Integrating L1 to TESL

7/30/2019 Integrating L1 to TESL

1/30

1

Target Situation Analysis for integrating L1 to a Sri Lankan TESL environment

Rohini Chandrica Widyalankara

Observing and evaluating current pedagogical practices to identify a systemic, rational mode of

integrating L1 to the TESL environment under Pre research task I, a classroom observation,

identified the pragmatism of restricting the area of integration to vocabulary enhancement.

Pre research task II selected the participants for the main research through classifying three L2

proficiency groups: low, intermediate and high, through prior performance data and selected

participants using stratified random sampling procedures. The Pilot Studies conducted research

and analyzed contrasting descriptive statistics to ascertain whether the ability to infer lexical

meaning, dictionary skills vary across the three proficiency groups. Findings were examined to

ascertain whether judicious integration of L1 is viable and pragmatic across all three

proficiency groups.

In sum this chapter identified the impetus for judicious integration of L1 through classroom

observation, shortlisted participants for the main research and the research based components of

the target situation analysis identified and formulated the foreground for the main research which

examines, across the three identified proficiency groups, the effects of the provision of two gloss

conditions, English, and Sinhala glosses, which are independent variables in contrast with the

control No gloss condition on text comprehension.

2.1 Stage I - Pre research tasks

2.1.1 Pre research task I- Need for L1 translations in an ESL classroom

Research method - Classroom observation


2/30

2

Objective - to identify whether there is a need for L1 translations in an ESL classroom and

whether adequate resources to obtain the right meaning of difficult English words are available

outside the classroom.

Research questions-

1.Do teachers use L1in an ESL classroom?

2. How often do learners check the English-Sinhala dictionary by Malalasekara,

or any other English-Sinhalese dictionary for the Sinhala meaning of a difficult English word?

3. If vocabulary items go uncomprehended are the resources available outside the

classroom adequate to obtain theright meaning?

Research method: classroom observation and short interviews

Participants 50 intermediate proficiency learners

Procedure the researcher observed a classroom teaching session and collected data from the

participants through interviews.

Results -

Research questions-

1.Do teachers use L1 to accelerate vocabulary comprehension?

Observation The researcher followed the research procedure classroom observation to identify

techniques used by facilitators to integrate L1 into the ESL classroom. According to the

researchers contention the observed practice is one of the most suitable methods which can be

used at undergraduate level. This method was defined as judicious integration of L1 in the ESL

classroom.


3/30

3

During the lesson prior to testing presentations the facilitator1, stated, If you do not prepare

beforehand for the presentations the examiners will know that you are bluffing. Realizing that

some of the weaker students would not understand bluffing, the L1 translation in Sinhala was

immediately provided,

Do you know what bluffing is? Its /pacha gahanawa/

It was observed that a facilitator who possessed high exposure to teaching English to the students

of the Department of English, where English is L1, used a different judicious approach when

required to teach ESL.

Though colloquial in usage /pacha gahanawa/provided an effective definition which was clear,

short and familiar. This usage activated the necessary schemata and accelerated comprehension,

the symptomatic result being the shy, embarrassed expressions on the faces of the students.

2. How often do learners check the English-Sinhala dictionary by Malalasekara, or any other

English-Sinhalese dictionary for the Sinhala meaning of a difficult English word?

Table 12: Frequency of consulting a bilingual dictionary

Statistics collected through short interviews bear evidence that the majority of learners consulted

English-Sinhala dictionaries.

3. If vocabulary items go uncomprehended, are there adequate resources to obtain the right

meaning outside the locale of the classroom?

1Professor Manique Gunesekera

Response # of respondents / 50

Almost always 33

Often 9

Not very often 8

Almost never 0


4/30

4

The researcher referred to the English-Sinhalese dictionary (Malalasekara, 1958, revised version

2001) and the Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary for the meaning ofbluff.

bluff- Talking in a rough, kind manner. Innocent, rough behaviour. False threats.

Showing false cleverness. A steep incline/ hill.* 2 (Malalasekara, 1958)

bluff False pretension to obtain favours. Deceiving through falsehood.

bluffA very steep incline. Telling something to the face. A precipice. An abyss*

(Malalasekara, Revised version 2001).

The Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary bluff

a.Making believe that you will do something when you really have no intention of doing it.b. You show that you know something when, in fact, you do not know it.

Analysis

84% of the interviewees often or almost always refer to an English-Sinhalese dictionary for the

meaning of a difficult English word. The most popular source used was a bilingual dictionary by

Malalasekara (1958, Revised version 2001).The Malalasekara dictionary contained only the

probable meanings to the word bluff. It did not provide contexts as in the Oxford dictionary. The

contrasting meanings provided are assumed to result in confusion and lead to selecting the wrong

meaning. Whereas /pacha gahanawa/used by the facilitator not only activated the associating

schemata immediately, it also provided a concise Sinhala equivalent to the glosses provided in

the Oxford dictionary.

