J01421
STUDENTS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD MONOLINGUAL APPROACH
IN ENGLISH CLASSES AT SMA LAB SALATIGA
Sonya Meilina Ekawati
Graduate, Faculty of Language and Literature
Satya Wacana Christian University
Salatiga
Maria Christina Eko Setyarini
Faculty of Language and Literature
Satya Wacana Christian University
Salatiga
Abstract
This paper aims to investigate the students’ attitude towards Monolingual approach in English
classes. In the field of ELT, monolingual has been prescribed as an official approach to be
applied in English classes. However, the literature suggests that it has been a debatable approach
for years. Studies on learners’ attitude toward the implementation of the approach indicated
various impacts on students. This study investigates 103 Indonesian high school students’
attitude at a private high school in Salatiga where the approach is applied. The attitude is
investigated by a questionnaire measuring the respondents’ learning performance, opinion, and
feeling based on their experiences studying at a Monolingual class. The findings would seem to
indicate that most of the students had a fairly positive attitude towards the approach. The
students enjoyed studying in the Monolingual class and supported the use of English–only in
their English classes.
Keywordsː monolingual approach, English classes, students’ attitude
INTRODUCTION
A monolingual approach (henceforth called MA) suggests that a target language should
be the only medium of instructions. English as a medium of instructions provides more
exposure to English and more chances to acquire it. Students and teacher will learn English
not as a subject, but through English (Ibrahim, 2001). Thus, it is believed that the use of the
first language (L1) had been largely regarded as a negative influence. The second language
(L2) is also seen as an optimal medium for teaching English in the classroom.
However, some arguments oppose the use of MA in English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) classes. Viavara (2011) argues that interacting in English inside the classroom
continues to a challenge for many educators or future educators. Especially, in EFL setting
where English is being taught by the non-native English teachers, the use of MA in
classrooms will challenge the teachers to keep encouraging themselves and their learners to
communicate in English in a formal setting.
Further, students’ L2 cannot co-exist with their previous languages (Canagarajah, 1999).
In spite of the fact that their mother tongue helps students in mastering L2, there are some
cases where the teachers conduct the class in L1 entire time. Viavara (2011) finds that
students-teachers speak Spanish and translate almost every word they say to their students.
This situation might discourage the teacher and the students to learn L2 actively as they
always depended on their L1.
Despite the arguments about MA, the experience learning English using the approach in
my high school and my university was positive to me. Specifically, in my high school, I had
to communicate in English with my classmates and my English teacher in my class. If I spoke
Indonesian or Javanese, I would get a punishment. As my teacher provided a punishment for
all students who talked in Indonesian during the class, we could force ourselves to speak in
English. This method somehow helped us to build our confident in using the target language.
The situation also made us aware that English needed to be used actively.
In educational contexts, students’ attitudes mostly concerned with their attitude towards
schools, school subjects, teachers, other students (Ibrahim, 2001), and teaching approaches
(Lee, 2012). Gardner and Lambert (1972) as cited in Abidin (2012) mentions that, the
students’ ability to master a second language is not only influenced by a metal competence or
a language skill but also by their attitude and perception towards the target language. It is still
debatable whether the MA implementation in EFL classes might affect the students’ attitude.
Therefore, this study aims to investigate students’ attitude towards MA in an EFL class and to
answer the following research questions: What are the students’ attitudes towards a
monolingual approach in English as Foreign Language (EFL) classroom?
It is hoped that findings of the study would provide insights for instructors and students
in English Language Education Program of Satya Wacana Christian University (henceforth
called ED-SWCU) to understand how learners perceive and react towards the use of Englishonly instruction in their classrooms. The study also possibly helps future educators to be more
aware of their student’s attitude towards the approach that they have applied in teaching L2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Monolingual Approach in EFL classrooms
The approach has long been prescribed by official policies in the field of English
Language Teaching (ELT) (Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Macaro, 2001; Phillipson, 1992) as well
as in other contexts (McMillan & Turnbull, 2009, as cited in McMillan & Rivers, 2011). As
the focus on developing English skills moved from written aspects to spoken communicative
aspects, MA is getting more attention due to the increase of the exposure of the target
language (Tsukamoto, 2011). Furthermore, MA implies that languages other than the target
one should be avoided in language teaching and learning process at all cost (Lee, 2012).
In recent study, Ellis (2005) also asserts that the more L2 exposure that students can
receive, the faster the students can learn. Macaro (2001) as cited in Qandri (2006) justifies
that teaching entirely in L2 makes the language real and develops the learners’ in-built
language system. The ideas appear to prove that L1 should not be used under any
circumstances in EFL classrooms to motive both students’ and teachers’ English fluency.
Also, Cook (2001) as cited in Mouhanna (2009) claims that a successful learning of L2
involves the separation and distinction of L1 and L2. In that case, students should be shown
the importance of L2 through its continual use. It is considered likely that L2 acquisition is
similar to L1 acquisitions, which assume that exposure is very important as the determining
factor in learning the target language (Ellis, 2008). Children learned their L1 by listening and
copying things around them. L2 acquisitions were modeled the same as children developing
their linguistics skill for the first time.
MA supporters have stated that translating between L1 and L2 can be dangerous as it
encourages the belief that there are 1 to 1 equivalents between the languages, which is not
always the case (Pracek, 2003 as cited in Miles, 2004). Hence, learning two languages should
be separated. Harbord (1992) as cited in Pardede (2013) also supports the L1 and L2
separation and acknowledges that overusing of L1 makes students believe that word for word
translation is a useful technique. Consequently, they will work towards transferring meaning
in learning L2. It is important to differentiate the use of L1 as the medium of communication
and the imitation of L1 as a learning process in EFL classrooms.
Learners’ Attitude in Language Learning
Attitude views something by involving mental positions about such things as a way of
behaving, thinking, and acting toward something (Miles, 2004). Long and Russell (1999) as
cited in Kurihara (2006) defines attitudes as a mean of adjusting and changing one’s social
environment. Wu (2008) says that changing one’s belief and opinion about one object can
change desirability towards a particular object. In other words, attitude is changeable. It is
used to evaluate favorable and unfavorable feelings towards specific attitude objects, such as
personal action decision, abstract concepts, and policy decision.
Wu (2008) mentions three component models: cognitive, affective, and behavioral
components. First, the cognitive component refers to beliefs about an attitude object or topic,
for instance, a teacher might believe that teaching English was beneficial for students using
English-only in classrooms. Second, the affective component refers to feeling or emotions
associated with an attitude object. For example, some students enjoy studying in a class where
MA is applied in classes. Third, the behavioral component refers to past behaviors associated
with the attitude object. In this case, a person might possess a positive attitude towards MA in
EFL classes due to his/her active involvement in class activities.
Attitude is considered as an essential factor influencing language performance (Visser,
2008, as cited in Abidin, 2011). Horwitz (1999) as cited in Lee (2012) also states that those
learners’ attitudes or beliefs about language learning are influential factors in the success of
the target language learning. In other words, achievement the target language relies on not
only an intellectual capacity but also in learners’ attitude towards language learning.
Students’ Attitudes towards Monolingual Classrooms
A study by Schweers (1999) as cited in Hoang, Jang and Yang (2010) found that 88,7%
Spanish students studying English wanted their class to include L1 in their class. Lee’s study
(2012) does not explore the issue of teacher code-switching to learners’ L1, but the findings
showed that only less than 20% of the learners embraced MA wholeheartedly that the L1
cannot be completely left out in their learning process. The use of L1 is still needed by L1
learners. It is likely that MA has brought out the negative attitudes for EFL students.
On the contrary, the while low-level students often show their preference for a bilingual
approach. Hopkins (1989) and Howell (1991) as cited in Auerbach (1993) state that more
advanced students may feel that the use of L1 deters their acquisition of the target language.
