Abstract------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4

1 Introduction----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.1 Rationale-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.2 Theories--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.3 Earlier research results-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.4 Research question and the aims of the research---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.4.1 Specification of the research question------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.4.2 Abbreviations--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.5 Acknowledgements------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 Literature review-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.1 The use of the mother tongue in different methods-----------------------------------------------------------------------

2.1.1 Methods favouring the use of the mother tongue---------------------------------------------------------------------

2.1.2 Methods avoiding the use of the mother tongue-----------------------------------------------------------------------

2.2 The possible uses of the mother tongue in different methods---------------------------------------------------------

2.3 The use of the mother tongue in current teaching practice------------------------------------------------------------

2.3.1 Changing attitudes-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.3.2 The reasons for the use of the mother tongue--------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.3.2 The reasons for the avoidance of the mother tongue-----------------------------------------------------------------

2.4 Research results about the use of the mother tongue in the classroom---------------------------------------------

2.5 The research question--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 Method---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.1 The process of the research------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.2 Participatory research - teacher’s journal----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.2.1 The aim----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.2.2 The classes------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.2.4 The process-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.2.5 Validity and reliability---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.3 Classroom observations-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.3.1 Classroom observation I.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.3.2 Classroom observation II.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.4 Teacher interviews------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.4.1 The aim----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.4.2 The subjects----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.4.3 The development of the interview questions----------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.4.4 Procedure-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.4.5 Validity and reliability---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.5 Student questionnaire--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.5.1 The aim----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.5.2 The subjects----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.5.3 The development of the questionnaire-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.5.4 Procedures------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.5.5 Validity and reliability---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 Results and discussion---------------------------------------------------------------------

4.1 Analysis of the teacher’s journal-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.1.1 The advantages and disadvantages of the use or avoidance of the MT –the students’ progress--------

4.1.2. Group atmosphere-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.2 Classroom observation------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.2.1 Classroom observation I. –the E+H group’s lessons from the outside observer’s point of view----------

4.2.2 Classroom observation I.- the E group from the outsider’s point of view---------------------------------------

4.2.3 Classroom observation II.-the E+H group’s German lesson--------------------------------------------------------

4.2.4 Classroom observation II.- the E group’s German lesson-----------------------------------------------------------

4.2.5 Comparing the results of the two observation--------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.3 Teacher interviews------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.3.1 E+H teachers---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.3.2 E teachers-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.5 Student questionnaire--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.5.1 Attitude towards the English language and classroom atmosphere-----------------------------------------------

4.5.2 Difficulties with English-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.5.3 Opinion about the need for the mother tongue (questions 7,  9,  12)---------------------------------------------

4.5.4 Advantages and disadvantages of using/ avoiding the mother tongue (question 10, 11, 13, 14)--------

4.5.5 Self-evaluation (question 15)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.5.6 Suggestions for the future lessons (question 16)------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 Conclusion--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.1 The positive effects of the use of the mother tongue---------------------------------------------------------------------

5.2 The negative effects of the use of the mother tongue--------------------------------------------------------------------

5.3 The positive effects of the avoidance of the mother tongue-----------------------------------------------------------

5.4 The negative effects of the avoidance of the mother tongue----------------------------------------------------------

5.5 Practical suggestions---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 1 Teacher’s diary------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 2 Classroom observation- the visits to the lessons of the E and the E+H group-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 3 Classroom observation - visit to the German lesson of the E and E+H group--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 4/1 Interview questions for E teachers –the original version  TANÁRINTERJÚ  I. Háttérkérdések--------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 4/2 Interview questions for E teachers –the translated version  

Appendix 5/1 Interview questions for E+H teachers –the original version      

II. Anyanyelvet használó tanároknak----------------------------------------------

Appendix 5/2 Interview questions for E+H teachers –the translated version--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 6/1 Student Questionnaire for the students of the E group – the original version-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 6/2 Student Questionnaire for the students of the E group – the translated version------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 6/3 Student Questionnaire for the students of the E+H group –the original version-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 6/4 Student Questionnaire for the students of the E+H group –the translated version------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract

This thesis focuses on the use of the mother tongue in the language classroom. It aims to find the answer to how the use or the avoidance of the mother tongue affects the students’ progress and behaviour at elementary level.

On the basis of the literature, three principal reasons were established for the use or the avoidance of the mother tongue; i.e. the effective, affective and practical reasons. While the literature suggested that in monolingual classes the use of the mother tongue could develop group dynamics (Atkinson, 1993), my one-term-long classroom study with two groups suggested that the students with whom I never spoke in Hungarian participated in the lessons more actively and they also became more confident in speaking. However, it was revealed that the avoidance of the mother tongue could lead to the resistance of some students who needed a few months to get used to the lack of the supportive mother tongue at the lessons.

While the literature suggested that the mother tongue should play some role at the English lessons, my experience along with the students’ and other teachers’ opinions supported the view that both the use and the avoidance of the mother tongue have advantages and the teacher should decide on its use or avoidance on the basis of the primary aims and disposition of the group.

1 Introduction

1.1 Rationale

In monolingual classes with non-native teachers the mother tongue is a peculiar property shared by both the students and the teacher making English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes significantly different from English as a Second Language (ESL) classes with native teachers of English. Despite this very clear distinctive feature of EFL classes, the use of the mother tongue in the classroom is much more controversial.

Different waves of philosophies concerning the use or avoidance of the mother tongue in English Language Teaching (ELT) followed one another with changes of methodologies. At some stages non-native teachers were made to feel ashamed of using the mother tongue, while at other times they were encouraged to make use of it.

A reservoir, a window, a crutch a lubricant, a wall or a drug – all these metaphors of Luke Prodromou (2001) refer to the different roles the mother tongue can play in the language classroom. If it is used wisely, it is considered to facilitate learning, while its misuse or overuse may lead to problems in the class.

It seems that the shame over the use of the mother tongue has disappeared and many teachers think that the common mother tongue is a device that can help both teachers and students. However, my visit to an international language school for secondary school students in England led to question this statement. My conversations with secondary school students revealed that it was the absolute avoidance of their mother tongue which made their learning the most useful in their view. This ad-hoc finding encouraged me to investigate what role the use or the avoidance of the mother tongue  can play in learning a foreign language.

1.2 Theories

To study both the use and the avoidance of the mother tongue, it was found essential to have a closer look at the most important methods of ELT to see what the mother tongue was used for, and how its use was supported in certain methods. Besides, the reasons for its avoidance in other theories were also studied. They are presented in the Literature Review, in section 2.1.

On the other hand, it was even more important to see the arguments and counter arguments for the use of the mother tongue after the age of methods. These ideas together with the methods could help to gain an overview about what general reasons support or refute the use of the mother tongue in the classroom. These reasons are presented in section 2.3.

1.3 Earlier research results

Examining teaching philosophies is not enough in itself to base research on, it was necessary to collect data about relevant, published research conducted among EFL students. These findings served as a link between theories and practice: they revealed what the students and the teachers’ attitude were towards the use of the mother tongue in monolingual classes in Greece, Japan and Puerto Rico.

The results could also help to reveal what may determine the different needs for the mother tongue. Besides, these studies may confirm the view that the mother tongue can help learning a foreign language in monolingual classes. These findings are described in section 2.4.

1.4 Research question and the aims of the research

All the theories were special in the sense that all the researchers were native teachers in foreign countries. However, the situation is different with non-native teachers. To find out more about the role of the mother tongue in this situation, classroom research may be conclusive. Besides, the visit to the language school in England and the literature about the use of the mother tongue also led me to investigate the topic more closely.

To narrow down the field of the research, I took into consideration the availability of data. My primary aim was to test in practice how the students’ behaviour and progress might be affected by the use or the avoidance of the mother tongue in a particular setting, i.e. in a monolingual EFL class in a Hungarian secondary school with a non-native teacher.