Analyzing the findings of pre research task I the researcher assumes the following:

The majority of ESL learners does not possess good inferring abilities and seeks thehelp of a bilingual dictionary instead of a monolingual one.

The multi meanings provided would hinder identification of the appropriate meaning incontext.

The selection of the wrong meaning will result inErroneous input erroneous intake fossilization of wrong

schemata

Based on these assumptions this research identifies the natural order of self meaning

identification the learners would follow if the meaning of bluff was not provided by the

facilitator: infer, refer to the dictionary for clarification of inferred meaning or to obtain the

2Translations which retains the linguistic quality of the Sinhala glosses.


5/30

5

meaning. This order of self meaning identification is supported by Koren (1999) who states that

in order for the learners to understand the meaning of a word they have to either infer it from

context or from its structure, or look up the word in a dictionary. Thus the study conceptualizes

the following model to illustrate natural order of self meaning identification followed by ESL

learners when encountering difficult English words.

Figure 2: Natural order of self meaning identification followed by ESL learners

when encountering difficult English words.

Success Arrives at a meaning

but is in doubt

Failure

Refers to dictionary

for clarification

Refers to dictionary

for meaning

Clarifies

as correct

Confusion due to

multiple meanings

SuccessFailure to

identify the

correctmeaning

Failure to

identify

thecorrect

meaning

Success

Fossilization of wrong meaning

Learner encounters difficult English word

Attempts to infer the meaningStep 1

Step 2


6/30

6

2.1.2 Pre research task II: Needs analysis and group divisions

Objective - to short list the participants through needs analysis procedures and group divisions

through stratified random sampling procedures for the research components.

.Research questions-

(1)Does the undergraduate population reflect a need for vocabulary

enhancement through judicious integration of L1?

(2)Is there a relationship between their lexical knowledge and

a) Ability to produce a body of written text in the form of an essay?b)

ESL proficiency?

(3) Which population (Arts/Science) is more in need of vocabulary enhancement?

Research method: Proficiency identification test in the form of a needs analysis.

Participants: a random sample of 100 final year students ( Arts-50, Science 50) who applied for

the English for final years programme conducted under the IRQUE project at the ELTU,

University of Kelaniya, 2005.

Instrument a question paper consisting of the following:

1) A comprehension passage

Target question Write the meanings of the 5 given words (tested the meaning inferring

skills of the participants)

2) Composition Write a short essay

Procedure a random sample of 100 answer scripts was taken from the total population who sat

the test. The papers were marked by 6 staff members (the researcher excluded) of the ELTU. The

final mark obtained represented overall proficiency, the marks obtained for the composition


7/30

7

represented the ability to produce a short essay on a given topic and the mark obtained for the

meaning guessing task represented the inferring skills of the participants.

Results: Performance statistics

Table 13:Descriptive statistics: inferring skills, composition and overall

performance at the test and their contrastive % mean. (n = 100)

Graph 2: Graphical representation for Contrastive % mean for inferring

skills, essay and overall proficiency

Analysis

(1)Does the sample population reflect a need for vocabulary enhancement through judicious

integration of L1?

Faculty

% Mean

Inferring skills composition Overall performance

Arts (n=50) 4.6 44.4 40.8

Science (n=50) 12 56.3 48.26667

Descriptive statistics: inferring meanings, essay and overall proficiency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Inferringmeaning

Essay Overall

Arts % Mean

science % Mean% mean obtained


8/30

8

Yes. Compared with the % means obtained for essay writing (Arts- 44.4, Science- 56.3)

the target question which was a meaning inference test had a very low % mean. (Arts- 4.6,

Science- 12)

(2)Is there a relationship between lexical knowledge and

(a) The production of a body of written text in the form of an essay?

Within the limited lexical knowledge the sample population could produce a

bodyoftextwhich obtained a fairly high % mean (Arts 44.4, Science 56.3).

(b) ESL proficiency?

The % mean of the overall performance (Arts 40.8, Science 48.27) was affected by the low %

mean obtained for the target question which reflected the poor vocabulary knowledge and the

low inferring skills of the sample group. This caused the overall performance to fall below the

%mean obtained for essay writing.

(3) Which population (Arts/Science) has very low inferring skills and is more in

need of vocabulary enhancement through judicious integration of L1 ?

The sample population from the Faculty of Arts was short listed as the target

population for the study as they statistically reflected a dire need (% mean 4.6)

for vocabulary enhancement throughjudicious integration of L1.

