A., & Hennessy, M. (2011). Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(1), pp. 47-58. Sowa, P. A., & De La Vega, E. (2009). One corner at a time: collaborating for educational change in the UAE. Childhood Education, 85(2), pp. 102-106. Spielberger, C.& P. Vagg. (eds). (1995). Test Anxiety: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. Washington: Taylor & Francis. Spolsky, B., & Hult, F. M. (Eds.). (2010). The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell. Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly, 37 (4), pp. 760-769. Storch, N., & Hill, K. (2011). What Happens to International Students’ English after one Semester at University? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(1). pp. 3.1-3.17 Swain, M. (2000). ‘The Output Hypothesis and Beyond: Mediating Acquisition through Collaborative Dialogue’ in J. Lantolf (ed). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 97-114. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), pp. 251-274. 223 Taillefer, G. F. (1996). L2 Reading Ability: Further Insight into the Short‐circuit Hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 80(4), pp. 461-477. Taillefer, G., & Pugh, T. (2002). Strategies for professional reading in L1 and L2. Journal of Research in Reading, 21(2), pp. 96-108. Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English classroom. English Teaching Forum 40 (1). pp. 36-43. Taylor, L., & Weir, C. J. (eds). (2012). IELTS Collected Papers 2: Research in Reading and Listening Assessment (Vol. 2). New York: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, M. (2008). Orthographic and Phonological Awareness Among L1 Arabic ESL Learners: A Quasi-Experimental Study [online]. PhD. Thesis. University of Phoenix. [Accessed 12 June 2009]. Avaialbe at: ProQuest. Teemant, A. (1997). The Role of Language Proficiency, Test Anxiety, and Testing preferences in ESL Students’ Test Performance in Content-Area Courses. Ph.D. Thesis. Ohio State University. [Accessed 1 June 2009] Available at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:osu1241104829 Templer, B. (2004). High-stakes testing at high fees: Notes and queries on the international English proficiency assessment market. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 2(1), pp. 1-8. Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in Cognitive Science and Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(02), pp. 183-203. Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at School: Identity, Social Relations, and Classroom Practice (Vol. 20). New York: Multilingual Matters. Traynor, R. (1985). The TOEFL: an appraisal. ELT Journal, 39(1), pp. 43-47. Treiman, Rebecca, Clifton, Charles, Ante, Meyer and Wurn, Lee (2003). “Language comprehension and production,” In A.F. Healy & R.W. Proctor (eds). Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 4: Experimental Psychology. New York: Wiley, pp. 527-548. Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but…. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), pp. 531-540. ‘UAE Interact’. (2011). UAE Interact; Education. [online]. [Accessed 3 November 2011] Available at: http://www.uaeinteract.com/education. ‘Ministry of Higher Education & Science Research’ (2010). United Arab Emirates Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (UAEMOHESR).[online] [Accessed 4 March 2010] Available at: http://www.mohesr.gov.ae/En/pages/default.aspx University of Sharjah (2010). English Language Centre [online]. [Accessed 1 December 2010] Available at: http://www.sharjah.ac.ae. 224 Verhoeven, L. T. (1994). Transfer in bilingual development: The linguistic interdependence hypothesis revisited. Language Learning, 44(3), pp. 381-415. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). The Development of Scientific Concepts in Childhood. APA PsycNet pp 82- 118, (online: http://psycnet.apa.org/books/11193/006) Vygotsky, L. (1978). ‘Interaction between learning and development’ In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E Souberman (eds). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press pp. 79-91. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). ‘The Genesis of Higher Mental Functions’ in J.V. Wertsch. The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology, New York: ME Sharpe pp. 144-188. Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating Classroom Discourse. New York: Routledge. Warford, M. K. (2007). L1 vs. L2 in the foreign language classroom: New Findings. The NECTFL Review, 60, pp. 50-67. Weaver, C., & Moustafa, M. (2002). Reading Process and Practice. New Hampshire: Heinemann. Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative Research Interviewing: Biographic Narrative and Semi-Structured Methods. London: SAGE Publications Limited. Weschler, R. (1997). Uses of Japanese (L1) in the English classroom: Introducing the functional- translation method. The Internet TESL Journal, 3(11). Retrieved September 20, 2007, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Weschler-UsingL1.html. White, J. (1998). ‘Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study’. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge: New York. pp. 85-113. White, K. W., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2007). ‘Inside the black box of accountability: How high-stakes accountability alters school culture and the classification and treatment of students and teachers’ In A. Sadovnik., J. O’Day., G. Bohrnstedt.& M. Borman (eds) No Child Left Behind and the Reduction of the Achievement gap. New York: Routledge, pp. 97-116. Willig, A. C. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research, 55(3), pp. 269-317. Winter, G. (2000). A Comparative Discussion of the Notion of ‘validity’ in Qualitative and Quantitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 4(3), pp. 4. Winters, M. A., Trivitt, J. R., & Greene, J. P. (2010). The impact of high-stakes testing on student proficiency in low-stakes subjects: Evidence from Florida's elementary science exam. Economics of Education Review, 29(1), pp. 138-146. 225 Wong-Fillmore, L. (1985). ‘When does teacher talk work as input?’ In S.M. Gass & C.G. Madden (eds). Input in Second Language Acquisition MA: Newbury House. pp. 17-50. Wong-Fillmore, L., & Valadez, C. (1986). ‘Teaching bilingual learners’. In M.S. Wittrock (ed). Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Macmillan. pp. 648-685. Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: beliefs, decision-making and classroom practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wragg, T., & Wragg, E. C. (2012). An Introduction to Classroom Observation. New York: Routledge. Yamashita, J. (2002). Mutual compensation between L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency in L2 reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1), pp. 81-95. Yamashita, J. (2004). Reading attitudes in L1 and L2, and their influence on L2 extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 16(1), pp. 1-19. Yough, M. S., & Fang, M. (2010). Keeping Native Languages in ESL Class: Accounting for the Role Beliefs Play toward Mastery. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 23(2), pp. 27-32. Yu, W. (2011). A Review of Studies of the Role of Native Language. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), pp. 441-444. Yusof, M. A. M., Shamsudin, S., & Raof, A. H. A. (2008). Integrating Islamic themes and values in English classes. Massachusetts: Newbury House. 226 Appendix A: Al-Nofaie Original Tools Table A1: Al-Nofaie Observational Checklist (2010) 227 Table A2: Al-Nofaie Student Questionnaire (2010) 228 229 230 Table A3: Al-Nofaie Instructor Interview Questions (2010) 231 Appendix B: Adapted Tools Table B1: Section 51 Instructor Classroom Observational Checklist Tally Results (2012) Lesson 1 /April 15th Lesson 2/ April 30th Pre Stage Greeting l l lll Chatting l Checking Homework I In Stage During Lesson Translating lllllI Lll Explaining Grammar l L Referring to Bilingual Dictionaries Checking Comprehension lll lllI Encouragement (7asante, Sa7) ll L Instructions l l1 Asking Students Questions ll 11 During Activities Giving Instructions llllll Lll Checking Comprehension I L Answering Questions Ll Encouragement l lI Post Stage 232 Checking Comprehension l I Assigning Homework l Reminding of Upcoming Events Culturally correct (mashallaah, response to sneeze, inshallah) lllllll Llllll Table B2: Section 51 Student Classroom Observational Checklist Tally Results (2012) Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Pre-Stage greetings l ll chatting llll llll Checking homework In Stage During Lesson Translating Words l Asking Questions ll ll Showing Understanding llll lll Responding to Instructor’s Questions lllllll lllll Using Bilingual Dictionaries l Checking Comprehension llll ll During Activities Asking about Instructions II I Showing Understanding lllll l Answering Questions lll Working with Peers lll lllll Post Stage 233 Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Asking Questions Confirmation of Information l Table B3: Section 52 Instructor Classroom Observational Checklist Tally Results (2012) Lesson 1 /April 24 Lesson 2/ May 1 Pre Stage Greeting Chatting Checking Homework In Stage During Lesson Translating Words Explaining Grammar Translating Sentences Referring to Bilingual Dictionaries Checking Comprehension Answering Questions Encouragement Instructions Asking Students Questions During Activities 234 Lesson 1 /April 24 Lesson 2/ May 1 Giving Instructions Checking Comprehension Answering Questions Encouragement Post Stage Checking Comprehension Assigning Homework Reminding of Upcoming Events Culturally Correct Table B4: Section 52 Student Classroom Observational Checklist Tally Results (2012) Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Pre-Stage Greetings l l Chatting lll l Checking Homework In Stage During Lesson Translating Words Asking Questions Working with Peers Showing Understanding 235 Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Responding to Instructor’s Questions l ll Using Bilingual Dictionaries l ll Checking Comprehension During Activities Asking about Instructions Showing Understanding Answering Questions Working with Peers ll lll Post Stage Asking Questions Confirmation of Information 236 Table B5: Student Questionnaire Form (2012) Section # ______ Name_________ ID __________ Dear Student: The aim of this study is to investigate your attitudes and reasons towards using Arabic in English classes by both your teacher and you. Please circle One answer which best reflects your attitude to the given statements. You can add further comments about the statement in the space provided. Student Questions 1. I prefer my teacher to use Arabic in English classes. a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________ 2. I feel more comfortable when I talk to my teacher in Arabic. a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________ 237 3. I can understand the lessons much better if my teacher uses Arabic. a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ 4. I prefer the teacher to use Arabic if the lesson is boring. a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________ 5. Arabic can help me to express my feelings and ideas that I cannot explain in English. a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________ 238 6. I prefer to ask my teacher questions in Arabic. a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________ 7. I prefer to do an activity with a partner in Arabic. a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________ 8. I understand new vocabulary only when I use a bilingual dictionary. a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________ 239 9. The teacher should clarify difficult activities in Arabic. a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________ 10. English grammar should be explained in Arabic. a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________ 11. New vocabulary should be translated in Arabic. a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________ 240 12. Class instructions should be given in Arabic. a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________ 13. I feel more comfortable if exam instructions are given in Arabic. a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________ 14. It is necessary to explain the differences and similarities between Arabic and English in Arabic. a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________ 15. Using Arabic prevents me from learning English. a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________ 241 Table B6: Teacher Interview Questions and Responses (2012) Extract 1: Question 1 Interviewer: Many language educators think that the mother tongue [student’s L1] should be excluded from ESL classes. Do you agree? Why or why not? Teacher 51: I do not agree, and I think the teacher’s familiarity with the student’s first language is an asset. Teachers who know the student’s L1 can understand the reason for the student’s errors better. They can deal with and analyse those errors more effectively. However, I also think this should be done tactfully and based on a teacher’s discretion when a need arises for an L1 intervention. Teacher 52: The use of the mother tongue in EFL classes is debatable. However, I am an advocate of the monolingual approach to teaching. The target language should be the only medium of communication. I believe that the use of L1 may become a habit that both learners and teachers may resort to whenever a difficulty is encountered. My students are mainly Arab learners. Using the mother tongue may negatively affect them when teaching them to put a simple sentence together because they will encounter difficulties related to the syntactic structures of sentences. In Arabic, the sentence structure is V-S-O, while English sentences are built following the S-V-O structure. Arabic and English also differ morphologically. Extract 2: Question 2 Interviewer: Do you use a student’s first language [Arabic] in your reading classes? If so, for what purposes [instructions, greetings, grammar instruction]? Teacher 51: Yes, I do use Arabic in my reading classes. I use it when greeting students, and I use it when certain grammatical terms and terminologies are taught. I do not use it to teach the whole grammar lesson, but I use it to make it easier for the students to grasp some grammatical concepts. Teacher 52: I don’t use the student’s first language in my reading classes. However, I do allow some of the better students in class to translate some words, especially if the majority of the students were weak. Some students struggle, particularly at the beginning of the semester, and mainly when explaining grammar rules. 