The low students feel the use of mother tongue supports their learning English. However, the
advance students feel that the use of mother tongue will impede the process of acquiring
English. Another study conducted by Kalanzadeh, Hemati, Shahivand, and Bakhtiarvand,
(2013) involving the third-grade high school students in the Persian context found that the
domination of English in EFL classes were supportive, and the excessive use of Persian in
Iranian English classes could have a demoting effect on students. The use of L1 discourages
learners to develop their language ability in L2. Some Japanese students showed neutrals
views for either monolingual or bilingual approach (Dwyer & Heller-Murphy, 2001, as cited
in Miles, 2004). In fact, the students considered any approach that has been applied by their
English teacher would not hinder their learning process to master the L2.
METHODOLOGY
The study employed a quantitative paradigm to gather, analyze, and interpret the data.
Cohen (1980) as cited in Sukamolson, (2007, p.2) defines a quantitative research as:
a social research that employs empirical method and empirical statements. Typically, empirical
statements are expressed in numerical terms. Another factor is that empirical evaluations are
applied. Empirical evaluations are defined as a form that seeks to determine the degree to
which a specific program or policy empirically fulfills or does not fulfill a particular standard
or norm.
Context of the Study
The study was done at Laboratorium Kristen Satya Wacana Senior High School (SMA
Lab). SMA Lab is a private school under the management of Satya Wacana Christian
University and located in Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. The school has applied a
monolingual approach in all English classes from grade 10th to grade 12th.
Research Participants
The participants were 11th-grade students in five English classrooms at SMA Lab. The
classes were XI-1 Science class, XI-2 Science class, XI-1 Social class, XI-2 Social class, and
XI- Language class. The participants have experienced studying English with the practice of
monolingual approach since their 10th grade. In total, there were 103 students. Table 1 details
the information about the participants.
Table 1. Demographic Information of Participants
Category
Gender
Age
Length period of
learning English
Description
Male
Female
15-16
17-18
5-6
7-8
9-10
11-12
13-14
n
43
60
97
6
3
5
47
42
6
This study used a purposive sampling method to draw on the participants who have the
following characteristics. They have been exposed to a monolingual approach in their English
class, so their views on the practice of the approach based on their previous or current
experience. Then, they have learned English in a formal instructional setting (rather than
natural settings).
Data Collection Instrument
In this study, a Likert-scale questionnaire (adapted from Hoang, Jang, & Yang, 2010))
was used to gather the data. All statements in the questionnaire were written in Bahasa
Indonesia to ensure that all participants clearly understood meanings of the questions. More
specifically, the questionnaire consists of 23 statements to investigate three components of
attitude: behavior, cognitive and affective. Statements 1-12 were related to students’ learning
performance in their class to investigate their behavior and cognitive in their English class
where the monolingual approach was applied. Statements 13-18 dealt with what the
participants believe about the use of English by teachers and students during the class or class
activities. Meanwhile, statements 19-23 concerned with students’ feeling and emotion about
studying in a monolingual class.
Data Collection Procedure
The researcher did some steps to collect the data. Initially, she approached the school
principal and English teachers of SMA LAB and asked their permissions to conduct the study
in the school. After obtaining the permission, she distributed 125 questionnaires to the
participants. On the questionnaire, the participants were asked to respond all statements in the
questionnaire particularly 5-15 minutes before the lesson began.
Data Analysis Procedure
After the researcher had collected all the questionnaire, she numbered each
questionnaire Then, she coded, analyzed, and calculated the data using the Microsoft Excel
program. The percentage of each statement was categorized into themes that were interpreted
and implicated with relevant literature. The categorization was used to determine the attitude
of the participants in learning English in their monolingual classroom. Eventually, the
researcher used some tables to detail her analysis.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This part presents the analysis of students’ attitude toward the monolingual practice in
their classroom. Initially, the research used Table 2 to show whether the students have
experienced studying English either in a natural or formal instructional setting.
Table 2. Students’ Exposure to English in a Natural or Formal Institutional Setting
Questions
1. Did you grow up in a family that uses English for daily
communication at home?
Yes (n)
0
2. Have you ever lived in a country that English is used as
an official language?
0
3. Have you ever learned in an English class that uses English-only
as a medium of instruction?
103
No (n)
103
103
0
Table 3 showed that all participants had exposed to English in a formal institutional setting.
They also had never used English actively at their home and lived in English-speaking
countries. The main source of exposure to English was through their English classes which
prohibited the use of L1 during the class session.
Then, the study found three themes to answer the research question. The first theme was
students’ feeling. The other themes were related to students’ opinion and students’ behavior
towards the monolingual approach. The researcher discussed the themes in the subsequent
sections of this study.
The Emotional Aspect of Attitude towards the Monolingual Approach
Students’ fondness toward English-only class
The data indicated that 34% students somewhat agreed that they liked to study in a class
in that English was used as a language instruction. Meanwhile, 18.4% students strongly
agreed that they enjoyed the English lesson at their school. Enjoying learning English with the
English-only environment would possibly develop students’ positive attitude.
Table 3. Students’ Response of Fondness towards English-Only Class
No
Statements
Strongly
Disagree
1. I like to learn English in a class
1,0
where English is used as the
language of instruction and I
enjoy my English lesson at school.
2. I like if my English teacher uses
English-only to communicate
during classroom activities.
2,9
Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly
Disagree
Agree
Agree
5.8
40.8
34,0
18.4
14.6
46.6
26,2
9.7
On the other hand, the data revealed that 46.6% students were neutral in responding
whether they like if their teacher uses English to communicate during class activities. This
finding implied that the students recognized the importance of exposure to English in
learning. At the same time, the use of L1 sometimes needs to be applied in teaching L2. This
result was slightly different to the finding result conducted by Nazary (2008) who reported
that 72% of Parisian University students preferred to teachers who use more than one
language rather than those who use one language only in the classroom. It indicated that the
students seemed to prefer a teacher who uses one language only in the classroom.
Students’ confidence and anxiety to learn the L2 in an L2 setting
Item 3 in Table 4 reported that 29,1% students somewhat agreed and 21,4% strongly
agreed that they feel excited and challenged when they are allowed to speak in English-only.
It meant those students showed a positive feeling towards the learning of the L2 in the
monolingual approach. It also indicated that the students had a high interest in learning
English by actively using it in their classroom.
Table 4. Students’ Responses of Their Confidence and Anxiety
No
Statements
Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Agree
Agree
3. I am excited and challenged when
I am allowed only to use English in
class.
14.6
4. I am not confident with my
English ability; thus, I become
passive in my English class.
1,0
5. Getting a punishment if I speak
Indonesian in class makes me
afraid to participate during a class
activity.
6.8
24.3
10.7
10.7
45.6
8,7
6.8
37.9
29,1
21,4
43.7
28,2
10,7
Nevertheless, almost half of students (43,7%) selected a neutral response telling that
they become passive in the classroom because they feel unconfident with their English ability.
It was likely that the students were afraid of making some mistakes when they spoke English.
Further, the students showed neither agree nor disagree (45,6%) that they were frightened to
participate if the teacher punished the students who spoke the Indonesian language in the
classroom. This finding indicated that the enforcement did not cause the students’ anxiety in
participating in a class.
The Cognitive Aspects of Attitude towards the Monolingual Approach
Students’ language ability while studying in a monolingual setting
Table 5. Students’ Response towards Their Language Ability
No
Statements
6. I understand everything
that my teacher says
in English.
7. I clearly understand
the instruction given by
my teacher in English.
8. I comprehend main points
of the material being taught
by my teacher in English.
9. I comprehend all the material
Strongly
Disagree
1,9
Somewhat
Disagree
11.7
Neutral
31.1
Somewhat Strongly
Agree
Agree
45.6
9.7
1,0
8.7
35,0
43.7
11,7
0
8.7
34,0
43.7
13,6
0
9.7
39.8
38.8
11,7
being taught by my teacher
in English.