Analyzing the findings of pre research task II the study short lists its target population,

undergraduates of the faculty of Arts of the University of Kelaniya who follow ESL courses at

the English Language Teaching Unit, as the participants for the research component of the study

Group division of participants


9/30

9

The group divisions were conducted according to the statistical procedure- stratified random

sampling. The participants were stratified into distinct sub groups based on their proficiency in

English and then a random sample was taken from each stratum.

Table 14: The participant population

Table 15: Categorization of participants

Two groups W1 (n=30) and W2 (n=30) were selected through stratified random sampling

procedures from the undergraduates who had obtained a W grade at the G.C.E. Advanced level

examination and they represented the low proficiency learner category. The undergraduates who

had obtained S (ordinary pass) and C (credit pass) were identified as the intermediate proficiency

level and two groups SC1 (n=30) and SC2 (n=30) were obtained through random sampling

procedures. Undergraduates who had obtained B (very good pass) and A (distinction pass)

totaled 43. Thus 17 undergraduates who had not registered for ELTU courses were included as

Grade # of students participants

W (weak= fail) 281 60

S (ordinary pass) 213 60

C (credit pass) 84

B (very good pass) 33 60

A (distinction pass) 10

Total 621 180

Group categorized according to

proficiency Low Intermediate High

Grade obtained for A/L General

English = Group title W S,C A,B

Group divisions W1 W2 SC1 SC2 AB1 AB2

# of participants obtained

through stratified randomsample selection

30 30 30 30 30 30


10/30

10

participants for the high proficiency group. Two parallel groups from each proficiency level were

obtained as the two instruments (Appendix D and Appendix E) used for collecting data for

inferring skills and dictionary skills used the same ten target words as instrument components.

Thus when participants have been exposed to one instrument the exposure to the same target

words at a second test where another skill is tested creates difficulties in qualitative analysis.

This is due to the fact that retention of details from the first exposure might affect the processing

skills of the second instrument. Thus groups W1, SC1 and AB1were the participants for testing

inferring skills (pilot study I) and groups W2, SC2 and AB2 were the participants for testing

dictionary skills (pilot study II).

2.2 Stage II: Pilot studies

The pilot studies followed the natural order of self meaning identification (Figure 2) the ESL

learners would proceed through when trying to obtain meanings for difficult English words. In

has to be stated that progress in this order necessitates a high motivation towards obtaining the

meaning of a difficult English word which is not provided in the classroom. If such motivation is

lacking this process will not be followed and the lexical items go uncomprehended by the

learners.

The progress of the learners along the natural order of self meaning identification is empirically

tested to collect data at two levels. Step 1 tested the inferring skills of the learners through pilot

study I and Step II tested the dictionary skills of the learners through pilot study II.

Pilot study I

Research question I:Is the ability to infer the meanings of difficult English words dependant on

the proficiency in English, and if dependant, how does this dependency vary across proficiency

levels?


11/30

11

Pilot study II

Research question II: What is the dictionary preference (bilingual /monolingual) of ESL learners

when required to obtain meanings or clarify an inferred meaning?

Research question III:Do the participants consult a dictionary for pronunciation?

Pilot study III

Research question IV: Are the bilingual dictionary skills of ESL learners dependant on their

proficiency in English and does this dependency vary across proficiency levels?

2.2.1 Pilot study I: Testing inferring skills across three proficiency levels

Objective - to collect performance data on research question I:

Is the ability to infer the meanings of difficult English words dependant on the proficiency in

English, and if dependant, how does this dependency vary across proficiency levels?

Research method: Meaning inferring test.

Instrument: 10 meaning inferring tasks where the target words were given in context. The target

words were selected at random, their main requisite feature being the multi meanings provided in

the Malasekara dictionary, of which only one would suit the context (Appendix D).

Table 16: Descriptive information of research instruments- inferring skills

Instrument Allocation conditions Participants

Appendix D

Inferring

skills

10 meaning identification tasks were given as

multiple choice questions. Three probable

meanings in English were given for each target

word to test participants ability to infer the

correct meaning

W1, n= 30

SC1, n= 30

AB1 n= 30


12/30

12

Participants: 30 low proficiency participants (W1) and two groups SC1 (n=30) and AB1 (n=30)

from the intermediate and high proficiency groups from Table15: Categorization of participants.

Results

Histogram representing results on measures of English inferring skills across three proficiency

groups: low, intermediate, high.