242 Extract 3: Question 3 Interviewer: Have you ever asked students if they liked to read in their first language? If so, what was the response? Teacher 51: Yes, I have. I get mixed responses. Some say they enjoy reading in their first language, while others do not seem to like reading at all. Teacher 52: No, I have never asked students to read in their first language. Interviewer: Do you mean they don’t like reading in their first language, or reading in any language? Teacher 51: Some don’t like reading at all in any language. Interviewer: You never asked this class, or any class in the past? Teacher 52: No, I never asked any class now or in the past. Extract 4: Question 4 Interviewer: Do you think that your students’ first language reading level has an effect on reading in English? In other words, are students who read a lot in Arabic better readers of English? Teacher 51: Definitely. The ones who like reading in Arabic and have developed a habit of reading in their first language would eventually like and develop a similar interest in English. Teacher 52: I don’t think so because Arabic is from the Semitic language family, hence its grammar is very different from English. There is a large potential for errors of interference when Arab learners produce written or spoken English. The alphabets, phonology, grammar and vocabulary are very different between these two languages. Interviewer: Have you actually found this to be true, or is this a belief? Teacher 51: From the students I have asked in the past, I have found that most of them that have said they like to read in their first language are better readers in L2. Extract 5: Question 5 Interviewer: Do you think that using Arabic is a sign of less creative teaching? Teacher 51: Not at all. In fact, using Arabic in teaching English is a credit, and teachers who are bilingual are an asset to the institutions they work in. Teacher 52: I think that English language teachers must be competent enough to deliver the information and the lesson to their students in the target language. Using Arabic by the teacher in class is sometimes interpreted as lack of confidence on the teacher’s part. In addition, the use of L1 means that students get less practice of English. 243 Extract 6: Question 6 Interviewer: Do you allow your students to use Arabic in class? Why or why not? Teacher 51: It depends. If there is an activity or task where students will need to respond in English, Arabic cannot be allowed. However, students are free to choose the language they use when communicating together and when explaining things to each other like scaffolding and peer review tasks. Teacher 52: I try my best to prevent them from using Arabic when they are talking to me. However, I can’t stop them from using it among one another, especially in group activities or discussions. I always try to motivate them to use English, but they feel more comfortable discussing their opinions with each other in Arabic. I always stress one point with them and that is that there are a lot of non-Arab teachers who teach them; in that case, how do they communicate with them? 244 Appendix C: Student Consent Form Participant’s Letter of Informed Consent Dear Student: I am a Doctor of Education student attending British University in Dubai, and I am conducting a study on the effectiveness of using a student’s first language to teach reading in a second language. My study will include entrance exam scores, observations, audio recording of classes, and exit interviews. I have selected your class to participate in my study. Your participation is completely voluntary and involves minimal risk. You may withdraw from the study at any time for any reason. The data you will be providing will be confidential. The recordings of the interviews will be kept in a safe and secure place. You will not be mentioned by name, and no information will link you to the study. Amira Traish British University in Dubai amiratraish@gmail.com +971507054919 I have read this letter, and I am willing to participate in this study with the understanding that the data may be used in academic presentations. I understand that I have the right to withdraw at any time and for any reason. In addition to this, results and outcomes may be published in local or international press, and/or academic conferences and journals. Participants will be provided with access if they request this, or are interested in gaining access. ________________________ ____________________ Participant’s name Participant’s Signature 245 Appendix D: Level 3 Reading Syllabus Intensive English Program PREP 3 Reading and Writing Course Spring Semester 2012 Course Outline Course Title: Section: Course No: 003 PREP 3 Reading Prerequisites: TOEFL (PBT) score 421 – 461; 60% in FDN 2 Instructor: Office: Office hours: Phone: E-mail: Days: S, M, T, W, Th Time and room: Required Textbooks Graver, M. and Ward, C. (2011). Q: Skills for Success, Reading and Writing 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press Supplementary Materials Longman Active Study Dictionary. (2004). Essex, U.K.: Pearson Education Ltd. Supplies required by the students A4 lined paper – all writing should be done on this size of paper File or folder to keep all the student-produced work plus any photocopies given by the teacher (their portfolio) A set of dividers to help organize this portfolio Small, lined notebook for vocabulary – this will be used in all classes Pencils, rubber and pens which use dark-colored ink 246 Course Description Level 3 Reading/Writing is an intermediate course focusing on developing students’ ability to read and write English in preparation for an academic environment. In addition to improving these skills, the course reviews and extends understanding of intermediate grammar, expands vocabulary and incorporates TOEFL or IELTS preparation. Course Goals The course aims to assist students in improving their