Regarding students’ understanding of their teacher’s utterance in item 6 and 7, it was
found that more than 50% of students showed their agreement that during the English lesson,
they understood instructions that their teacher said in English. This finding suggested that the
majority of students showed their positive opinion when their teacher always spoke in English
during the lesson. It appeared to prove that the students’ English language ability to
understand their teacher instruction and utterance has improved because they have learned to
be accustomed to listening the teacher’s instruction, and explanation in English.
Also, in item 8 and 9, there were more than half of students agreed that they were able
to grasp main points of the material being taught in English. In this case, those students were
able to follow and comprehend all the materials. The finding revealed that the implementation
of monolingual practices in an English class did not impede students’ learning process.
Similar to Hoang, Jang, and Yang’s (2009) result in their previous study, there were more than
70% Vietnamese University students who were able to grasp the main points of the lesson.
The use of English-only in teaching and learning situations
Table 6. Students’ Responses Towards the Use of English-Only in Their Classroom
No
Statements
Strongly
Disagree
10. I think Indonesian should not
7.8
be used in any situations in
English classes.
11. I think English should be used to 3.9
discuss tests, quizzes, and
assignments in the class.
12. I think the teacher should teach
grammar and new vocabularies
using English-only.
Somewhat
Disagree
23.3
11.7
Neutral
43.7
Somewhat
Agree
18.4
Strongly
Agree
6.8
47.6
23.3
13.6
1,0
17.5
30.1
30.1
21,4
13. I think a teacher should
1,9
speak English-only when giving
instruction for activities in the class.
4.9
39.8
35,0
18,4
Regarding students’ responses to the statement that the Indonesian language should not
be used in any situation in an English classroom, it was found that 43,7% students were
neutral. Moreover, almost a half number of students (47,6%) thought that English should be
used to discuss classrooms’ tests, quizzes, and assignments during the English lesson.
On the contrary, students showed positive responses that a teacher should teach
grammar and vocabulary in English. 30,1% students somewhat agreed and 21,4% strongly
agreed with this statement. Likewise, 35% students somewhat agreed and 18,4% students
strongly agreed that English should be used in giving instructions during class activities. This
current result was contradictory with Burden’s (2000) as cited in Nazary (2008) research on
290 Japanese University students. His study showed that most of the students believed that L1
is essential to explain vocabulary, grammar, instructions, classroom tests, quizzes, and
assignments.
The benefits of using English exclusively in an L2 setting
Obviously, based on their responses to the statement 14, 25,2% students somewhat
agreed and 51,5% students strongly agreed that practicing English would accommodate them
to communicate in English better.
Table 7. The Students’ Responses of Using English Exclusively in a L2 Setting
No
Statements
14. The more English is
used in a class, the better
I learn to communicate
in English.
Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Agree
Agree
1,0
3.9
18.4
25.2
51,5
15. I think to master English, I have
I have to English exclusively
in my class.
0
2.9
38.8
27.2
31,1
Meanwhile, in statement 15, 58,3% of students thought that English should be used
exclusively in the class to help them master the language. This possibly proved that forcing
the students to learn with the English-only was found to be advantageous.
Students’ Behavioral Aspects of Attitude towards the Monolingual Approach
Students’ participation and interaction in a monolingual class
Item 16 indicated 47,6% neutral responses that the students asked their teacher if they
needed help to comprehend materials in English. According to Vanichakorn’s (2009)
observation result in a monolingual class, there were just a few times when the students raised
their hands and asked questions to the teacher directly. It was assumed that those monolingual
students were not comfortable enough to ask their teacher using English when they did not
comprehend some materials. Table 8 details the findings.
Table 8. Students’ Responses of Participation and Interaction in a Monolingual Class
No
Statement
Strongly Somewhat
Disagree Disagree
16. If I don’t understand the material
1.0
15.5
being taught in my class,
I always ask my teacher in English.
Neutral
47.6
Somewhat Strongly
Agree
Agree
24.3
11,7
17. If I don’t understand the material
1,0
being taught in class, I prefer to ask
my other classmates.
1.9
30.1
42,7
24,3
18. I can interrupt and ask my teacher
to repeat the explanation in English.
3,9
7.8
46.6
29.1
12,6
19. I communicate with my teacher and
my other classmates in English
during the class.
1,9
10,7
48,5
29,1
9,7
0
4.9
35,0
29,1
20 I communicate with my other
classmates in Indonesian if my
teacher cannot hear us.
31.1
21. I will answer the questions in
1,0
English when my teacher point at me.
1.9
29.1
22. I discuss with my other group
member by using English
10.7
52.4
23. I can express my opinion
in English in the class.
1,0
1,9
11.7
47.6
44,7
28.2
28,2
23,3
7.8
10,7
.
On the contrary, in item 17, 42.7% of students somewhat agreed and 24,3 % of students
strongly agreed that they chose their other classmates to be asked about comprehension
problems (item 17). More than half numbers of students looked for help from their classmates
instead of asking their teacher to help them. As the majority of the students preferred their
other classmates to help them, this finding seemed to verify the claim of Vanichakorn (2009)
that the students from the English-only classes relied a great deal on the so-called good
students who helped facilitate the teacher’s English only instructions.
The neutral response (46,6%) was also found in item 18. It was likely that when the
students interacted with their teacher, most of them showed neutral responses. A similar
response was also found in item 19 showing 48,5% neutral responses.
In item 20, the students had more positive responses. 35% of the students somewhat
agreed and 29,1% of them strongly agreed on the statement in the item. This was a surprising
result because a half number of students would switch to Indonesian when the teacher could
not hear them. Hoang, Jang, and Yang’s study (2009) found that only 19% Vietnamese
University students who switched into the Vietnamese language when the teacher could not
hear them.
Dealing with the students’ responses on their ability to answer the teacher’s questions
in English, the data indicated that 44,7% of the students somewhat agreed that they were able
to answer questions in English. It showed that the students were able to grasp the meaning of
questions being asked by the teacher and to state their answer in English. The majority of the
students showed neutral responses (52.4%) about discussing with group members in English.
It was discouraging to find out that only few numbers of students would try to discuss given
assignments or tasks with their group mates in English. Concerning with students’
participation and interaction in a monolingual class, the data showed 47.6% neutral responses
that the students were capable of expressing their opinions in English.
Since these 11th-grade students have been studying in a monolingual class for more than
a year, they possibly have adapted with the classroom setting where English is the only
language option for teaching and learning. The students believed that maximizing English use
in the class would help them to practice English. Besides, they viewed that high exposure to
English would speed their language competence to master English.
The study highlighted some cases for which English appeared to be useful in the L2
setting. The students thought that grammar functions, vocabulary, and classroom instructions
should be explained in English. Besides, the students appeared to consider using the mixture
of English and Indonesian in an English classroom. In that case, they wished their teacher to
allow them sometimes to speak the Indonesian language. Nearly half of the students did not
put much effort to express their opinion or to ask their teacher to repeat questions in English.
Instead, the students agreed that they answered questions in English when their teacher asked
them.
Concerning the students’ performance in the class, the students limited their
participation and interaction with the teacher in English. In fact, they acted differently when
the teacher was near them and when the teacher was not. They showed high neutral responses
in communicating with their teacher and other classmates in English. However, the findings
showed an agreement that they switched to talk in Indonesian language with their classmates
when their teacher could not hear them. Then, during a group discussion, the majority of
students mixed English and Indonesian language to discuss the tasks or assignments with their
fellow group members.
Furthermore, when facing difficulties in comprehending a learning material, only a few
students who were willing to interact with their teacher and to ask about their difficulties.
Meanwhile, most of the students seemed to seek help from other classmates. Apparently, this
particular finding is not in harmony with the previous statement about students’ opinion
regarding comprehension of the material. Eventually, the findings would seem to indicate that
the monolingual approach could prevent the majority of students to involve fully in their
classroom activities.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study is to explore the high school students’ attitude towards the
monolingual approach in English classes. Overall, the students show positive attitude towards
the Monolingual approach. They perceived the implementation of the Monolingual Approach
well. They also showed a pleasant feeling studying in their monolingual class, as they were
aware of the importance of L2 use in the L2 learning. However, it was essential to note that
the approach did not facilitate the students’ learning performance effectively in class. The
majority of students showed neutral responses regarding how they acted and dealt with their
learning difficulties. The approach limited them from having full participation in their class
and interaction with their teacher.