Graph 3: Graphical representation for contrastive performance at inferring

skills: low (n=30), intermediate (n=30), high (n=30)

Table 17: Mean scores on measures of English inferring skills

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

# of corect answers

freq

u

en

cy low proficiency

intermediate proficiency

high proficiency

Group W1 SC1 AB1

Proficiency Low Intermediate High

Instrument Test 1 Test 2 Test 1

# of participants 30 30 30

Mean 2.633 3.1 7

Percentage mean 26.33% 31% 70%

Median 2 4 8

S. D. 0.912 1.47 1.653


13/30

13

Data analysis for the success rate at obtaining the right meaning for the lexical item bluff

(classroom observation, pre research task I).

Question 2 - If you dont prepare for the presentation the examiners will know

that you are bluffing. (Appendix D) .

Analysis

Table 17 summarizes the performance levels of the three proficiency groups low, intermediate

and high. Mean scores on measures of inferring skills indicate that a significant difference exists

between the performance levels of the three proficiency groups. While the resulting mean of the

high proficiency group (70% success rate) indicates a fairly developed ability to infer while the

ability of the low proficiency learners to infer the meaning of the target words resulted in a very

poor success rate (26.33%). Data analysis for success rate at identifying the meaning of the

lexical item bluff indicates that 87.77 % of the participants failed to infer the right meaning.

2.2.2Pilot study II: Evaluating dictionary usage patterns of the target population.

0bjective: to collect data for research questions II and III

Participants: the total population in Table15: Categorization of participants

2.2.2.1: Research question II - What is the dictionary preference (bilingual /monolingual) of ESL

learners when required to obtain meanings or clarify an inferred meaning?

Instrument: Question 6 (Appendix C) - What dictionary would you check for

Multiple choice category # of choices / 90 % of choice

a. going to demand for a re-examination 49 54.44

b. trying to deceive by pretending to

have prepared

21

23.33

c. going to fail as you have not prepared 30 33.33


14/30

14

meanings of difficult English words?

Results

Table 18: Dictionarypreference of participant

Graph 4: Graphical representation of dictionary preference of participants

Analysis Recalling literature on prior research (Laufer & Hardar, 1997; Luppescu & Day,

1993; Schmitt, 2000) which restricts bilingual dictionary consultation to low level learners the

study illustrates through statistical analysis of data that bilingual dictionary consultation cannot

be restricted to the low proficiency learners of this study. A high percentage of intermediate and

high proficiency groups consulted bilingual and monolingual dictionaries. The analysis of data

dictionary preference

0

20

40

60

80

W SC AB

Group title

freque

ncy

Malasekara

English dictionary

Both

Dictionary type

Group allocations and percentages of

preference

W % SC % AB %

English-Sinhala - Malasekara 58 96.67 32 53.33 0 0

English-English 0 0 3 5.00 18 30

Both 2 3.33 25 41.67 42 70



15/30

15

indicates that the majority (96.67%) of low proficiency learners (W) are heavily dependant on

bilingual dictionaries when attempting to find meanings of difficult English words. Only a very

low percentage (3.33%) referred to both bilingual and monolingual dictionaries and their usage

of only monolingual dictionaries was zero. 53.33% of the intermediate proficiency learners (SC)

too depended only on bilingual dictionaries but a very close 41.67% used both bilingual and

monolingual dictionaries. Though the study expected the high proficiency learners to claim a

higher usage of monolingual dictionaries the statistics indicate that 70% of them use both

bilingual and monolingual dictionaries.

2.2.2.2 Research question III:Do the participants consult a dictionary for pronunciation?

Instrument: Question 7 (Appendix C) - Do you consult a dictionary for pronunciation?

Table 19: Results- Dictionary consultation for pronunciation

Analysis: Through high exposure to dictionary consultation practices of the learners it was

assumed that the majority of them do not consult dictionaries for pronunciation. This research

component confirms what experience judged to be true: Almost all learners across all three

proficiency groups do not consult a dictionary for pronunciation.

Response Group allocations and percentages of preference

W % SC % AB %

Yes 0 0 0 0 2 3.3

No 60 100 60 100 58 96.7

Total 60 100 60 100 60 100.0


16/30

16

2.2.3 Pilot study III: Testing dictionary skills

Objective - to collect performance data for research question IV:

Are the bilingual dictionary skills of ESL learners dependant on their proficiency in English

and does this dependency vary across proficiency levels?

Instrument-

Table 20: Descriptive information of research instruments- dictionary skills

Participants: The participants were obtained from the populations in Table15: Categorization of

participants.

Procedure: Data were collected from 10 given items in the instrument (Appendix E). The number

of correct answers out of 10 was utilized for evaluating performance. Results -

Histogram representing results -Test for bilingual dictionary skills

Instrument Content Participants

(Appendix E)

Dictionary

skills

The same ten target words in

context in Appendix B with

authentic dictionary extracts of the

Sinhala meaning were provided

from Malasekara(2001).