Since I started to teach in a secondary school at the beginning of the academic year 2001-2002, it provided an opportunity to conduct research among the students. While the limited use of the mother tongue is fairly uncontroversial in classes above elementary level, the more controversial field of elementary students was placed in the scope of my research. My research question on which the research was based was the following:

How does the use or the avoidance of the mother tongue affect the progress and behaviour of elementary learners of English?

I took two main approaches in trying to find answers to the research question. I conducted participatory research to observe the students’ progress and behaviour, and collected data from other secondary school teachers. The students’ progress and behaviour was investigated both from their point of view and that of the teacher’s. Additional observations were made to make the results more reliable. The data also helped to compare the reasons for the use or avoidance of the mother tongue mentioned in the literature. The methods and the results of this research are presented in chapters 3 and 4.

1.4.1 Specification of the research question

The research question “ How does the use or the avoidance of the mother tongue affect students’ progress and behaviour of elementary learners of English?” needs some specification.

The use of the mother tongue means the conscious use of Hungarian in the English classroom on the part of the teacher.

The learners are secondary school students at the age of 14-15.

Elementary level means that the students either did not learn any English before the particular course, or if they did, they did not have more than 30 lessons of English.

Progress means the amount of English acquired by the students in terms of proficiency development, the pace they could follow and the number of units covered in their first term of their studies.

1.4.2 Abbreviations

In the thesis the following abbreviations will be used:

Bw.: between (only in the appendices)

E: English (only in the appendices)

E group: the group where the teacher did not make use of any Hungarian

E students: the students from the group where the teacher did not make use of any Hungarian

E+H group: the group where the teacher made use of Hungarian

E+H students: the students form the group where the teacher made use of Hungarian

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

ESL: English as a Second Language

H: Hungarian (only in the appendices)

L1: the mother tongue of the students and teachers

L2: foreign language but not a second language

MT: mother tongue

St.: student (only in the appendices)

Sts: students (only in the appendices)

TL: target language

1.5 Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Katalin Brandt, my fellow student at ELTE for her help in conducting the research. I would like to thank her for sharing her teacher interviews with me and also for observing my classes. I would also like to express my thanks to all the teachers and students who participated in the research.

2 Literature review

2.1 The use of the mother tongue in different methods

The role of the mother tongue (from this time called MT) has changed a lot through the history of language teaching. Although the age of methods marking signposts in language teaching came to an end in the 1970s, some of their characteristic features can still be found in more integrated and unified approaches.

One of the principles which differentiated the methods from each other and brought about new methods was what role the students’ MT played in teaching and learning English either in ESL or EFL classrooms. The overview about the role of the native language in certain methods will be based on Larsen-Freeman (1986) and Richards & Rogers (1988). Although Communicative Language Teaching developed as an approach, its view about the use of the MT is very influential; consequently, it is mentioned among the methods.

The purpose of providing a brief description about the possible uses of the MT in the earlier days of language teaching is to see that the applications and the reasons behind it –overtly or covertly- can still be found among present teachers and teaching practices.

2.1.1 Methods favouring the use of the mother tongue

2.1.1.1 The Grammar-Translation Method

The method, used for the purpose of gaining proficiency mostly in reading, approached the foreign language through an extensive analysis of its grammar. Afterwards, the rules were adopted to translate passages and analyse texts.

The students’ native language had a very important role to make the detailed and exhaustive grammar explanations and analyses clear for the students. Besides, the meaning of the texts were made clear with the help of translating these texts into the students’ MT. It also served to check the students’ comprehension.

2.1.1.2 The Silent Way

In this method of the 1970s, learners were much more responsible for acquiring the target language (from this time called TL) than teachers. It was the learner who was made responsible for perceiving the language and setting up its rules after a period of “silent” thinking.

The MT was used for giving instructions if necessary. At the earlier stages of language learning, teachers used it for feedback as well. However, students’ comprehension was not checked by using the native language but by making students concentrate much more on perception.

Although the explicit use of the MT was rather restricted, teachers were encouraged to build on the existing knowledge of the native language when it could facilitate learning. As a result, they used the MT to teach some parts of the grammar or certain words.

2.1.1.3 Suggestopedia

This method developed in the 1970s and considered language learning as a process of memorisation. Language learning meant the “loading” of the memory with sentences in the TL in a relaxed atmosphere.

The use of the MT was essential at beginner level because the extremely relaxed atmosphere of the lessons could hardly be established if students did not understand the dialogues they applied.

2.1.1.4 Community Language Learning

In Community Language Learning the successful acquisition of the TL was based on creating a feeling of security in the learner. To provide this security, the MT was used.

The combination of words into sentences in the TL was always preceded by making the meaning of the words completely clear with the help of the native language. The primary role of the MT was to create security; as a result, the learner’s development led to more and more confident use of the TL and its use was gradually replaced by the L2.

2.1.2 Methods avoiding the use of the mother tongue

2.1.2.1 The Audiolingual Method

Within the framework of this method of the 1950s, language learning was considered as the acquisition of language stimulus-response chains. Students could improve by mastering patterns of the TL. However, this process was easily hindered by the interference of the MT with its rather different building blocks.

Consequently, the students’ MT was neglected at the lessons but it was analysed by the teachers so that they could see clearly where the students’ native language could easily interfere with the TL.

2.1.2.2 The Direct Method

The Direct Method did not make use of the students’ MT at all. It was thought that a second language could be acquired through numerous interactions in the TL and few grammatical analyses.

Direct and spontaneous use of the TL was in the focus and rules were induced by the students. Even the meaning of new words were explained through demonstrations and actions.

2.1.2.3 Total Physical Response

The method emphasising that comprehension skills precede productive skills gave an important role to motor activities besides thinking. Instead of using the MT to clarify meaning, body movement was an integrated part of the lessons.

The physical movement could reduce the tension which might have been created by the avoidance of the MT from the very beginning of learning the TL.

2.1.2.4 Communicative Language Teaching

This approach places communication and not the mastery of the TL structures in the foreground. The TL is to be used as a vehicle of communication; consequently, the use of the MT is neglected.

            The more opportunities learners are provided with to practise the TL, the more competent they become in communication. Even classroom management can be done in the TL because it is considered as an additional opportunity to use the foreign language.

2.2 The possible uses of the mother tongue in different methods

Following up the overview of the different methods, the use of the MT can be put into three groups. It can

· be an integral part of the language learning process through tasks in which the MT plays an important role

· be an indirect facilitator of learning the TL through helping to understand it and clarify its differences from the native language

· be a device in the teacher’s hand to create  a relaxed atmosphere in the class with a feeling of security in students.

The first type of use refers to the intensive use of translation and analysis of the language, which can be seen in the Grammar-Translation Method. It can be regarded as an integral part of language learning if the success or failure of students is mostly determined by their proficiency in translation and how they can master the grammar of the TL.

The second group differs from the first one in how the use of the MT influences students’ progress. While in the first case the use of the MT directly contributes to learners’ success, in this case the MT can only help and lead to understand the tasks and learn the TL more efficiently. Giving instructions in the native language and highlighting the differences between the TL and the MT can be considered as indirect facilitators, which were applied mostly by the Grammar-Translation Method and by Silent Way.

Although the reason behind the third possible use of the MT is the least directly connected to successful learning, without a relaxed atmosphere effective language learning can hardly be achieved. Students’ security in the classroom helps to get rid of inhibitions and encourage to make “experiments” with the TL and use it more and more freely and frequently. This use of the MT played an important role in the Silent Way and Suggestopedia.

These applications of the MT in the classroom could be combined by teachers. Although the applications are rather different from each other, all of them attempt to achieve the same: to facilitate language learning.

2.3 The use of the mother tongue in current teaching practice

2.3.1 Changing attitudes

            Discussions about the use or avoidance of the MT in the classroom have continued after the age of traditional methods. The basic ideas beyond these systems have had an impact on methodology resulting in quite controversial views and teaching practices.