It is highly beneficial to keep the implementation of monolingual practice in the English
classes. In that case, the language teacher should enhance the students’ confidence in their
English ability by engaging activities that provide opportunities for the students to practice
their communication skill frequently. It is also important to keep encouraging the students to
be more enthusiastic about participating in their class and in interacting with their teacher and
other classmates using English.
The findings of this study have several limitations. The attitudinal questionnaire could
only provide the general statements of students’ behavior, belief, and feeling towards the
monolingual approach without asking detail reasons what caused them to think and feel the
way they did. Further, the students’ English proficiency has not been yet measured. Thus, the
findings have relied on the students’ past or current experiences studying in the monolingual
approach class. To find deeper insights of the students’ thought and feeling, future researchers
need to do class observations and semi-structure interviews as a part of data collection
instruments. It can help future researchers to select students who get a low and high score to
be interviewed as the attitude towards the monolingual approach possessed by both types of
students may come out differently.
REFERENCES
Abidin, D. J. (2012). EFL students' attitudes toward learning languageː The case of Libyan
Secondary School Students. Asian Social Science, 8(2), 119-134. Retrieved March 5,
2013, from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/14617
Al-jadidi, H., & Sanguinetti, J. (2010). Characteristic Pedagogical Style of Bilingual and
Monolingual English Teachers. International Journal Arts and Science , 3(16), 131147. Retrieved October 15, 2013 from http://www.openaccesslibrary.org/images/
BGS269_Husna_Al-jadidi.pdf
Al-Nofaie, H. (2010). 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),
4(1), pp. 64-95.Retrieved November 8, 2013 from
http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_4_1/al-nofaie.pdf
Auerbach, E. (1993).Re-examining English Only in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly,
27(1), 9-32. Retrieved January 23, 2013 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files
/rcd/BE019020/Reexamining_English_Only.pdf.
Burden, P. (2000).The use of the students’ mother tongue in monolingual English
“Conversation” classes at Japanese universities. The Language Teacher, 24(6), 5-11
Retrieved July 14, 2013 from http://jaltpublications.org/old_tlt/ articles/2000/06/burden
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press, Retrieved February 16, 2013 from http://eku.comu.edu.tr/
eku/index.php/eku/article/download/124/pdf_55.
Ellis, R. (2005).Principles of Instructed language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3).Retrieved
March 5,2013 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/sept_05_re.pdf
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition; Second Edition. Oxford:
University Press.Retrieved March 20, 2013 from http://books.google.com/books
Kalanzadeh,GA, Hemati, F., Shahivand, Z., & Bakhtiarvand, M.(2013). The Use of EFL
Students' L1 In English Class. The International Journal of Language Learning and
Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) ,2, p.30-39. Retrieved March 7, 2013 from
http://www.academia.edu/2480620/THE_USE_OF_EFL_STUDENTSL1
_IN_ENGLISH_CLASSES
Hoang, N. T., Jang, S. H., & Yang, Y. (2010). English-Only Classrooms: Ideology versus
Reality. International Education Research Conference, pp 1-11. Melbourneː
Australian Association for Research in Education. Retrieved January 23, 2013, from
http://www.aare.edu.au/10pap/1755HoangJangYang.pdf
Ibrahim, J. (2001). The Implementation of EMI (English Medium of Instruction) inIndonesian
University:Its Opportunities its Threats,its Problem and its Possible solution. 49th
International TEFLIN Conference in Bali, 3, pp. 121-137. Surabaya: Petra
Christian University. Retrieved February 23, 2013 from http://puslit.petra.ac.id/
journals/letters/
Kurihara, N. (2006). Classroom Anxiety: How Does Student Attitude Change in English Oral
communication class in a Japanese senior high school?. Accents Asia Organization,
1(1).Retrieved March 15, 2013, from httpː//www.accentsasia.org/1-1/kurihara.pdf
Lee, J. H. (2012). Reassessment of English-only approach in EFL context in view of young
learners’ attitudes, language proficiency, and vocabulary knowledge. Multilingual
Education a SpringerOpen Journal, 2(5).Retrieved February 12, 2013, from
multilingual-education.: http://www.multilingual-education.com/content/2/1/5
McMillan, B. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2011). The Practice of policyːTeacher attitude toward
"English Only". Elseivier:System, 39(2), 251-263. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from
http://www.mville.edu/images/stories/Graduate_Academics_Education/ChangingSubur
bs/ELLStrategiesAndResourse/Teacher_attitudes_in_classrooms.pdf.
Milles, R. (2004). Evaluating the use of L1 in the English Language Classroom (Master
Thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham), pp. 1-38. Retrieved January 26,
2013 from http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/Milesdiss.pdf
Mouhanna, M. (2009). Re-Examining the Role of L1 in the EFL Classroom. UGRU Journal, 8,
1-19. Retrieved March 14, 2013 from http://www.ugr.uaeu.ac.ae/ acads/ugrujournal/
docs/REL1.pdf.
Nazary, M. (2008). The Role of L1 in L2 Acquisitionː Attitudes of Iranian University
Students. Novitas Royal Research on Youth and Language, 2(2), 138-152.
Retrieved December 4, 2013 from http://www.novitasroyal.org/nazary.pdf.
Pardede, P. (2013). Evaluation of Use of MT in EFL Classes of Secondary Schools in
Jadetabek: Students and Teachers’ Perception (Research Proposal, Universitas Kristen
Indonesia, Jakarta). Retrieved Juni 15, 2013, from Scribd Website:
www.scribd.com/ ;137890893/Proposal-Evaluation-MT-in-EFL-Class
Qandri, T. (2006). Teachers' and Students' Practices and Attitudes Toward Arabic (L1) Use
in ELT (Master Theses, American University of Sharjah). Retrieved June 20, 2013,
from
https://dspace.aus.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11073/28/Final_thesis___
June_11.pdf?sequence=1
Rahman, S. (2005). Orientations and Motivation in English Language Learningː a Study of
Bangladeshi Students at Undergraduate Level. Asian EFL Journal, 7(1), 1-25.
Retrieved February 28, 2013 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_05_sr.pdf.
Sadeharju, T. (2012). Language Choice in EFL Teaching: Student teachers’ perceptions.
Department of Languages English, Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved
October
22,
2013
from
https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/
123456789/40678/URN%3ANBN%3Afi%3Ajyu-201301111029.pdf?sequence=1.
Sukamolson Suphat, P. (2007). Fundamentals of quantitative research. Language Institute
Chulalongkorn University. Bangkok: CULI, .55-75. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from
http://www.culi.chula.ac.th/e-journal/bod/suphat%20sukamolson.pdf.
Tsukamoto, M. (2011). Students' perception of teachers' language use in EFL classroom.
Osaka Jogakuin University Research Journal, 8, 143-154. Retrieved, March 27, 2013
from http://ir-lib.wilmina.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10775/2438/1/d2011_08.pdf.
Vanichakorn, N. (2009, September). Re-Examine The Use Of The Student's First Language
In The English As A Foreign Language Classrooms: A Cross-Case Analysis From
Undergraduate Engineering Students In Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of College
Teaching & Learning, 5(6),1-16. Retrieved October 12, 2013 from
http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/TLC/article/viewFile/1137/1121.
Viavara, J. J. (2011, April). How Do EFL students Teachers Face the challenge of using L2 in
Public School?. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 13(1), 55-74.