Group W2, n=30

Group SC2, n=30

Group AB2, n=30


17/30

17

Graph 5: Graphical representation for contrastive performance at dictionary

skills: low (n=30), intermediate (n=30), high (n=30)

Table 21: Descriptive statistics for performance - Mean scores on measures

of bilingual dictionary skills

Data analysis for the success rate at obtaining the right meaning for the lexical item bluff

(classroom observation, pre research task I)

Question 2 - Test for dictionary skills (Appendix E)

Q 2 - If you dont prepare for the presentation the examiners will know that you

are bluffing.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

# of correct answ ers

frequency low proficiency

intermediate proficiency

high proficiency

Group W2 SC2 AB2

Proficiency Low Intermediate High

Instrument Test 2 Test 2 Test 2


Mean 2.67 5.5 6.37

% Mean 26.7 55.0 63.7

Median 2.00 5 6

S. D. 1.193 1.43 1.66


18/30

18

(The following are English translations of the multiple choices available in the bilingual

dictionary)

a) going to talk in a rough, kind manner

b) going to make false threats

c) making false pretensions to obtain favours

d) going to tell it to the face

Table 22: Success rate at obtaining the right meaning for the lexical item

bluff

Analysis

Table 21 summarizes the performance levels of the three proficiency groups low, intermediate

and high. Mean scores on measures of dictionary skills indicate that a significant difference

exists between the performance levels of the three proficiency groups. While the resulting mean

of the high proficiency group (63.70% success rate) indicates a fairly developed ability to obtain

the right meaning of a difficult English word from a bilingual dictionary extract, the ability of the

low proficiency learners to identify the meaning of the target words resulted in a very poor

success rate (26.70%). Data analysis for success rate at identifying the meaning of the lexical

Multiple choice category # of choices / 90 % of choices

a 28 31.11

b 11 12.22

c 19 21.11

d 32 35.55


19/30

19

item bluff from the bilingual extract indicates that 78.88 % of the participants failed to identify

the right meaning.

2.2.4 - Pilot study IV: Preference for L1 glosses

Objective- to identify the preference to the use of L1 and the method of providing the Sinhala

translations for difficult English words in the classroom,

Research method: needs analysis (Appendix C)

Participants: The total number of participants (n =180) in Table15: Categorization of

participants.

Instruments: Question numbers 4 and 5 (Appendix C).

Q. 4 -Do you think the Sinhala translations for difficult English words should be provided within

the ESL classroom?

Q. 5 -If your answer is yes how should they be presented?

Tabulation procedure-

For both Q. 4 and Q. 5 the data were tabulated according to the three proficiency levels and

percentage preferences were calculated to identify whether preference differed across proficiency

levels.

Results

Table 23: Tabulated results for Q-4 - % preference for L1 translations

W SC AB Row Total %

Yes 55 53 46 154 85.56

No 5 7 1 4 26 14.44

Column total 60 60 60 180 100.00


20/30

20

Table 24: Tabulated results for Q. 5 - % preference for the mode of

provision of L1 translations

.

Analysis

Across all proficiencies a high percentage of the participants (85.56%) declared a preference for

the provision of L1 translations for difficult English words in the ESL classroom. When asked to

decide on the mode of provision, the proficiency levels differed in their choice of the preferred

method. 98.2% of the low proficiency group (W) wanted the L1 meanings on the material

provided while 73.6% of the intermediate (SC) students preferred the same method of provision.

76.1% of the high proficiency (AB) learners wanted their meanings verbally.

Thus the study recognizes that the low and intermediate proficiency groups identify a need for

more a concrete form of L1 meanings for difficult English words they come across in the

classroom. This need reflects their preference for a permanent, recorded resource which could be

reviewed when necessary. Distributed repetition, the controllable time factor and self checks on

recalled meanings can accelerate the learning of the new lexical items. The final outcome would

be learner autonomy in and an increase of their breadth of vocabulary.

Mode W % SC % AB %

In the material provided 54 98.2 39 73.6 3 6.52

On the board 1 1.82 9 17 8 17.4

Verbally 0 0 5 9.43 35 76.1

Total 55 100 53 100 46 100


21/30

21

On the other hand the 76.1% of the high proficiency group (AB) preferred to have the meaning

verbally. For this population once the schemata are activated their better lexical processing

capabilities make the process towards learner autonomy quicker.