In the 1970s and 1980s teachers of English trained in native English environment were taught to avoid the use of the MT and provide maximum exposure to the TL in the classroom. As both Auerbach (1993) and Hawks (2001) point out, the ruling monolingual approach of the 1970s and 1980s was mostly due to the fact that the people concerned with methodology focused mainly on ESL classes and not on EFL ones. Consequently, acquiring English was an urgent need of students in ESL classes, while it was also frequent that classes were not monolingual and the students did not share the same cultural background. On the other hand, the so called “British colonial policies” (Hawks, 2001) also contributed to the resistance to use the MT in the classroom. It is mentioned by Hawks (2001) that at the Commonwealth Congress on Teaching of English as a Second Language in 1961, it was declared that English was best taught monolingually and the ideal teacher was the native one. Hawks (2001) even claims that “…reasons as to why the MT should be avoided in the classroom are hard to find, lending credence to suspicion of an ideological, rather than a pedagogical basis.”

            However, from the 1990s , this view has been questioned more and more frequently and intensively, for which the changing historical background is responsible. More and more attention has been paid to EFL classes where the learning environment is quite different from ESL classes. On the one hand, these classes are mostly monolingual, i.e. its members share a common MT. On the other hand, as the role of the English language in international communication has been growing all over the world, there has been an increasing demand for English teachers. This “boom” resulted in two important changes in English teaching: native teachers cannot satisfy this great demand, i.e. the number of non-native English teachers has been increasing, and the role of the MT in the language classroom must be re-evaluated.

2.3.2 The reasons for the use of the mother tongue

            In a monolingual class, there is the opportunity to use the MT; however, this raises some questions:

· At which level should the MT be used?

· How much time should be devoted to the MT?

· For what reason should it be used for?

These questions have been addressed by several authors like Harbord (1992), Atkinson (1987, 1993), Medgyes (1994), Schweers (1999) Prodromou (2001), Burden (2000) and Hawks (2001). Their attitudes towards the MT is common at least on one ground: all of them claim that the use of the MT has a positive effect on teaching and learning English. The overview will be based on their ideas.

            When there is a non-native teacher of English in the classroom who shares the students’ MT, it is the most natural way of communication to use the MT. Medgyes (1994) raises the question: “…how can teachers and students be expected to use English exclusively, when both of them are non-native speakers of English and share the same MT?” (p.26). Although the great majority of the authors focus on bilingual or native English teachers teaching abroad, all the uses of the MT mentioned here can refer to groups with non-native teacher that was in the focus of my study.

            As far as the first question is concerned, it would probably not cause any dispute among teachers or students that the higher level of proficiency students achieve, the less time should be devoted to the MT in the classroom. As Harbord (1992) points out: “…in the interests of the development of learners, as communicative tool, communication in the classroom should take place as far as possible in English” (p. 351). Instead of analysing all levels from the aspect of what the MT is used for and why, I am going to focus only on elementary students since the scope of this study necessitates this focus.

            Authors make different groups on the basis of what the reasons are for using the MT. Atkinson (1987) and Harbord (1992) establish three different categories on the basis of which the different reasons for the use of the MT can be explained.

Table 1. Atkinson’s and Harbord’s reasons for the use of the MT in the classroom

The two groups of reasons are not completely separated from each other. Atkinson’s humanistic reasons are the same as Harbord’s rapport. Both of them are connected to the fact that the MT can contribute to creating a warm atmosphere in the class where students feel relaxed and their MT is not suppressed for the sake of learning a foreign language. Besides, learning strategy and facilitating learning have also a common ground to share: without successful learning any teaching strategy fails; consequently, students’ need should be taken into consideration when they need translation or some words in the MT at the lesson. Atkinson’s time-saving forms a part of Harbord’s facilitating learning because the economy with time is inevitable to make progress at the ideal speed. It is important to mention that Harbord’s categorisation does not mean that he agrees with all these uses of the MT. What he attempts to do in his writing is to summerise what possible uses of the MT exist.

            However, the categories established for the traditional methods (see section 2.2) can also be used to group the specific strategies of the use of the MT. In addition, time-saving can be added to the three categories to make the review more comprehensive and include most structures mentioned by other authors like Medgyes (1994), Hawk (2001) and Prodromou (2001). As a result, the following reasons for the use of the MT will be discussed together with how it is used :

Table 2: Reasons for and principal uses of the MT

The first two reasons together can be called “effective” reasons because they directly support the improvement of the learners’ English. At the same time, the third one can be called the “affective” reason for using the MT because it helps learning indirectly; i.e. through trying to create the ideal environment for learning. Saving time is a special category because all the principal uses may occur in the language class for this reason. However, giving instructions in the MT seems to be the only use of the MT whose primary aim is to save time, while the others are not used for this purpose primarily.

2.3.1.1 The mother tongue as an integral part of learning a foreign language – the first effective reason

In second language acquisition translation is a natural phenomenon. Although in communicative language teaching one of the most important goals are to teach learners to think in the TL and not to translate from MT to TL when they try to express their thoughts in the TL, Harbord (1992) claims that in every human being the natural tendency is just the opposite: “ Learners will inevitably (and even unconsciously) attempt to equate a target language structure or lexical item with its closest or most common correlate in the MT, regardless of whether or not the teacher offers or ‘permits’ translation” (p 351). Consequently, learners should be allowed to ask for the English equivalent of certain words which hinder them from expressing themselves in the TL even if thinking in English is the final aim.

It is mentioned by Atkinson (1987) that several students get trapped at the level of translating each word from their MT into the TL. At elementary level this happens even more frequently. The long-term aim of “thinking in English” - despite the opposite natural phenomenon - is quite difficult to be realised. To achieve this aim, Atkinson (1987) suggests -paradoxically - the interim use of the MT. Students do not know how to make use of their limited vocabulary and knowledge about structures, as a result, firstly they must be made aware of what they possess. That is the reason why Atkinson (1987) thinks that “Activities involving translation from the MT can help to remedy this problem in that the they encourage students to make the important step of beginning to think not in terms of ‘How does one say X in English?’, but rather ‘How can I express X in English?’” (p.245).

Another related, effective use of the MT is to use translation in the classroom. Atkinson (1993) claims that translation helps to dispel misconceptions about the meaning of certain words like false friends in the MT and the TL. It also helps students to think comparatively about the two languages and increase awareness about the differences. Prodromou (2001) is also a supporter of bringing translation into the class and “bring the skeleton out of the cupboard”, i.e. use L1 without shame. According to Prodromou (2001), translation can facilitate the recall of chunks as well as help to highlight explicitly those areas where  L1 interference can cause problems. At the same time, translation can also be applied in testing proficiency, structural and communicative competence.

The principal uses of the MT for the above reasons can be achieved by the application of the following techniques mentioned by Atkinson (1987) and Prodromou (2001):

· guessing true cognates (translation of false and true cognates to expand vocabulary)

· guessing English words meaning in MT after having a knowledge about the meaning of a group of affixes

· contrasting proverbs in the two languages

· doing parallel translations in the class and comparing them

· doing projects where local people must be interviewed in the MT

· collecting collocations

These techniques can help students to think carefully about the meaning of words, to be more aware of the differences between the two languages and to develop a good learning strategy in some students’ case. These techniques are not primarily for saving time; the use of the MT helps to realise that what exists and works in students’ native language may not exist or may not work in the same way in the TL.

2.3.1.2 The mother tongue as indirect help in language learning - the second effective reason

Fluency, appropriacy and accuracy are the fruits of successful language learning. At elementary level, the achievement of these three requirements face several problems: students possess only a very limited range of vocabulary and grammar; consequently, it is quite difficult to be fluent appropriate and accurate.

Students need confidence and also some feedback to see whether their pronunciation improves, whether they managed to understand and apply grammar concepts, and they accurately understand the words. While the achievement of accurate pronunciation does not require the MT, grammar, understanding the meaning of words and their registers can be supported with the help its use. It can help for example to present and reinforce structures and concepts, to check comprehension and the sense of discourses (Atkinson, 1987), and to explain words by giving a translation in L2 (Harbord, 1992).