Retrieved January 22, 2013 from http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?pid=S165707902011000100004&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
Wu, Y. (2008). Classifying attitudes by topic aspect for English and Chinese Document
Collections (Dissertation, University of Maryland, Maryland), pp. 42-45. Retrieved
March 31, 2013 from http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/8150/1/umi-umd5329.pdf
IN ENGLISH CLASSES AT SMA LAB SALATIGA
Sonya Meilina Ekawati
Graduate, Faculty of Language and Literature
Satya Wacana Christian University
Salatiga
Maria Christina Eko Setyarini
Faculty of Language and Literature
Satya Wacana Christian University
Salatiga
Abstract
This paper aims to investigate the students’ attitude towards Monolingual approach in English
classes. In the field of ELT, monolingual has been prescribed as an official approach to be
applied in English classes. However, the literature suggests that it has been a debatable approach
for years. Studies on learners’ attitude toward the implementation of the approach indicated
various impacts on students. This study investigates 103 Indonesian high school students’
attitude at a private high school in Salatiga where the approach is applied. The attitude is
investigated by a questionnaire measuring the respondents’ learning performance, opinion, and
feeling based on their experiences studying at a Monolingual class. The findings would seem to
indicate that most of the students had a fairly positive attitude towards the approach. The
students enjoyed studying in the Monolingual class and supported the use of English–only in
their English classes.
Keywordsː monolingual approach, English classes, students’ attitude
INTRODUCTION
A monolingual approach (henceforth called MA) suggests that a target language should
be the only medium of instructions. English as a medium of instructions provides more
exposure to English and more chances to acquire it. Students and teacher will learn English
not as a subject, but through English (Ibrahim, 2001). Thus, it is believed that the use of the
first language (L1) had been largely regarded as a negative influence. The second language
(L2) is also seen as an optimal medium for teaching English in the classroom.
However, some arguments oppose the use of MA in English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) classes. Viavara (2011) argues that interacting in English inside the classroom
continues to a challenge for many educators or future educators. Especially, in EFL setting
where English is being taught by the non-native English teachers, the use of MA in
classrooms will challenge the teachers to keep encouraging themselves and their learners to
communicate in English in a formal setting.
Further, students’ L2 cannot co-exist with their previous languages (Canagarajah, 1999).
In spite of the fact that their mother tongue helps students in mastering L2, there are some
cases where the teachers conduct the class in L1 entire time. Viavara (2011) finds that
students-teachers speak Spanish and translate almost every word they say to their students.
This situation might discourage the teacher and the students to learn L2 actively as they
always depended on their L1.
Despite the arguments about MA, the experience learning English using the approach in
my high school and my university was positive to me. Specifically, in my high school, I had
to communicate in English with my classmates and my English teacher in my class. If I spoke
Indonesian or Javanese, I would get a punishment. As my teacher provided a punishment for
all students who talked in Indonesian during the class, we could force ourselves to speak in
English. This method somehow helped us to build our confident in using the target language.
The situation also made us aware that English needed to be used actively.
In educational contexts, students’ attitudes mostly concerned with their attitude towards
schools, school subjects, teachers, other students (Ibrahim, 2001), and teaching approaches
(Lee, 2012). Gardner and Lambert (1972) as cited in Abidin (2012) mentions that, the
students’ ability to master a second language is not only influenced by a metal competence or
a language skill but also by their attitude and perception towards the target language. It is still
debatable whether the MA implementation in EFL classes might affect the students’ attitude.
Therefore, this study aims to investigate students’ attitude towards MA in an EFL class and to
answer the following research questions: What are the students’ attitudes towards a
monolingual approach in English as Foreign Language (EFL) classroom?
It is hoped that findings of the study would provide insights for instructors and students
in English Language Education Program of Satya Wacana Christian University (henceforth
called ED-SWCU) to understand how learners perceive and react towards the use of Englishonly instruction in their classrooms. The study also possibly helps future educators to be more
aware of their student’s attitude towards the approach that they have applied in teaching L2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Monolingual Approach in EFL classrooms
The approach has long been prescribed by official policies in the field of English
Language Teaching (ELT) (Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Macaro, 2001; Phillipson, 1992) as well
as in other contexts (McMillan & Turnbull, 2009, as cited in McMillan & Rivers, 2011). As
the focus on developing English skills moved from written aspects to spoken communicative
aspects, MA is getting more attention due to the increase of the exposure of the target
language (Tsukamoto, 2011). Furthermore, MA implies that languages other than the target
one should be avoided in language teaching and learning process at all cost (Lee, 2012).
In recent study, Ellis (2005) also asserts that the more L2 exposure that students can
receive, the faster the students can learn. Macaro (2001) as cited in Qandri (2006) justifies
that teaching entirely in L2 makes the language real and develops the learners’ in-built
language system. The ideas appear to prove that L1 should not be used under any
circumstances in EFL classrooms to motive both students’ and teachers’ English fluency.
Also, Cook (2001) as cited in Mouhanna (2009) claims that a successful learning of L2
involves the separation and distinction of L1 and L2. In that case, students should be shown
the importance of L2 through its continual use. It is considered likely that L2 acquisition is
similar to L1 acquisitions, which assume that exposure is very important as the determining
factor in learning the target language (Ellis, 2008). Children learned their L1 by listening and
copying things around them. L2 acquisitions were modeled the same as children developing
their linguistics skill for the first time.
MA supporters have stated that translating between L1 and L2 can be dangerous as it
encourages the belief that there are 1 to 1 equivalents between the languages, which is not
always the case (Pracek, 2003 as cited in Miles, 2004). Hence, learning two languages should
be separated. Harbord (1992) as cited in Pardede (2013) also supports the L1 and L2
separation and acknowledges that overusing of L1 makes students believe that word for word
translation is a useful technique. Consequently, they will work towards transferring meaning
in learning L2. It is important to differentiate the use of L1 as the medium of communication
and the imitation of L1 as a learning process in EFL classrooms.
Learners’ Attitude in Language Learning
Attitude views something by involving mental positions about such things as a way of
behaving, thinking, and acting toward something (Miles, 2004). Long and Russell (1999) as
cited in Kurihara (2006) defines attitudes as a mean of adjusting and changing one’s social
environment. Wu (2008) says that changing one’s belief and opinion about one object can
change desirability towards a particular object. In other words, attitude is changeable. It is
used to evaluate favorable and unfavorable feelings towards specific attitude objects, such as
personal action decision, abstract concepts, and policy decision.
Wu (2008) mentions three component models: cognitive, affective, and behavioral
components. First, the cognitive component refers to beliefs about an attitude object or topic,
for instance, a teacher might believe that teaching English was beneficial for students using
English-only in classrooms. Second, the affective component refers to feeling or emotions
associated with an attitude object. For example, some students enjoy studying in a class where
MA is applied in classes. Third, the behavioral component refers to past behaviors associated
with the attitude object. In this case, a person might possess a positive attitude towards MA in
EFL classes due to his/her active involvement in class activities.
Attitude is considered as an essential factor influencing language performance (Visser,
2008, as cited in Abidin, 2011). Horwitz (1999) as cited in Lee (2012) also states that those
learners’ attitudes or beliefs about language learning are influential factors in the success of
the target language learning. In other words, achievement the target language relies on not
only an intellectual capacity but also in learners’ attitude towards language learning.
Students’ Attitudes towards Monolingual Classrooms
A study by Schweers (1999) as cited in Hoang, Jang and Yang (2010) found that 88,7%
Spanish students studying English wanted their class to include L1 in their class. Lee’s study
(2012) does not explore the issue of teacher code-switching to learners’ L1, but the findings
showed that only less than 20% of the learners embraced MA wholeheartedly that the L1
cannot be completely left out in their learning process. The use of L1 is still needed by L1
learners. It is likely that MA has brought out the negative attitudes for EFL students.
On the contrary, the while low-level students often show their preference for a bilingual
approach. Hopkins (1989) and Howell (1991) as cited in Auerbach (1993) state that more
advanced students may feel that the use of L1 deters their acquisition of the target language.