reading and writing skills to a TOEFL score of 461. Course Outcomes After completing this course, students are able to perform the following reading and writing sub-skills: 1. Writing a) use the writing process to generate ideas, plan, draft, evaluate and edit texts b) give feedback to peers and/or self-assess c) write paragraphs with a topic sentence, supporting sentences and a concluding sentence d) write reports on a variety of graphic data and essays with an introduction, body and conclusion e) use varied organisational patterns in reports and essays: opinion, problem and solution, process, comparison and contrast, and describing graphic data f) demonstrate proficiency in using compound sentences with and, but, so, or g) demonstrate competence in using complex sentences with because, when, since, while, whereas h) identify and correct sentence fragments, comma splices and run-on sentences i) write with accurate sentence-level grammar including a range of tenses, infinitives/gerunds, passive voice, participial adjectives , relative clauses, adverbial clauses as well as appropriate vocabulary and correct punctuation, capitalization, and spelling j) use a range of sentence adverbs to link sentences (e.g. in addition, furthermore, moreover, however, in contrast, on the other hand, as a result, for instance, for example) 247 2. Reading preview a text and predict what the text is about using a variety of strategies identify the type/purpose of a text identify the audience and tone of a text identify main ideas and supporting details use glosses and footnotes to aid reading comprehension sequence ideas to show text structure distinguish fact from opinion make inferences use graphic organizers and outlines to review text and synthesize information guess meaning of unfamiliar words from context and prefixes use the dictionary to expand vocabulary use collocations, synonyms, and phrasal verbs to expand vocabulary Semester Schedule Weeks Reading Writing Remarks Week 1 Introduction to: course book, portfolio and assessment Jan. 29- Orientation requirements, course Feb. 2 Course Outline structure Introductory Writing Activities: Ready to Write More, pp.2-15 Week 2 Q: Skills for Success 3, IELTS Foundation Study Dictionary work: Skills, Feb. 5 -9 Unit 1(First See Longman Active Study Impressions) Overview of graphic data, Dictionary, pp. iv-vi, for a guide to the format and fill out a questionnaire to pp. 37-44. information in the dictionary. anticipate content of reading 248 Weeks Reading Writing Remarks identify main ideas and Graph exercises: supporting details gap-fill exercise on ILC student numbers; identify word forms using a dictionary introductory paragraph exercise language of change; Grammar: use the 1st conditional Week 3 Feb. 12- Q: Skills for Success 3, IELTS Task 1: Line graphs 16 Unit 1(First Report writing tasks Impressions) contd. Eating out in Sharjah Smoking in Four Countries Fast food consumption Grammar: learn and practise ordering of adjectives Week 4 Q: Skills for Success 3, IELTS Task 1: Bar Charts Feb 19-23 Unit 2 (Food and Taste) Report writing tasks 23rd Feb – last day for withdrawal from semester take a quiz to anticipate Population Growth of content of reading Texas and Massachusetts analyze the structure Popularity of cars in the of a text as a previewing Gulf strategy Popularity of activities at learn and use selected Dubai Sports and Fitness phrasal verbs to expand Club vocabulary 249 Weeks Reading Writing Remarks use prior knowledge to predict content Q: Skills for Success 3, use context to understand unfamiliar Unit 3 (Success): vocabulary Paragraph writing task organize an opinion paragraph, pp. 59-60 write an opinion paragraph, pp.62-64 Grammar: learn and practise subject-verb agreement Week 5 Q: Skills for Success 3, IELTS Task 1: Pie Charts and Tables Feb 26 – Unit 2 (Food and Taste) Mar. 1 contd. Focus on Skills for IELTS Foundation, Unit 1, Interpreting pie charts, pp. 114-116 Report writing tasks: Comparing Two pie charts: Education in Someland Cambridge IELTS Test Book 5, Test 4, p.98 Writing a report on a table of underground rail 250 Weeks Reading Writing Remarks systems in 6 cities Cambridge IELTS Test Book 7, Test 1, p. 30 Writing a report on a table about consumer spending in 5 countries Grammar: recognize and use selected adj.+ preposition collocations Week 6 Q: Skills for Success 3, Ready to Write More, Parts of an Essay, Ch. 4, Mar. 4-8 Unit 3 (Success) pp. 60-66; complete a survey to pp.68-70 anticipate content of reading IELTS Task 2: Opinion use an idea map to Essay activate schema (Responsibility) use headings to Essay writing tasks determine the purpose of a text Students should pay for their university fees use titles to predict content Celebrities should not be paid so much money scan to find specific information about numbers, names, and dates Grammar: learn and practise selected gerunds and 251 Weeks Reading Writing Remarks infinitives Week 7 Q: Skills for Success 3, Review of Task 1 and 2 1st portfolio due this week types covered so far in the Mar. 11- Unit 3 (Success) contd. form of a practice IELTS 15 exam Week 8 MIDTERM EXAMS Mar. 18- 22 