The low percentage (16%) obtained for the provision of meanings on the board is an indication

that its time consuming nature is a drawback

2.3 Discussion

2.3.1 Findings of the pre research tasks

Pre research task I provided evidence for the utilization of judicious integration of L1 in an

ESL classroom. The main research of this study wishes to empirically test how beneficial this

integration is to text comprehension and to vocabulary acquisition. Thus the key words

judicious integration are analyzed to arrive at a broad definition through the classroom

observation.

Firstly judicious integration negates arbitrary, extensive usage of L1 which spells pedagogical

disaster as the learners need to gain proficiency in English their second language. The study

vehemently argues that word to word translation of sentences should not be provided as the ESL

classroom should not be converted into a locale which practices translation. Neither does

judicious integration resort to the pedagogical practices of Grammar Translation Method which

is a classical approach to the integration of L1 into ESL pedagogical practices. Grammar

Translation Method uses L1 not only to translate vocabulary but also in contrasting the syntactic

patterns of L1 with L2 to the detriment of acquiring the L2 syntactic order. Many theorists

consider this as a violation of the basic psychological principles of language learning (Goodman,

1975; Nation, 2001, 2005; Stanovich, 1998)


22/30

22

Secondly judicious integration of L1 requires sensitivity towards the linguistic needs of the

learners. To generalize that all undergraduates who register for ESL courses need judicious

integration of L1 is pedagogically not feasible. Thus judicious integration should identify the

different proficiency levels of the learners and advocate the integration of L1 judiciously through

a needs analysis.

Pre-research task I identified the natural path the learners would follow if they encounter a

difficult English word in the absence of outside language support. This is given the title the

natural order of self meaning identification (Figure 2). There were two main steps in this

process inferring and referring to a dictionary for clarification or meaning identification. This

led to the discovery that bilingual dictionaries that many of the learners refer have multiple,

contrary meanings to most difficult words. This generated a need for empirical evaluation of the

extent of misidentifications which would justify the need for judicious integration of L1 within

the ESL classroom.

Pre-research task II bears evidence to the fact that the students who graduate after following ESL

courses have obtained an adequate overall proficiency level in English. It also bears evidence to

the fact that they graduate with low inferring skills in English and a very limited exposure to

vocabulary but are able to perform, on average, at a satisfactory level when required to produce a

short written text. The low inferring skills and the narrow vocabulary will affect their receptive

skills as well as their productive skills. These features are strongly evidenced in the graduates of

the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Thus the target population of the study was short

listed to undergraduates of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences who register for ESL

courses at the English Language Teaching Unit. On average they are assumed to possess a very

narrow register with low inferring capabilities. Thus the study identified that the feasibility and


23/30

23

the benefits of judicious integration of L1 should be empirically tested on the short listed

population - undergraduates of the Faculty who registered for the first year ESL course English

for Communication in 2007.

Furthermore the researcher recognizes that L1 is used by many facilitators but considers that they

should acknowledge the following in the undergraduate population they facilitate.

The high L1 literacy rate and IQ level3

The fact that they differ in proficiency levels in English.

They are at the threshold of entering a job market which requires good communicative

skills in English, a good breadth of word knowledge (knowing many words) and a well

developed depth of word knowledge, i.e. knowing many things about a word- its literal

meaning, various connotations, the sorts of syntactic constructions into which it enters, the

morphological options it offers, semantic associations such as synonyms and antonyms (see

Nagy and Scott, 2000 for a review).

The time limitation (3 or 4 years) which necessitates an accelerated gain in vocabulary

knowledge with strategies which minimize the time used and maximize the breadth and

depth of vocabulary.

Thus through the methodology followed in pilot studies the researcher builds an argument that

judicious integration of L1 will recognize the intelligence of the undergraduate population by

not resorting to extensive usage of L1, will satisfy their diverse linguistic needs through

proficiency level groupings and make maximum use of the narrow time frame available for

lexical enhancement.

2.3.2 Findings of the pilot studies

3Based on the results of the IQ test conducted at the A/L examination.


24/30

24

The pilot studies followed the natural order of self meaning identification the learners would

proceed through when trying to obtain meanings for difficult English words (Figure 2). This

natural order is mostly followed by learners who posses a high motivation towards enhancing

lexical knowledge. It is ironical to acknowledge that in real learner situations low proficiency

learners are less inclined to attempt following this natural order. According to many theorists

(Gass & Selinker, 1994; Paribakt & Wesche, 1999; Pulido, 2004) when confronted with difficult

lexical items in texts most learners ignore them. The pilot studies I and II collected statistical

data for the success and failure rates at two levels of the natural order:

a) Step I where the learner attempts to infer the meaning of a target word.

b) Step II where the learner attempts to obtain the meaning of a target word

From a bilingual dictionary

The analyzed data of pilot study I indicated the magnitude of success at inferring skills.