The low students feel the use of mother tongue supports their learning English. However, the
advance students feel that the use of mother tongue will impede the process of acquiring
English. Another study conducted by Kalanzadeh, Hemati, Shahivand, and Bakhtiarvand,
(2013) involving the third-grade high school students in the Persian context found that the
domination of English in EFL classes were supportive, and the excessive use of Persian in
Iranian English classes could have a demoting effect on students. The use of L1 discourages
learners to develop their language ability in L2. Some Japanese students showed neutrals
views for either monolingual or bilingual approach (Dwyer & Heller-Murphy, 2001, as cited
in Miles, 2004). In fact, the students considered any approach that has been applied by their
English teacher would not hinder their learning process to master the L2.
METHODOLOGY
The study employed a quantitative paradigm to gather, analyze, and interpret the data.
Cohen (1980) as cited in Sukamolson, (2007, p.2) defines a quantitative research as:
a social research that employs empirical method and empirical statements. Typically, empirical
statements are expressed in numerical terms. Another factor is that empirical evaluations are
applied. Empirical evaluations are defined as a form that seeks to determine the degree to
which a specific program or policy empirically fulfills or does not fulfill a particular standard
or norm.
Context of the Study
The study was done at Laboratorium Kristen Satya Wacana Senior High School (SMA
Lab). SMA Lab is a private school under the management of Satya Wacana Christian
University and located in Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. The school has applied a
monolingual approach in all English classes from grade 10th to grade 12th.
Research Participants
The participants were 11th-grade students in five English classrooms at SMA Lab. The
classes were XI-1 Science class, XI-2 Science class, XI-1 Social class, XI-2 Social class, and
XI- Language class. The participants have experienced studying English with the practice of
monolingual approach since their 10th grade. In total, there were 103 students. Table 1 details
the information about the participants.
Table 1. Demographic Information of Participants
Category
Gender
Age
Length period of
learning English
Description
Male
Female
15-16
17-18
5-6
7-8
9-10
11-12
13-14
n
43
60
97
6
3
5
47
42
6
This study used a purposive sampling method to draw on the participants who have the
following characteristics. They have been exposed to a monolingual approach in their English
class, so their views on the practice of the approach based on their previous or current
experience. Then, they have learned English in a formal instructional setting (rather than
natural settings).
Data Collection Instrument
In this study, a Likert-scale questionnaire (adapted from Hoang, Jang, & Yang, 2010))
was used to gather the data. All statements in the questionnaire were written in Bahasa
Indonesia to ensure that all participants clearly understood meanings of the questions. More
specifically, the questionnaire consists of 23 statements to investigate three components of
attitude: behavior, cognitive and affective. Statements 1-12 were related to students’ learning
performance in their class to investigate their behavior and cognitive in their English class
where the monolingual approach was applied. Statements 13-18 dealt with what the
participants believe about the use of English by teachers and students during the class or class
activities. Meanwhile, statements 19-23 concerned with students’ feeling and emotion about
studying in a monolingual class.
Data Collection Procedure
The researcher did some steps to collect the data. Initially, she approached the school
principal and English teachers of SMA LAB and asked their permissions to conduct the study
in the school. After obtaining the permission, she distributed 125 questionnaires to the
participants. On the questionnaire, the participants were asked to respond all statements in the
questionnaire particularly 5-15 minutes before the lesson began.
Data Analysis Procedure
After the researcher had collected all the questionnaire, she numbered each
questionnaire Then, she coded, analyzed, and calculated the data using the Microsoft Excel
program. The percentage of each statement was categorized into themes that were interpreted
and implicated with relevant literature. The categorization was used to determine the attitude
of the participants in learning English in their monolingual classroom. Eventually, the
researcher used some tables to detail her analysis.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This part presents the analysis of students’ attitude toward the monolingual practice in
their classroom. Initially, the research used Table 2 to show whether the students have
experienced studying English either in a natural or formal instructional setting.
Table 2. Students’ Exposure to English in a Natural or Formal Institutional Setting
Questions
1. Did you grow up in a family that uses English for daily
communication at home?
Yes (n)
0
2. Have you ever lived in a country that English is used as
an official language?
0
3. Have you ever learned in an English class that uses English-only
as a medium of instruction?
103
No (n)
103
103
0
Table 3 showed that all participants had exposed to English in a formal institutional setting.
They also had never used English actively at their home and lived in English-speaking
countries. The main source of exposure to English was through their English classes which
prohibited the use of L1 during the class session.
Then, the study found three themes to answer the research question. The first theme was
students’ feeling. The other themes were related to students’ opinion and students’ behavior
towards the monolingual approach. The researcher discussed the themes in the subsequent
sections of this study.
The Emotional Aspect of Attitude towards the Monolingual Approach
Students’ fondness toward English-only class
The data indicated that 34% students somewhat agreed that they liked to study in a class
in that English was used as a language instruction. Meanwhile, 18.4% students strongly
agreed that they enjoyed the English lesson at their school. Enjoying learning English with the
English-only environment would possibly develop students’ positive attitude.
Table 3. Students’ Response of Fondness towards English-Only Class
No
Statements
Strongly
Disagree
1. I like to learn English in a class
1,0
where English is used as the
language of instruction and I
enjoy my English lesson at school.
2. I like if my English teacher uses
English-only to communicate
during classroom activities.
2,9
Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly
Disagree
Agree
Agree
5.8
40.8
34,0
18.4
14.6
46.6
26,2
9.7
On the other hand, the data revealed that 46.6% students were neutral in responding
whether they like if their teacher uses English to communicate during class activities. This
finding implied that the students recognized the importance of exposure to English in
learning. At the same time, the use of L1 sometimes needs to be applied in teaching L2. This
result was slightly different to the finding result conducted by Nazary (2008) who reported
that 72% of Parisian University students preferred to teachers who use more than one
language rather than those who use one language only in the classroom. It indicated that the
students seemed to prefer a teacher who uses one language only in the classroom.
Students’ confidence and anxiety to learn the L2 in an L2 setting
Item 3 in Table 4 reported that 29,1% students somewhat agreed and 21,4% strongly
agreed that they feel excited and challenged when they are allowed to speak in English-only.
It meant those students showed a positive feeling towards the learning of the L2 in the
monolingual approach. It also indicated that the students had a high interest in learning
English by actively using it in their classroom.
Table 4. Students’ Responses of Their Confidence and Anxiety
No
Statements
Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Agree
Agree
3. I am excited and challenged when
I am allowed only to use English in
class.
14.6
4. I am not confident with my
English ability; thus, I become
passive in my English class.
1,0
5. Getting a punishment if I speak
Indonesian in class makes me
afraid to participate during a class
activity.
6.8
24.3
10.7
10.7
45.6
8,7
6.8
37.9
29,1
21,4
43.7
28,2
10,7
Nevertheless, almost half of students (43,7%) selected a neutral response telling that
they become passive in the classroom because they feel unconfident with their English ability.
It was likely that the students were afraid of making some mistakes when they spoke English.
Further, the students showed neither agree nor disagree (45,6%) that they were frightened to
participate if the teacher punished the students who spoke the Indonesian language in the
classroom. This finding indicated that the enforcement did not cause the students’ anxiety in
participating in a class.
The Cognitive Aspects of Attitude towards the Monolingual Approach
Students’ language ability while studying in a monolingual setting
Table 5. Students’ Response towards Their Language Ability
No
Statements
6. I understand everything
that my teacher says
in English.
7. I clearly understand
the instruction given by
my teacher in English.
8. I comprehend main points
of the material being taught
by my teacher in English.
9. I comprehend all the material
Strongly
Disagree
1,9
Somewhat
Disagree
11.7
Neutral
31.1
Somewhat Strongly
Agree
Agree
45.6
9.7
1,0
8.7
35,0
43.7
11,7
0
8.7
34,0
43.7
13,6
0
9.7
39.8
38.8
11,7
being taught by my teacher
in English.