While learning a foreign language, students go through a systematic development. Inevitably, during the process of learning the structure and lexicon of the language together with its pronunciation, learners try to rely on their MT and find analogues. As Burden (2000) says,  “…the native language system will exercise both facilitating and interfering effects on the production and comprehension of the new language...".

As a result, the MT can play an important role in making students explicitly aware of differences and similarities between the structure of the MT and the TL. The questions about the structure of the language are naturally not formed in the target language; consequently, it can be more effective if these structural comparisons are made in the MT. These comparisons may occur at the lesson as a response to the students’ errors. When students make the same kind of “interlanguage” mistake (e.g.: *In the room is a chair.), it can be quite useful to draw students’ attention to the structural difference between the MT and the TL.

These structural difficulties are very frequent at elementary level; consequently, the translation of sentences including the problematic structure may help students to see the differences clearly. On the other hand, these “mini” translations can be more effective than concept questions to check whether students managed to understand a new concept. (Atkinson, 1987) However, Atkinson (1987) draws the attention to the fact that highlighting structural problems and reinforcing the good concepts do not mean that students possess an applicable knowledge of the TL in communication. Fluency activities must always accompany them.

Besides, it can happen that students’ create nonsensical discourse in the TL. In this case, instead of explaining in English what the problem is, Atkinson (1993) claims that it is better to translate what the students said. As a result, students can clearly see and correct their mistakes.

Giving the equivalents of unknown words might help learners as well. Burden (2000) claims that students tend to relate concepts in English to equivalents in L1; consequently, students can learn words effectively in this way. At elementary level, it might be supported by the fact that students know rather few words in the TL; consequently, words might not be understandable if the teacher defines them in the TL. On the other hand, some words cannot be explained by techniques like drawing, showing pictures or gestures. In these cases translation might help a lot.

While in the case of integral use of the MT it was the exercise itself which required the use of the MT, in this case the MT is used to improve the understanding of the TL. For this purpose the following strategies are mentioned by Harbord (1992) and Atkinson (1993):

· explaining grammar in the MT

· asking students to translate sentences containing a difficult structure both from the MT to the TL and vice versa

· giving the MT equivalent of words in the TL

· giving the TL equivalent of words in the MT

These strategies can help students to improve their level of accuracy. Here, the translation of the words serves as an additional help to do another exercise; i. e. translation is not the task itself but helps to carry on and help communication either in speaking or in writing.

2.3.1.3 The use of the mother tongue to establish good classroom atmosphere - affective reasons

In successful language learning the affective factors play a very important role. Without self-confidence, students are not capable of making progress in the long run, while being confident is inseparable form feeling secure. Consequently, learners can use and improve their knowledge of the TL if a friendly and secure atmosphere is created around them.

This feeling of security has a lot to do with the MT, especially at elementary level. As Auerbach (1993)states, the MT provides a sense of security for the learners, which can help them to be risk-taking, to experiment with the TL and try to express themselves. Although foreign language acquisition does not threaten the identity of students - even if only the foreign language is used in the classroom -, Schweers (1999) claims that in a student-centered classroom a “limited and judicious use” (p. 11) of the MT is required.

This good classroom atmosphere is determined by the quality of two types of relationship in the classroom: teacher-student relationship and student-student relationship. As far as the earlier is concerned, Atkinson (1993) suggests that classroom methodologies unfamiliar to the students should be discussed in the MT when students start to learn the language. Pair- and group work can cause problems to students if they are not used to these; and teachers can easily misinterpret students’ resistance to a certain type of exercise. To relieve tensions, these new types of methodologies should be discussed in detail with the class. It should be a two-way communication in which the students can also speak about their experience and views about the new methodology. However, without the use of the MT, it can hardly be achieved at elementary level, which can lead to an uncomfortable feeling in students, hindering their development. Secondly, Harbord (1992) mentions that group dynamics can also be improved by “chatting in L1 before the start of the lesson to reduce student anxiety” (p.354). The relationship between students and teacher can improve with the help of telling jokes in L1; consequently the possible anxiety can be reduced and can help to create a good teacher-student rapport. Thirdly, teachers should also pay attention to weak students. Besides providing them additional explanations and clarifications, they can be encouraged in L1 as well.

As far as student-student relationship is concerned, students can help each other with L1 explanations, which can help weaker students to feel more comfortable in the  class as they do not need to ask the teacher all the time. Besides, at elementary level the MT can also be used to check exercises in pairs or groups.

Finally, Medgyes (1994) also mentions the fact that foreign language learners are forced into a very insecure position. While in their MT they can express almost any thought, in the TL they are constrained to a very limited way of communication at elementary level. Consequently, the MT can help them to express those ideas which cannot be formed in the TL .

2.3.1.4 The use of the mother tongue for saving time

Hard-pressed teachers often feel that they are short of time. Mainly in schools where the lesson is forty-five-minute long, teachers often feel the burden of time. Using the TL at elementary level for administrative reasons might not run as smoothly as the teacher would expect it.

Atkinson (1987) claims that many of the techniques mentioned above can save time for teachers. If students do not spend one minute on trying to guess the meaning of a word but in five second they are given its L1 equivalent, it can save time – at least for a short time. Besides, administration and handling discipline problems in the MT are strategies whose primary aim is to save time. Both of these processes are said to be outside the content of the lesson; consequently, both students and teachers can feel it unnecessary and too artificial to conduct it in the TL. Besides, disciplinary problems may not be solved if elementary level students do not understand what change of behaviour is expected from them.

Giving instructions in the MT may also save time for teachers although it is not so difficult to make it impossible for elementary students to understand it in the TL. However, as Atkinson (1987) mentions, “…communicative interaction activities for early level students, while very useful in themselves, can be rather complicated to set up” (p.243). As a result, the lack of L1 instructions can even lead to failure in accomplishing the task as well as to the discouragement of students.

To summarise, some of Prodromou’s (2001) metaphors can help to see what useful roles can be attributed to the application of the MT. It can be a reservoir to help to understand grammar concepts and the differences between the two languages, it can be a window which helps teachers to see their students’ thoughts, feelings, learning experience much more clearly. It can also serve as a crutch which helps students when they cannot express themselves clearly in the TL. Besides, it may function as a lubricant which can help to run the wheels of the lessons  move more smoothly.

2.3.2 The reasons for the avoidance of the mother tongue

It goes without saying that “Every second spent using the L1 is a second not spent using English!” (Atkinson, 1993, p.12). However, the above mentioned reasons suggest that the L1 has an important role in the class, which facilitates the learning of the TL. After the age of the monolingual orthodoxy of the 1970s and 1980s with the  suppression of the MT, teachers could think of the possible advantages of the L1 without feeling guilty. Auerbach (1993), Medgyes (1994) Burden (2000) and Hawks (2001) claim that the sole reason for the avoidance of the MT in language teaching for quite a long time was that it helped native English teachers to get into a better position than non-native teachers and to have a dominant role in language teaching all over the world.

Nevertheless, there should be some more scientific reasons why the avoidance of the MT can be beneficial. If we look around the world, it is not difficult to find people who achieved a high level of proficiency in English with the help of native and competent teachers. Atkinson (1987) mentions three other reasons - besides the above mentioned hegemony of native teachers - why the MT was neglected in the language classroom for quite a long time.

Firstly, the application of the Grammar-Translation Method with its heavy emphasis on translation and analysis unavoidably led to failure when the aim of ELT became to teach how to communicate in the TL. Consequently, teachers were and may still be prone to consider all the strategies used by this method as the proof of failure.

Besides, Krashen’s language theory can also support the avoidance of the MT. Krashen (1988) claims that a foreign language is basically acquired like the MT and not learned; he suggests that learning is not as valuable as acquisition and transfers between the two languages do not have an important role. Consequently, learners should be exposed to as much TL as possible and the transfer between L1 and L2 can be ignored. However, learners need a special input of the TL, called the “comprehensible input”, which is understandable for the learner. It is the responsibility of the teacher to provide the input and learners will gradually acquire the language without paying attention to the influences of the L1.