According to analyzed findings, success rates not only of the low proficiency learners (% mean =

27.33) but also the intermediate proficiency learners (% mean = 31.00) illustrated that they

possessed poor inferring skills. Many theorists have attributed these poor inferring skills to the

lack of sight vocabulary. Haynes and Baker (1993) state that in order to guess the meanings of

unknown words in context the learner must be able to recognize, on sight, most of the

surrounding words. Nation and Hwang (1995) are not only more numerically specific they

upgrade words to word families. They state that sight recognition knowledge of the 2000

most frequent word families is needed for successful inferring. These word families consist of a

base form and all its derived and inflected forms. But Laufer (1997a) has upgraded the sight

vocabulary requirements further by stating that for successful inferring learners should know

98% or more of the surrounding vocabulary, which in many cases, amounts to knowledge of at


25/30

25

least 5000 word families. Thus the lack of sight vocabulary in low level learners would result in

either failure to infer the right meaning or being at doubt whether the inferred meaning is correct.

The next step of the natural order in meaning identification (figure 2) is to refer to a dictionary.

The analyzed results of pilot study II indicated that the low proficiency learners with very poor

inferring skills heavily and exclusively depended on bilingual dictionaries (96.67 %) when

required to obtain meanings of difficult English words while intermediate proficiency learners

dependency was middling (53.33%). But an almost equal 41.67 % of this group and 70% of the

high proficiency learners referred to both bilingual and monolingual dictionaries. This indicated

that across all proficiency groups the bilingual dictionary was a popular source for finding the

meaning of a difficult English word. Thus the study could generalize that most learners refer to

bilingual dictionaries.

This is supported by surveys of dictionary preferences which provide statistical evidence to

indicate that ESL learners strongly favour bilingual or bilingualized dictionaries. According to

Hulstjn, Hollander& Griedanus, (1996) and Knight, (1994) learners value bilingual dictionaries

as they assist vocabulary development at all levels of proficiency and the reading proficiency,

especially of low level learners, can be greatly improved through the consultation. But Tang

(1997) states that with the exception of comprehensive bilingual dictionaries they contribute to

over reliance on one-to-one word translation and have little information in their entries. This is

applicable to bilingual dictionaries in Sri Lanka and furthermore as evidenced in pre research

task I they are devoid of usage information and very often contain multiple contradictory

meanings. Very many of them are archaic Sinhala usages which are unnecessary distracters.

bilingualized English Sinhala dictionaries which contain the advantages of the bilingual and

monolingual dictionaries combined together are yet to be created in Sri Lanka. A bilingualized


26/30

26

entry typically includes: L2 definitions, L2 sentence examples, and either full L1 translations of

the L2 information or L1 synonyms of the headword. Furthermore, according to Laufer & Hadar,

(1997), and Laufer & Kimmel, (1997) using a bilingualized dictionary is more efficient than

using separate bilingual and monolingual dictionaries.

Monolingual dictionaries, on the other hand, contain a wealth of information, and provide up to

date reliable sentence examples drawn from corpus data that provide information about

meanings, grammar and usage (Harvey & Yuill, 1997), and their definitions are often within a

controlled vocabulary. But according to Tang (1997), the definition vocabulary usually consists

of about 2000 words. Thus to use a monolingual dictionary effectively, learners need to have at

least a receptive vocabulary of 2000 words and they need to interpret definitions which are more

difficult than L1 synonyms. This makes the low level learners who possess very narrow

vocabulary knowledge prefer to enter the comfort zone of L1 synonyms provided in the

monolingual dictionaries. Further difficulties await the learners who consult monolingual

dictionaries. Amritavalli (1999) provides evidence for the presence of overly difficult and

culturally bound examples drawn from corpus data. These difficulties contribute to the

reluctance of even the high proficiency learners to be exclusively dependent (18%) on

monolingual dictionaries. This plethora of deficiencies and difficulties in dictionaries results in

the poor success rate evidenced in pilot study III which tested step 2 of the natural order of self

meaning identification- dictionary skills. The results bore evidence to the fact that the success

rate of this dependency on bilingual dictionaries to obtain the correct meaning differed according

to the proficiency group of the learners. The percentage mean obtained by the proficiency

groups: low - 26.7%, intermediate - 55%, high 63.7% indicate that the low proficiency learners

had little success and intermediate proficiency learners had middling success in obtaining the


27/30

27

right meaning from the bilingual dictionary extracts provided in the instrument. It is my

contention that not only the linguistic proficiency of the learners but also the inherent drawbacks

in bilingual dictionaries and the high linguistic demands of the monolingual dictionaries

available for them contribute towards the poor performance in dictionary skills.