Regarding students’ understanding of their teacher’s utterance in item 6 and 7, it was
found that more than 50% of students showed their agreement that during the English lesson,
they understood instructions that their teacher said in English. This finding suggested that the
majority of students showed their positive opinion when their teacher always spoke in English
during the lesson. It appeared to prove that the students’ English language ability to
understand their teacher instruction and utterance has improved because they have learned to
be accustomed to listening the teacher’s instruction, and explanation in English.
Also, in item 8 and 9, there were more than half of students agreed that they were able
to grasp main points of the material being taught in English. In this case, those students were
able to follow and comprehend all the materials. The finding revealed that the implementation
of monolingual practices in an English class did not impede students’ learning process.
Similar to Hoang, Jang, and Yang’s (2009) result in their previous study, there were more than
70% Vietnamese University students who were able to grasp the main points of the lesson.
The use of English-only in teaching and learning situations
Table 6. Students’ Responses Towards the Use of English-Only in Their Classroom
No
Statements
Strongly
Disagree
10. I think Indonesian should not
7.8
be used in any situations in
English classes.
11. I think English should be used to 3.9
discuss tests, quizzes, and
assignments in the class.
12. I think the teacher should teach
grammar and new vocabularies
using English-only.
Somewhat
Disagree
23.3
11.7
Neutral
43.7
Somewhat
Agree
18.4
Strongly
Agree
6.8
47.6
23.3
13.6
1,0
17.5
30.1
30.1
21,4
13. I think a teacher should
1,9
speak English-only when giving
instruction for activities in the class.
4.9
39.8
35,0
18,4
Regarding students’ responses to the statement that the Indonesian language should not
be used in any situation in an English classroom, it was found that 43,7% students were
neutral. Moreover, almost a half number of students (47,6%) thought that English should be
used to discuss classrooms’ tests, quizzes, and assignments during the English lesson.
On the contrary, students showed positive responses that a teacher should teach
grammar and vocabulary in English. 30,1% students somewhat agreed and 21,4% strongly
agreed with this statement. Likewise, 35% students somewhat agreed and 18,4% students
strongly agreed that English should be used in giving instructions during class activities. This
current result was contradictory with Burden’s (2000) as cited in Nazary (2008) research on
290 Japanese University students. His study showed that most of the students believed that L1
is essential to explain vocabulary, grammar, instructions, classroom tests, quizzes, and
assignments.
The benefits of using English exclusively in an L2 setting
Obviously, based on their responses to the statement 14, 25,2% students somewhat
agreed and 51,5% students strongly agreed that practicing English would accommodate them
to communicate in English better.
Table 7. The Students’ Responses of Using English Exclusively in a L2 Setting
No
Statements
14. The more English is
used in a class, the better
I learn to communicate
in English.
Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Agree
Agree
1,0
3.9
18.4
25.2
51,5
15. I think to master English, I have
I have to English exclusively
in my class.
0
2.9
38.8
27.2
31,1
Meanwhile, in statement 15, 58,3% of students thought that English should be used
exclusively in the class to help them master the language. This possibly proved that forcing
the students to learn with the English-only was found to be advantageous.
Students’ Behavioral Aspects of Attitude towards the Monolingual Approach
Students’ participation and interaction in a monolingual class
Item 16 indicated 47,6% neutral responses that the students asked their teacher if they
needed help to comprehend materials in English. According to Vanichakorn’s (2009)
observation result in a monolingual class, there were just a few times when the students raised
their hands and asked questions to the teacher directly. It was assumed that those monolingual
students were not comfortable enough to ask their teacher using English when they did not
comprehend some materials. Table 8 details the findings.
Table 8. Students’ Responses of Participation and Interaction in a Monolingual Class
No
Statement
Strongly Somewhat
Disagree Disagree
16. If I don’t understand the material
1.0
15.5
being taught in my class,
I always ask my teacher in English.
Neutral
47.6
Somewhat Strongly
Agree
Agree
24.3
11,7
17. If I don’t understand the material
1,0
being taught in class, I prefer to ask
my other classmates.
1.9
30.1
42,7
24,3
18. I can interrupt and ask my teacher
to repeat the explanation in English.
3,9
7.8
46.6
29.1
12,6
19. I communicate with my teacher and
my other classmates in English
during the class.
1,9
10,7
48,5
29,1
9,7
0
4.9
35,0
29,1
20 I communicate with my other
classmates in Indonesian if my
teacher cannot hear us.
31.1
21. I will answer the questions in
1,0
English when my teacher point at me.
1.9
29.1
22. I discuss with my other group
member by using English
10.7
52.4
23. I can express my opinion
in English in the class.
1,0
1,9
11.7
47.6
44,7
28.2
28,2
23,3
7.8
10,7
.
On the contrary, in item 17, 42.7% of students somewhat agreed and 24,3 % of students
strongly agreed that they chose their other classmates to be asked about comprehension
problems (item 17). More than half numbers of students looked for help from their classmates
instead of asking their teacher to help them. As the majority of the students preferred their
other classmates to help them, this finding seemed to verify the claim of Vanichakorn (2009)
that the students from the English-only classes relied a great deal on the so-called good
students who helped facilitate the teacher’s English only instructions.
The neutral response (46,6%) was also found in item 18. It was likely that when the
students interacted with their teacher, most of them showed neutral responses. A similar
response was also found in item 19 showing 48,5% neutral responses.
In item 20, the students had more positive responses. 35% of the students somewhat
agreed and 29,1% of them strongly agreed on the statement in the item. This was a surprising
result because a half number of students would switch to Indonesian when the teacher could
not hear them. Hoang, Jang, and Yang’s study (2009) found that only 19% Vietnamese
University students who switched into the Vietnamese language when the teacher could not
hear them.
Dealing with the students’ responses on their ability to answer the teacher’s questions
in English, the data indicated that 44,7% of the students somewhat agreed that they were able
to answer questions in English. It showed that the students were able to grasp the meaning of
questions being asked by the teacher and to state their answer in English. The majority of the
students showed neutral responses (52.4%) about discussing with group members in English.
It was discouraging to find out that only few numbers of students would try to discuss given
assignments or tasks with their group mates in English. Concerning with students’
participation and interaction in a monolingual class, the data showed 47.6% neutral responses
that the students were capable of expressing their opinions in English.
Since these 11th-grade students have been studying in a monolingual class for more than
a year, they possibly have adapted with the classroom setting where English is the only
language option for teaching and learning. The students believed that maximizing English use
in the class would help them to practice English. Besides, they viewed that high exposure to
English would speed their language competence to master English.
The study highlighted some cases for which English appeared to be useful in the L2
setting. The students thought that grammar functions, vocabulary, and classroom instructions
should be explained in English. Besides, the students appeared to consider using the mixture
of English and Indonesian in an English classroom. In that case, they wished their teacher to
allow them sometimes to speak the Indonesian language. Nearly half of the students did not
put much effort to express their opinion or to ask their teacher to repeat questions in English.
Instead, the students agreed that they answered questions in English when their teacher asked
them.
Concerning the students’ performance in the class, the students limited their
participation and interaction with the teacher in English. In fact, they acted differently when
the teacher was near them and when the teacher was not. They showed high neutral responses
in communicating with their teacher and other classmates in English. However, the findings
showed an agreement that they switched to talk in Indonesian language with their classmates
when their teacher could not hear them. Then, during a group discussion, the majority of
students mixed English and Indonesian language to discuss the tasks or assignments with their
fellow group members.
Furthermore, when facing difficulties in comprehending a learning material, only a few
students who were willing to interact with their teacher and to ask about their difficulties.
Meanwhile, most of the students seemed to seek help from other classmates. Apparently, this
particular finding is not in harmony with the previous statement about students’ opinion
regarding comprehension of the material. Eventually, the findings would seem to indicate that
the monolingual approach could prevent the majority of students to involve fully in their
classroom activities.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study is to explore the high school students’ attitude towards the
monolingual approach in English classes. Overall, the students show positive attitude towards
the Monolingual approach. They perceived the implementation of the Monolingual Approach
well. They also showed a pleasant feeling studying in their monolingual class, as they were
aware of the importance of L2 use in the L2 learning. However, it was essential to note that
the approach did not facilitate the students’ learning performance effectively in class. The
majority of students showed neutral responses regarding how they acted and dealt with their
learning difficulties. The approach limited them from having full participation in their class
and interaction with their teacher.