Atkinson’s (1987) other reason for avoiding the MT is that a language can be learnt if it is spoken. Every single use of the L1 means the loss of an occasion when the TL could be practised. Teachers trying to make use of the MT can easily be lost in it and spend too much time on the MT.

Nevertheless, the author claims that all these reasons are vague and the MT should be a part of language teaching. This view is shared by other authors like Medgyes (1994), who claims that one of the advantages of being a non-native teacher is that the teacher can use the L1 of the students. Harbord’s (1992) personal opinion is that the MT should be used to “provoke discussion and speculation, to develop clarity and flexibility of thinking, and to help us increase our own and our students’ awareness of the inevitable interaction between the MT and the target language that occurs during any type of language acquisition” (p.355).

Despite this very heavy reasoning for the use of the MT, and quite a weak one against it, it will be attempted to collect some reasons for avoiding the MT. I will rely on Harbord’s (1992) reasoning and Brown’s (1994) Principles of Language Learning  Teaching and to explain why certain uses of the MT could be rather disadvantageous. The avoidance of the MT will mean the absolute avoidance of its use by teachers and its restrictive use among students.

2.3.2.1 Effective reasons for the avoidance of the mother tongue

Effective reasons are connected to language learning directly; i.e. they have a direct impact on it. These reasons for the use of the MT are the following:

· avoidance of overanalysing the target language

· more energy is invested into achieving  successful learning strategy

The automaticity principle of language learning and teaching (Brown, 1994) claims that too much focus on formal aspects of the language can block the pathway to fluency. While grammar and structure are essential for accuracy, students can easily have the false idea that the perfect handling of these structural aspects of the language can lead to better language competence.

At elementary level, the use of the MT can easily lead to its overuse as far as its primary aim is to highlight structural differences and make grammar explanations clearer. Students are prone to ask questions about details in structures which are unnecessary to be understood at this level. At this level the grammar and structure really needed for successful use of the TL both in speech and writing are not so difficult as to require long analysis. Harbord (1992) says that in grammatical explanations the situational presentation can help to avoid the use of the MT. Good concept questions, time lines and well-designed presentations in English can provide unambiguous explanations for the students. Besides, the memorisation of chunks can be more useful at this level than taking them into small pieces.

Besides, it is also essential to develop a successful learning strategy for every learner. Although one of the reasons for using the MT in the class is just the fact that students cannot “throw” their MT away, from the other side of the coin, their TL competence can also be improved by the avoidance of the MT. If the L1 is an integrated part of the lesson, elementary students are assured that they can successfully turn to the MT whenever they feel lost or have a problem; i.e. the teacher will answer in Hungarian and provide an explanation. Consequently, students are not encouraged to think and differentiate between problems that are real obstacles to improve, and problems which can be ignored at this level. At elementary level, the use of the MT makes students work with fewer difficulties and also makes them feel very comfortable: they do not need to invest much energy into learning the new words or structures; i.e. they are not motivated to develop a conscious strategy for language learning. Why would they make groups of words or learn the words with the help of situational context (which can be beneficial to learning strategies in the long run) if the teacher provides the L1 equivalents of the words. Giving L1 equivalents of L2 words can also create the misconception in students that every word has a one-to –one equivalent in the L1. Words “translated out of context” (Harbord, p.353) can prevent students from developing strategies to guess the meaning from the context and improve their comprehension. Visual prompts, miming, pictures, facial expressions, gestures can also help students to understand words; as an additional benefit, it can make learning new words more enjoyable.

2.3.2.2 Affective reasons for the avoidance of the mother tongue

The affective reasons are concerned with how students relate to the TL, and how it is affected by the avoidance of the MT. The following advantages can derive from its avoidance:

· a close relationship can be established between the teacher and students after the early difficulties

· students become more risk-taking

· students’ intrinsic motivation can increase

If the common language between the teacher and students is the TL from the beginning, it goes without saying that the teacher has much more responsibility for the learning of the students. Explanations must be simple and clear, the demonstration of each new word has to be planned in advance. At the same time, students must invest more energy into following the lesson. If they lose the thread, it is much more difficult to “pick it up” again. At first sight, the avoidance of the MT can cause fears in students and enlarge the feeling of being lost; however, the teacher’s personality can help to overcome these difficulties and even strengthen his or her relationship with students.

As a result, if the teacher can make students accept that the use of the TL serves their interests in the long run, a very close relationship will be formed between the teacher and the students. The situational presentations, drawings and miming can help to release the early tension. On the other hand, the teacher can use the MT with students in the break. Harbord (1992) argues that the use of the L1 to tell jokes or to chat for the sake of good atmosphere can be achieved even in the break and the lesson should not be devoted to it.

At the same time, the avoidance of the MT encourages students to be more risk-taking, which is essential to become a successful language learner. They are in a constant “guessing game” and have more opportunities to experiment with the TL. Brown (1993) says that constant contact with the TL helps students to “produce and interpret language that is beyond their absolute certainty” ( p. 24).

In monolingual classes where for most of the students the language lesson is the only occasion for using the TL, students will not so easily become intrinsically motivated. Most secondary school students are motivated extrinsically; i.e. to pass a language exam. If the TL becomes the only way of communication in the classroom, the atmosphere becomes similar to the one when students meet foreigners and the target language is the only means of communication. To understand and to be understood becomes an intrinsic drive in students and motivate them to improve their proficiency in English.

2.3.2.3 Practical reasons

            Practical reasons are concerned with time-management and group dynamics at the lessons. While one of the reasons for the use of the L1 can be to save time, its avoidance can also be profitable. Giving instructions in the TL can help students in the long run while group dynamics can also be improved through the constant use of the L2. Classroom administration can also provide opportunities for developing students’ English instead of simply meaning the waste of precious time.

As far as group dynamics is concerned, the early introduction of some simple phrases (Stop speaking; Listen, please; etc.) makes students capable of understanding the teachers’ comments on their behaviour. Discipline problems can provide quite a natural situation for the use of the TL.

 Giving instructions in the TL can be “genuine opportunities for teacher-student communication in the classroom” (Harbord, p.353). Harbord suggests that even if the instructions are complicated, they should be told in the L2 providing an extra activity where the aim is to understand the task itself. Besides, it can even test students’ comprehension and provide a diagnosis about their problems.

In both cases, the teacher has to provide the essential vocabulary for understanding the instructions. It does need some extra time but students will more easily get used to being involved in real communication in the TL. Besides, even the essential “grammar” words can be taught, which helps students at the lessons as well as at home when they try to make use of the English grammar explanations in their student’s book.

Classroom administration can be said to be outside the content of the lesson; consequently, the use of the L2 for this purpose can be too artificial. However, it should not be forgotten that with this attitude students will be enforced that learning the TL is not a part of their reality; i.e. it is another “dimension” with rather unreal situations. If classroom administration is conducted in the TL, it helps students to stay in the world of the TL all through the forty-five minutes of the lesson.

All these practical reasons support the view mentioned by Edge (1993) in her very practical book to language teaching, i.e. the use of the L2 (here English) even for classroom administration and discipline “demonstrates that English is a form of living communication to be used, not just a subject to be studied” (Edge, p.74). Besides, she emphasises that in all these cases students can learn such forms and uses which may not be covered by the syllabus.

2.4 Research results about the use of the mother tongue in the classroom

If Atkinson’s (1987,1993)or Harbord’s (1992) opinion about the use of the MT could be put into one sentence on the basis of the literature, it would be: do not feel guilty because of making use of the MT in the classroom  but be careful to what extent you use it. The reasons for its use were investigated on the basis of what can help students to be successful learners of the TL.