Statistics bore evidence to the fact that only 3.3% of the learner population refer to a dictionary

for pronunciation of a word. Pronunciation of English words, though available in bilingual

dictionaries, is complex to uncipher and it is a time consuming task. The phonetic transliterations

available in monolingual dictionaries are not accessed as the learners have had no exposure to

the phonetic alphabet, not even the one provided in a dictionary, and thus do not possess the

ability to obtain the pronunciation of a word from a dictioary. The study finds this a drawback to

its aim of vocabulary enhancement within the learner population. Thus the pedagogical

implementations of the study gives recognition to the area of pronunciation and discusses a L1

integrating strategy, utilization of loan words, to provide the learners the necessary exposure to

the phonetic alphabet of English.

Thus the three forerunners to the main study pilot studies I, II and III identified that a high

percentage of low and intermediate learners did not perform successfully in inferring skills and

identified wrong meanings at the test for dictionary skills. As indicated by the natural order of

self meaning identification the corollary would be the fossilization of the wrong meaning.

Focusing on the high proficiency learners, though their inferring skills are fairly developed most

of them too refer to bilingual dictionaries and face difficulties. Thus the resultant probability of

identifying the right meaning is middling.

The study argues that there is a pedagogical requirement to intervene at step 1 through judicious

integration of L1 where meanings are provided for words judged as difficult to infer and would


28/30

28

result in the time consuming and very often unsuccessful procedure of dictionary consultation.

Given the intelligence of the learners, the provision of the L1 equivalent will immediately

activate the relevant linguistic associations within the given context. The non provision will

activate a multitude of associations creating a web of misconceptions.

Evidence for this comes from the analysis of success levels at inferring and dictionary skills

tested on the following statement (pre research task I, classroom observation).

If you dont practice for the presentation the examiners will know that you are bluffing.

The learners immediately comprehend the lexical items practice, presentations as these occur

in the form of borrowings from English in the code repertoire of their L1- Sinhala. Examiners

on the other hand can be guessed in context as a derivative of exam which is again a borrowed

from English to Sinhala. This is possible as lexical comprehension according to Goodman (1975)

is a psycholinguistic guessing game The negative form dont is again within their inferring

level due to its high frequency of occurrence. Thus though the context is understood the failure

rate was a high 87.77% at inferring the meaning and an equally high 78.88% at identifying the

right meaning from a dictionary extract. This according to my contention is the result of the

psychological affinity the learners, especially the low and intermediate, feel towards the

distracters. The possibility of demanding a reexamination or talking in a rough, kind manner

(this is one meaning given in the bilingual dictionary though an interlocutor might find the

combination of two antonyms difficult to produce in short discourse) explaining that you have

not prepared for the presentation are very attractive associations activated by the context. More

evidence comes from the low preference (12.22%) given to going to make false threats as the

possible meaning for bluffing. This is rendered as impossible as the learners cognize that an

examiner- examinee relationship cannot evolve into the generation of threats. On the other


29/30

29

hand the immediate provision of the L1 equivalent pacha gahanawa resulted in the immediate

activation of the right schema for comprehension.

Thus at the end of pilot study III the study has justified the need for and clinched the argument

towards judicious integration of L1 in the ESL context targeted in this study. But as further

justification, pilot study IV, was conducted to obtain the preference of the learners towards the

judicious integration of L1 in the ESL classroom and the preferred mode of provision. The high

percentage (85.6%) of preference to judicious integration of L1 bore evidence for the feasibility

of its introduction into pedagogical practices. It is to be noted that 76.66% of the high

proficiency learners too preferred such integration. But the preference of the mode of provision

differed indicating that the high proficiency learners preference (76%), was for verbal provision

while the intermediate and low proficiency groups wanted a more concrete form of the meanings

to difficult English words provided. This identifies a pedagogical need for two different modes

of providing meanings through judicious integration of L1 in the ESL classroom.

The pilot studies tested lexical comprehension at sentence level and obtained data which

statistically validated that most low and intermediate proficiency learners have poor inferring and

dictionary skills which hindered their process of arriving at the meaning of difficult English

words. Based on these findings the study wishes to upgrade the area of research of the main

study from sentence comprehension to text comprehension. The main research will continue to

retain the priority given to lexis over grammar in the forerunners. Judicious integration in this

context will be identified as the provision of L1 glosses to difficult English words which occur in

the given text.

In conclusion this study forms the following hypothesis which will be the statistically tested for

validity in the main research.


30/30

Hypothesis I: Provision of Sinhala glosses for difficult English words which occur in

comprehension passages will accelerate and increase comprehension in low and intermediate

proficiency groups.

Documents

Integrating L1 to TESL