It is highly beneficial to keep the implementation of monolingual practice in the English
classes. In that case, the language teacher should enhance the students’ confidence in their
English ability by engaging activities that provide opportunities for the students to practice
their communication skill frequently. It is also important to keep encouraging the students to
be more enthusiastic about participating in their class and in interacting with their teacher and
other classmates using English.
The findings of this study have several limitations. The attitudinal questionnaire could
only provide the general statements of students’ behavior, belief, and feeling towards the
monolingual approach without asking detail reasons what caused them to think and feel the
way they did. Further, the students’ English proficiency has not been yet measured. Thus, the
findings have relied on the students’ past or current experiences studying in the monolingual
approach class. To find deeper insights of the students’ thought and feeling, future researchers
need to do class observations and semi-structure interviews as a part of data collection
instruments. It can help future researchers to select students who get a low and high score to
be interviewed as the attitude towards the monolingual approach possessed by both types of
students may come out differently.
REFERENCES
Abidin, D. J. (2012). EFL students' attitudes toward learning languageː The case of Libyan
Secondary School Students. Asian Social Science, 8(2), 119-134. Retrieved March 5,
2013, from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/14617
Al-jadidi, H., & Sanguinetti, J. (2010). Characteristic Pedagogical Style of Bilingual and
Monolingual English Teachers. International Journal Arts and Science , 3(16), 131147. Retrieved October 15, 2013 from http://www.openaccesslibrary.org/images/
BGS269_Husna_Al-jadidi.pdf
Al-Nofaie, H. (2010). 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),
4(1), pp. 64-95.Retrieved November 8, 2013 from
http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_4_1/al-nofaie.pdf
Auerbach, E. (1993).Re-examining English Only in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly,
27(1), 9-32. Retrieved January 23, 2013 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files
/rcd/BE019020/Reexamining_English_Only.pdf.
Burden, P. (2000).The use of the students’ mother tongue in monolingual English
“Conversation” classes at Japanese universities. The Language Teacher, 24(6), 5-11
Retrieved July 14, 2013 from http://jaltpublications.org/old_tlt/ articles/2000/06/burden
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press, Retrieved February 16, 2013 from http://eku.comu.edu.tr/
eku/index.php/eku/article/download/124/pdf_55.
Ellis, R. (2005).Principles of Instructed language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3).Retrieved
March 5,2013 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/sept_05_re.pdf
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition; Second Edition. Oxford:
University Press.Retrieved March 20, 2013 from http://books.google.com/books
Kalanzadeh,GA, Hemati, F., Shahivand, Z., & Bakhtiarvand, M.(2013). The Use of EFL
Students' L1 In English Class. The International Journal of Language Learning and
Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) ,2, p.30-39. Retrieved March 7, 2013 from
http://www.academia.edu/2480620/THE_USE_OF_EFL_STUDENTSL1
_IN_ENGLISH_CLASSES
Hoang, N. T., Jang, S. H., & Yang, Y. (2010). English-Only Classrooms: Ideology versus
Reality. International Education Research Conference, pp 1-11. Melbourneː
Australian Association for Research in Education. Retrieved January 23, 2013, from
http://www.aare.edu.au/10pap/1755HoangJangYang.pdf
Ibrahim, J. (2001). The Implementation of EMI (English Medium of Instruction) inIndonesian
University:Its Opportunities its Threats,its Problem and its Possible solution. 49th
International TEFLIN Conference in Bali, 3, pp. 121-137. Surabaya: Petra
Christian University. Retrieved February 23, 2013 from http://puslit.petra.ac.id/
journals/letters/
Kurihara, N. (2006). Classroom Anxiety: How Does Student Attitude Change in English Oral
communication class in a Japanese senior high school?. Accents Asia Organization,
1(1).Retrieved March 15, 2013, from httpː//www.accentsasia.org/1-1/kurihara.pdf
Lee, J. H. (2012). Reassessment of English-only approach in EFL context in view of young
learners’ attitudes, language proficiency, and vocabulary knowledge. Multilingual
Education a SpringerOpen Journal, 2(5).Retrieved February 12, 2013, from
multilingual-education.: http://www.multilingual-education.com/content/2/1/5
McMillan, B. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2011). The Practice of policyːTeacher attitude toward
"English Only". Elseivier:System, 39(2), 251-263. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from
http://www.mville.edu/images/stories/Graduate_Academics_Education/ChangingSubur
bs/ELLStrategiesAndResourse/Teacher_attitudes_in_classrooms.pdf.
Milles, R. (2004). Evaluating the use of L1 in the English Language Classroom (Master
Thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham), pp. 1-38. Retrieved January 26,
2013 from http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/Milesdiss.pdf
Mouhanna, M. (2009). Re-Examining the Role of L1 in the EFL Classroom. UGRU Journal, 8,
1-19. Retrieved March 14, 2013 from http://www.ugr.uaeu.ac.ae/ acads/ugrujournal/
docs/REL1.pdf.
Nazary, M. (2008). The Role of L1 in L2 Acquisitionː Attitudes of Iranian University
Students. Novitas Royal Research on Youth and Language, 2(2), 138-152.
Retrieved December 4, 2013 from http://www.novitasroyal.org/nazary.pdf.
Pardede, P. (2013). Evaluation of Use of MT in EFL Classes of Secondary Schools in
Jadetabek: Students and Teachers’ Perception (Research Proposal, Universitas Kristen
Indonesia, Jakarta). Retrieved Juni 15, 2013, from Scribd Website:
www.scribd.com/ ;137890893/Proposal-Evaluation-MT-in-EFL-Class
Qandri, T. (2006). Teachers' and Students' Practices and Attitudes Toward Arabic (L1) Use
in ELT (Master Theses, American University of Sharjah). Retrieved June 20, 2013,
from
https://dspace.aus.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11073/28/Final_thesis___
June_11.pdf?sequence=1
Rahman, S. (2005). Orientations and Motivation in English Language Learningː a Study of
Bangladeshi Students at Undergraduate Level. Asian EFL Journal, 7(1), 1-25.
Retrieved February 28, 2013 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_05_sr.pdf.
Sadeharju, T. (2012). Language Choice in EFL Teaching: Student teachers’ perceptions.
Department of Languages English, Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved
October
22,
2013
from
https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/
123456789/40678/URN%3ANBN%3Afi%3Ajyu-201301111029.pdf?sequence=1.
Sukamolson Suphat, P. (2007). Fundamentals of quantitative research. Language Institute
Chulalongkorn University. Bangkok: CULI, .55-75. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from
http://www.culi.chula.ac.th/e-journal/bod/suphat%20sukamolson.pdf.
Tsukamoto, M. (2011). Students' perception of teachers' language use in EFL classroom.
Osaka Jogakuin University Research Journal, 8, 143-154. Retrieved, March 27, 2013
from http://ir-lib.wilmina.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10775/2438/1/d2011_08.pdf.
Vanichakorn, N. (2009, September). Re-Examine The Use Of The Student's First Language
In The English As A Foreign Language Classrooms: A Cross-Case Analysis From
Undergraduate Engineering Students In Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of College
Teaching & Learning, 5(6),1-16. Retrieved October 12, 2013 from
http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/TLC/article/viewFile/1137/1121.
Viavara, J. J. (2011, April). How Do EFL students Teachers Face the challenge of using L2 in
Public School?. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 13(1), 55-74.
Retrieved January 22, 2013 from http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?pid=S165707902011000100004&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
Wu, Y. (2008). Classifying attitudes by topic aspect for English and Chinese Document
Collections (Dissertation, University of Maryland, Maryland), pp. 42-45. Retrieved
March 31, 2013 from http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/8150/1/umi-umd5329.pdf