However, this theoretical change of position and the switch from “only English” to “English and the mother tongue” should be tested in reality: what do students and practising teachers think about the use of the MT in monolingual EFL classes? The studies about this topic are not abundant; three studies from the recent past were published. C. William Schweers’ study (1999) focused on university students’ and teachers’ in Puerto Rico and tried to reveal what uses of the MT were expected by students and teachers. Peter Burden’s research (2001) was conducted to study what Japanese university students wanted the MT to be used at English lessons. Finally, Luke Prodromou (2001) made a study among Greek students of English so that he could see how these students felt about the use of the MT.

The reason for conducting the research were quite similar in these cases since Schweers and Burden taught in countries which had different cultural backgrounds from theirs, while Prodromou was a bilingual teacher in Greece. In all these cases neglecting the MT may suggest that the teacher neglects the students’ culture as well. Consequently, they would have liked to get a clearer picture about what the students attitudes were towards the avoidance of the MT.

Burden (2000) used to think that “an integral part of language learning is lost when learners’ MT is used”. He insisted on the “only English” approach for quite a long time; however, he perceived that students got remote from him. He conducted the research to “formulate some speculative and tentative principles in relation to the amount of MT support required in class, based on learner feedback.” His survey focused on university students across all four years at four universities. Altogether, 290 questionnaires were filled in by the students who were put into four groups across their perceived ability levels; i.e. into pre-intermediate, intermediate, advanced and postgraduate (the last group included students from a range of educational backgrounds and ages) groups.

The results of the study indicated that the more advanced  level of English the students possessed, the less they expected the teacher to use the L1 in the classroom. At pre-intermediate level it was 83 %, while at advanced level it dropped to 41%. At the same time, 73% of all participants believed that they should use the MT at the English lessons.

Data were also obtained about what teachers should use the MT for. 73% of all participants thought that the MT had a role in the lesson; consequently, only 211 students answered these questions. Since Schweers’(1999) and Burden’s (2001) research did not involve elementary students of English, the results of the  group closer to this level are studied. The results can be seen in the following table. Besides Burden’s (2001) and Schweers’ (1999) results, Prodromou’s (2002) study is also included in the table but it will be analysed later. The equivalent or very similar categories were put next to each other, while the different ones were printed in italics. The percentages above fifty were printed in bold.

Table 3. What should the MT be used for in the classroom on the basis of Burden’s, Schweers’s and Prodromou’s results

According to Burden’s (2000) study, the use of the MT is not significantly required to explain grammar, to give instructions, to explain class rules, to explain why certain tasks are done and to test or to check comprehension. More than half of the students needed the MT only to explain new words, to explain differences between the grammar of the two languages and to relax students The results do not significantly differ in the case of pre-intermediate students.

On the basis of these findings, Burden (2000) argues that despite the need for the MT was supported by the results, teachers should be on alert when and why they use it. He suggests that genuine communication should never be interrupted by the MT. As a result, he introduces the concept of the “separate speaking time”, which is the part of the lesson sacrificed to the use of the MT to explain difficult concepts. It helps to separate the use of English (which is the primary aim of the language lessons) from dealing with the language itself.

Besides, Burden (2000) also draws attention to the fact that the special language learning history of Japanese university students might influence the results of the study. Japanese students focus on grammar, vocabulary and translation at high school and push communication into the background, which can make students rather teacher-dependent. They are not used to taking risk and using techniques to guess meaning or express themselves (e.g.: circumlocution, paraphrases, gestures). The above mentioned main reasons for the use of the MT are mostly connected to this special educational background of Japanese students. The characteristics of high school language teaching makes students weak in communication; consequently, their encounter with native English teachers may cause problems; for example, they do not know how communicative abilities can be tested.  Burden (2000) concludes that instead of the “only English” methodology, the MT should be integrated into the English lessons, which “values students, their cultures and their language”.

Schweers’ (1999) study among university students and teachers in Puerto Rico were conducted with the aim of obtaining information about when and to what extent the two sides need the use of the MT (i.e. Spanish) in the language classroom. Besides using questionnaires among students and teachers, he also observed three classes three times to see what purposes the MT was used for.

            The results of the study affirmed the view that students needed the MT in the classroom. 88.7 % of the participating students claimed that the MT was needed, while almost all of them - 99 (!) % - expected teachers to speak at least some Spanish in the classroom. However, Puerto Rican students felt an urgent need for the MT (86 %) only for explaining difficult concepts. In all other categories the great majority of the respondents did not feel the need for the MT.

From the teachers’ point of view, it is not possible to speak about a significant percentage of teachers being on the side of using the MT in any category. Nevertheless, most of them (87 %) agreed that the MT could facilitate their learning between ‘a little’ and ‘a lot’. Only 22 % of the teachers voted for its use to explain difficult concepts, while no other use of the MT was supported to a greater extent. Still, in their answers to the open question why using both English and the MT can be more effective, they brought up several reasons. They mentioned effective reasons like to make difficult concepts understandable and to improve writing; as well as affective ones like to establish rapport with students, to serve as a model being competent in both languages and to show respect to the learners’ culture.

Schweers (1999) argues that besides the primary use of the TL, the “prudent” use of the MT can facilitate learning through “raising awareness to the similarities and differences between the L1 and the L2” as well as through “recognising and welcoming their own language into the classroom” (p.13).

While Schweer’s (1999) results proved that among Puerto Rican students the need for the MT to explain difficult concepts was the only significant reason for the use of the MT, Prodromou’s (2001) study among Greek students could not show any area where it was at least half of the students who needed the MT. Prodromou’s data (2001) obtained from his student questionnaires suggest that L1 should be used  “ …in moderation, if at all, and the more English students learn, the less reliant they are on the L1” (p. 94). His study separately examined young beginners, intermediate and advanced level students of English in Greece. He experienced that among beginners the use of the L1 for explaining grammar and relationship between the L1 and the L2 were quite favoured. However, even in this case it was not more than one third of the students who felt need for it.

 He also asked students what they should be allowed to use English for. It was a fairly surprising result that 26 % of advanced said yes to use questions to ask how an L1 word is said in L2, while it was only 13 % among beginners. According to Prodromou (2001), these results may be due to beginners’ preoccupation with learning the grammatical system and not with being initiative in speaking. Besides, his results support the view that students tend to acquire  and not simply learn a foreign language. Most of the students participating in the research insisted on the use of the TL for so-called “procedural” reasons like giving instructions. This result seems to support Krashen’s (1988) theory claiming that students feel need for as much comprehensible input as possible. They seem to learn the language not only through the content of the lesson but also through the procedural uses of the TL. Consequently, Prodromou (2001) claims that “…teachers should indeed not waste any opportunity to provide students with natural, comprehensible input” (p.95). However, Prodromou does not think that the use of the MT should be neglected. He claims that it has a role in the classroom to raise students awareness about the differences and similarities between the L1 and L2 and also to interplay between the two cultures. He also provides some useful techniques for the use of the MT like contrasting L1 and L2 proverbs or collocations. However, he recommends these structures to bilingual teachers and not to non-native teachers who learnt the TL like their students.

            It can be concluded that all the three research had a similar starting point, i.e. the aim was to study the expectations of students learning in monolingual classes and being taught by native English teachers. Besides, they also had similar results: the students expected teachers to use the MT but only in a prudent way.

2.5 The research question

The studies mentioned above were conducted under very special circumstances; consequently, non-native English teachers’ question of when and how to use the MT in monolingual classrooms remains still unanswered. The reasons for this are the following: firstly, the researchers were native English teachers; secondly, there was a cultural difference between the students and the teacher; thirdly, no group was investigated where the MT was completely avoided by the teacher.

Living in a country where most English teachers are non-native, I would have liked to investigate what Hungarian teachers of English think about the use of the MT at the English lessons. Besides, being a non-native English teacher in a secondary school, I would have liked to know what the students’ opinion is about this topic.