Mar. 25- Students’ Spring Break 29 Week 9 Q: Skills for Success 3, IELTS Task 2: Opinion Essay contd. (Advertising) Apr. 1-5 Unit 6 (Advertising) use photos to activate Essay writing tasks schema and anticipate Advertising is a useful content economic tool in developed distinguish fact from countries opinion Advertising makes people use prior knowledge to spend money on products predict content they don’t need learn and use selected suffixes Grammar: learn and 252 Weeks Reading Writing Remarks practise compound sentences Week 10 Q: Skills for Success 3, Ready to Write More, Thursday 12: Problem and Solution, Ch. Apr. 8-12 Unit 6 (Advertising) 9, pp. 129-137 Last day for dropping contd. courses without Grade "F" IELTS Task 2: Problem and Solution Essay Essay writing tasks Tom Higgins’ restaurant problem (Ready to Write More, pp. 134-137) Young male drivers cause most car accidents in the UAE People who smoke risk losing their lives Grammar: past and present in narrative writing 253 Weeks Reading Writing Remarks Week 11 Q: Skills for Success 3, IELTS Task 2: Problem and Solution Essay contd. Apr. 15-19 Unit 7 (Risk) Q: Skills for Success 3, use photos to activate Unit 8 (Cities): Review of schema and anticipate organizing a problem/solution essay, pp. content 170-172 identify and use referents Essay writing tasks in texts to understand Making our cities better contrast places to live (Q: Skills for make predictions about Success 3, pp. 174-176) text Lack of parking space at sequence ideas to show UoS text structure Increase in inner city juvenile crime use prior knowledge to predict content find and use the correct Task 1: Interpreting a map definition of words with of a city. Report writing, Cambridge IELTS Test multiple meanings with Book 5, Test 3, p.75 the aid of a dictionary Grammar: learn and practise the passive voice (see Week 13) Week 12 Q: Skills for Success 3, IELTS Task 1: Combined graphic data. Apr. 22-26 Unit 7 (Risk) contd. Report writing 254 Weeks Reading Writing Remarks Table and pie chart: Adult literacy rates for men and women worldwide Bar chart and table: Sales of laptops in the UAE Table and 3-line graph: Monthly household income spent on energy Grammar: learn and practise complex sentences Week 13 Q: Skills for Success 3, Bar chart and table: Apr. 29 – Unit 8 (Cities) Sales of English Language May 3 read and recognize newspapers in the UAE different text types take a quiz to anticipate content of reading Task 1: Describing a Process: make predictions about text Review of Passive Voice in preparation for writing a make inferences to process report (Q: Skills for Success 3, Unit 8, pp. 172- maximize 173) comprehension Computer lab activity: recognize and use participial adjectives to How chocolate is made. expand vocabulary Worksheet in Supplementary Materials Folder (see link in the list of websites below) How paper is made (Worksheet in Core 255 Weeks Reading Writing Remarks Materials folder) Grammar: learn and practise sentence fragments Week 14 Q: Skills for Success 3, Review of Opinion and 2nd portfolio due this week Problem and Solution May 6-10 Unit 8 (Cities) contd. Essays IELTS Practice Exam Week 15 IEP final exams and TOEFL this Dec. 25- 29 week Dec 31- Jan 11 FINAL EXAMS FOR REGULAR UNIVERSITY COURSES Assessment To be eligible for entry into PREP 004, students in PREP 003 must achieve a minimum of 60% in their final grade for the course. Students who do not meet this criterion are required to repeat the course. Students’ language development is assessed continuously throughout the semester as follows: Activity Percentage Remarks Continuous Assessment: Class work and participation Students must complete a number of graded Homework 50 % assignments or quizzes during the semester for both Quizzes (The teacher is required to reading and writing keep the students informed Portfolio of their grades on a regular Students are required to basis and enter the grades on 256 the computer throughout the submit two portfolios each semester, preferably on a semester, to be allocated 5% weekly basis.) of the Continuous Assessment marks. (Teachers may wish to add a ‘preparatory’ portfolio check in Week 4, to check that students have the folders and dividers, and show evidence of organization.) Exams: Midterm exam 20 % Final exam 30 % Course Grades Each IEP course will be graded separately. To pass PREP 3, students must obtain an average of at least 60% for all of the IEP courses. The table below shows the correspondence between the letter grades and percentages. Course Grades A 90-100% B 80-89% C 70-79% D 60-69% F below 60% IEP Policies on Attendance, Lateness and Behavior You can find information on the English Language Center website about the attendance, lateness and behavior policies. Follow the steps below: Log on to www.sharjah.ac.ae. 257 Hold the cursor over Academics and a drop-down menu will appear. Click on English Language Center. When you see the home page for the English Language Center, hold the cursor over ELC Policies, and a second drop-down menu will appear. Click on the two headings Attendance & Lateness and Student Behavior to get all the information you need. 258