As several arguments and counter arguments were mentioned in connection with the use of the MT in the classroom, it would be interesting and beneficial to know how its use or avoidance affect the students’ progress and behaviour. As I started to teach two groups of 14-15-year-old students at elementary level, I wished to gather evidence on the advantages and disadvantages of using the MT at English lessons. I formulated the following research question: How does the use or the avoidance of the MT affect students’ progress and behaviour of elementary learners of English? To answer the question I conducted participatory research as well as collected data through questionnaires and interviews both from students and teachers. The methods and the results of the project are described in the next chapters.

3 Method

3.1 The process of the research

To investigate how the use and the avoidance of the MT affect students’ progress and behaviour of elementary learners of English, and what the advantages and disadvantages are of using or avoiding the MT in the classroom, data were obtained from several sources. Four types of data collection methods were applied:  teacher’s journal, classroom observation, teacher interview and student questionnaire.

The teacher’s journal recorded the effects of the use or avoidance of the MT perceived by the researcher as the  teacher of two groups in a secondary school. In one of the groups I used only English at the lessons from the very beginning of the academic year, while in the other group I used both English and Hungarian. From this point, the first group will be called “E-group”, while the later will be  the “E+H-group”.

An outside observer’s classroom observation tested my teacher’s journal for reliability in both of my groups. Another classroom observation was conducted so that I could investigate how the students involved in the research behaved at German lessons and could gather additional information about the two groups.

            With the help of teacher interviews, it was possible to reveal what other teachers of secondary schools or primary schools teaching students between the age of 10 and 18 think about the use of the MT and about what role the MT plays at their lessons. To see what happens on “the other side” of the teaching-learning process, a student questionnaire was put together to investigate how the students who participated in the one-term long research felt about the use or the avoidance of the MT in the classroom.

            All the procedures were of high degree of explicitness, i.e. both the diary and the observations were structured  and constrained to certain aspects, and the interview questions were also determined in advance. This was due to the fact that the research question focused on the effect of the use of the MT on students’ progress and behaviour. All the data collection procedures were carried out in the academic year 2001-2002 .

3.2 Participatory research - teacher’s journal

3.2.1 The aim

As a teacher in a secondary school, I started to teach two ninth-class groups in a secondary school in Dunakeszi at the beginning of the 2001-2002 academic year. I decided to make use of the MT only in one of these groups, - the so-called E+H group. At the same time, I did not use Hungarian in my other group, the so-called E-group. With the aid of an observation checklist, - as teacher-researcher - I was able to describe what happened at the lessons from the very beginning of the 2001-2002 school-year. The journal was written until the end of January, i.e. until  the end of the first term.

In the journal it was recorded after each lesson how the use or the avoidance of the MT affected my teaching and how the aims of each lesson were achieved.

With the help of these records it was possible to obtain insight into how a teacher might feel if the MT was used during the lessons, and if the MT was avoided. The diary also helped to compare the progress and the behaviour of the two groups since they had the same number of lessons (three) every week and they used the same course book (Blueprint elementary level, Longman, 1990). As a result, it could also be seen when and how the two groups’ progress deviated from each other. The claim made by Atkinson (1993) that in EFL classes the avoidance of the use of the MT means the loss of something valuable could be tested.

Because of the extensive length of the teacher’s journal - with over 90 pages -, I have enclosed in Appendix 1 only the records of some average and some very peculiar lessons of the two groups. Except for the last lessons of the first term, they are always the Nth lesson in both groups. At the last lesson of the term the E+H group were two lessons ahead of the other; yet, they were not really ahead of the others as two of their lessons were taught by a substitute teacher in my absence, and they were revising previous material without the teacher’s use of the MT.

3.2.2 The classes

            The two groups of students selected for the research were 14 –15 year-old students of a grammar school in Dunakeszi. Altogether 20 students participated in the study. (For a month there were 13 students in the E-group but one boy left the school.)

Table 4: Distribution of the students in the E-group and the E+H group

The two groups came from different classes and they did not have close contact with each other. English was the second foreign language for both groups as their first foreign language was German. They started to learn German six years ago in primary school, while they had never learnt English at school before the beginning of this academic year.

Table 5: The language learning history of the E and E+M group

3.2.3. The principles of journal keeping

            I wrote my diary right after the end of each lesson of both groups. The keeping of the diary was structured and guided by some observation points which I paid special attention to. The guidelines were as follows in the E and the E+H group respectively:

In the E-group:

· the progress of the lessons (what we did we at the lesson)

· the advantages of avoiding the use of the  MT

· the disadvantages of avoiding the use of  the MT

· the group atmosphere 

In the E+H-group:

· the progress of the lessons (what we did at the lesson)

· the advantages of the use of  the MT

· the disadvantages of the use of the MT

· the group atmosphere

I restricted my records to these aspects because they helped to get a closer look at how teaching in an E-group can differ from teaching in an E+H-group. The first aspect helped to compare the progress of the students in the two groups. The second and the third aspects  highlighted what advantages and disadvantages could result from the use or the avoidance of the MT from the teacher’s point of view. Finally, the fourth aspect reflected how I perceived their behaviour, for example, their level of frustration, if they felt enthusiastic or disappointed, or  how they cooperated with me.

3.2.4 The process

            After each lesson I wrote down in a notebook what I experienced at that lesson. Sometimes, I also put down some comments which were not directly concerned with the focus of the study. The keeping of the diary took me about 15 minutes after each lesson.

3.2.5 Validity and reliability

As far as validity is concerned, it is important to mention that the recording of the fact that one group lagged behind at a lesson might not be the clear consequence of the use or avoidance of the MT. It might simply mean that the group had a burdening day at school and they were too exhausted and could not concentrate hard enough.  Still, if the group lagged behind at the same type of tasks reoccuringly during the first few months, it can be claimed that the progress of the lessons reflects the effect of the use or avoidance of the MT. 

On the other hand, the ability of the students and their relationship with the teacher can  also contribute to their progress and behaviour at the lesson. To avoid this validity problem, the  behaviour and achievement of the two groups at German lesson were compared. It can be said that the two groups seem to have the same abilities in general. There are no significantly weak students in either group, which means that the difference of the level of their abilities did not cause differences in the progress of the two groups (the description of this classroom observation is described later, in section 3.3.2.).

            However, the consistence and the accuracy of collecting data through a teacher’s journal might bring about some problems. Participatory research cannot be anything else but subjective. The self-observing teacher may unintentionally favour one group or the other, which may influence how the group can make progress and what kind of atmosphere is typical. Being aware of this problem, I consciously tried to establish the same relationship with the two groups, and I seemed to be successful in this. I really enjoyed teaching in both classes and was able to establish a good relationship with the students.

Besides this reliability problem, the students can also manipulate the results through behaving differently because of being aware of the fact that they participate in a study. To avoid this problem, I did not inform the two groups about being observed. On the other hand, they did not know that the other group were taught English in quite a different way. Consequently, the students could not manipulate their behaviour consciously. As a result, the reliability of the teacher’s journal seems to be satisfactory.

The possible inaccuracy of my observation and its subjectivity were tested with the help of an outside observer. This classroom observation is described in the next part of the study.

3.3 Classroom observations

Two types of classroom observations were made in the study. One of them helped to test the reliability of my observations and see what an outside observer’s opinion was about the two groups. The other one helped to gain some extra information about the students. I visited the two groups’ German lessons to see to what extent their behaviour was typical only at my lessons.

3.3.1 Classroom observation I.

3.3.1.1 The aim

The first type of classroom observation used in the study was concerned with my lessons held in the E and the E+H group. Although teaching the two classes in different ways and keeping a teacher’s journal made it possible to study  the two groups closely, it might have had the disadvantage of being too subjective, thus weakening the reliability of the research.

As a result, an independent observer was invited to see how her observations correlate with the insider’s view about the lessons and the groups. With the help of her notes based on an observation checklist, the students’ behaviour and their progress could be compared with my own opinion. Her notes can be found in Appendix 2 together with my notes about one of the two observed lessons in both groups.

Besides its primary aim, the observer visiting my class could give me some advice and help to teach the groups even  more efficiently.

3.3.1.2 The observation principles

The independent outside observer was Katalin Brandt, a graduating student from ELTE SEAS. The research area of her thesis was Hungarian students’ expectations about the teacher’s use of the MT. Together, we developed a structured observation sheet, which helped to focus on certain aspects of my lesson and avoid obtaining only a general picture of my classes.

She paid special attention to the following:

· the classroom atmosphere (students’ participation at the lesson, student-teacher relationship, student-student relationship)

· the use of the MT (when, why, useful or not) in the E+Hgroup

· the effect of avoiding the use of the MT (problems, success, students’ and the teacher’s reactions)

            These guidelines made the observation comparable with my teacher’s journal.

3.3.1.3 The process

            The observer visited both classes twice within one week. These visits happened in the middle of November, after more than 30 English lessons with both groups. She visited the 34^th and 36^th lessons in the E+H group, and the 34^th and 35^th lessons in the E group. She came to the class with me and she was introduced to the students. She wrote down her observations  which we discussed after each lesson. The students did not know the observer and she did not speak with any of the students before or after the observations.

3.3.1.4 Validity and reliability

            The observer had not known any details about the classes in advance; consequently, she came to the classes without possible preconceptions. I only informed her about the size of the classes and what the lesson plan was for that lesson.

            To make observation more valid, there were two observations in both classes, which helped to differentiate the normal behaviour from the unusual one. The two occasions helped to have a closer view about the students and their progress. However, more observations could have provided stronger guarantee that the observed behaviour and the occurring problems were really due to the use or avoidance of the MT.

            The reliability of the data gained through the observations might have been weakened if the students had tried to behave in an unusual way because of the presence of an observer. However, before the observations they did not know anything about the observer’s visit, which helped to avoid or at least decrease their anxiety.

            The E group did not even bother about the presence of the observer. They even enjoyed that a real stranger was introduced to them in English after having learnt about how to introduce themselves. Besides, they had already been observed by their class master, which might have helped them to get used to this unusual - and maybe uncomfortable - situation.

On the contrary, the E+H group were rather confused when they first saw a stranger in the classroom. At the first observed lesson the boys sometimes behaved in an unusual way; they whispered to each other and sometimes chuckled. Still, at their second observed lesson, they seemed to be used to being observed and did not modify their usual behaviour.

            As far as my behaviour is concerned, I did not perceive that I behaved in an unusual way. I had known the observer for five years, which helped to behave naturally.

3.3.2 Classroom observation II.

3.3.2.1 The aim

While the methods mentioned earlier were all concerned directly with the research question of the study, i.e. how the progress and behaviour of students are affected by the use of the MT, the second type of classroom observation was conducted to see to what extent the students’ behaviour and progress are typical of my lessons. That is the reason why I visited their German lessons. This observation could influence the reliability of the perceived effects of the use or avoidance of the MT in both groups.

The doubt may arise that the experienced different behaviour and progress of the two groups do not stem from the different ways of teaching. Other factors like the students’ relationship with each other and with the teacher can also affect their behaviour and progress at English lesson. Consequently, I was interested in if their behaviour at my lessons differed significantly from how they behaved at German lessons.

            Besides focusing on the classroom atmosphere in both classes, I also tried to pay attention to the behaviour of the students who performed significantly well or badly at my lessons. I was interested in whether their attitude at my lessons was also characteristic at the German lessons or not.

            Finally, I would have liked to know whether the use of the MT at the German lessons differed from its use at the English lessons. The notes made at the lessons can be seen in Appendix 3.

3.3.2.2 The classes

The two German classes consisted of the same students as my classes (see the detailed description in 3.2.2). Besides, it is important to mention that both groups have started this academic year with a new German teacher.

3.3.2.3 The observation principles

While observing the two groups, I would have liked to gain extra insight and see my groups from another point of view. I tried to get an overall view about:

· What the group atmosphere was like (what kind of relationship existed between the teacher and the students, and also among the students)

· How the students worked at the lesson, whether it differed from their work at the English lessons both in quality and quantity or not?

· Whether they made use of the MT in the lesson or not? (if yes, how?)

3.3.2.4 Procedures

I visited both groups once in the same week of December. The students were not informed about my visit in advance.

            My observation focused only on the above mentioned aspects of the lessons. Before the beginning of the lesson, the German teachers informed me about the topic of the lesson. After finishing the lesson, the German teachers also said to me whether the students’ behaviour deviated from the normal or not.

3.3.2.5 Validity and reliability

I visited only one German lesson in both groups, which can question the reliability of the observation. However, because of the fact that I had a day-to-day contact with the two German teachers, I managed to collect information about the groups.

Due to my good relationship with the German teachers, neither of the teachers felt strange because of my presence at the lesson. Consequently, the way they conducted the lessons could not be considered unusual. The normal progress of the lessons was reflected by the students’ behaviour as well. According to the teachers’ report, none of the students behaved in an unusual way. Despite my presence they seemed to feel comfortable, which helped to make the observation more reliable.

3.4 Teacher interviews

The teacher interviews were developed together with Katalin Brandt, who observed my classes as well. The interviews we made were used as a shared source of data. As a result, the teachers’ view could be observed from a broader aspect.

3.4.1 The aim

With the help of the teacher interviews, it was possible to highlight what Hungarian teachers of English think about the use of the MT.

After reading about the possible uses and advantages of the use of the MT in the literature, I was interested in how non-native teachers of English make use of the MT in Hungary. The interviews focused on why Hungarian forms or does not form a part of non-native English teachers’ English lessons. The answers helped to compare Hungarian teachers’ opinion with what professionals have written about this topic.

 Besides this comparative aim of the interviews, I was also searching for categories which could help to form groups among English teachers using the MT on the basis of what role they attribute to it and what reasons can be found behind its application.

3.4.2 The subjects

All the teachers participating in the interviews taught students between the age of 10 and 18. They were all non-native teachers of English either in Budapest, Dunakeszi or Vác. One of them taught in a primary school, while all the other teachers taught in secondary schools. Since these secondary schools had students between the age of 10 and 18, one primary school teacher with her 10-14-year-old-students was included in the study.

Altogether 16 teachers were interviewed, out of whom 14 teachers belonged to the above mentioned category. Their distribution can be seen in the following table:

Table 6. Distribution of teachers participating in the teacher interviews

The years of teaching English was quite different among the teachers. It ranged from three to thirty years, which helped to obtain a broader view about teachers’ practices and to see if there were significant differences in the use of the MT among less and more experienced teachers.

Table 7. Teaching history of the interviewed teachers

All the teachers were chosen on the basis of where they taught and how old their students were. The reason why these restrictions were made is that teaching young children or adults, or teaching in private schools can significantly influence the use of the MT; for example, because of different motivation, mental capacity, different expectations, etc.

3.4.3 The development of the interview questions

The teacher interview of the research was highly explicit. The questions were compiled in advance and they guided the interviews. However, many questions made it possible for the teachers to express their opinions quite freely.

There were two series of interview questions: one for teachers using the MT (E+H teachers) and one for those who avoid it (E teachers). The original Hungarian and also the English version of the teacher interview questions can be found in Appendix 4 and 5. These series contained common and separate questions.

The common questions were concerned with:

· general background information about the teachers

· the teachers’ opinion about two statements which were based on Atkinson’s (1987) two basic arguments for the use of the MT in the classroom

· teachers’ attitude towards the role and importance of translation at English lessons

The questions asked from the E-teachers obtained information about:

· reasons for avoiding the use of the MT and the factors determining its avoidance

· positive and negative classroom experience connected to the avoidance of the MT

· special cases when the use of the MT seems to be unavoidable

On the other hand, the E+H teachers’ questions were concerned with:

· reasons for using the MT and the factors determining its use

· what the MT is used for at the lessons

The questions concerned with background information (questions 1-7) collected information about the teaching history of the teachers as well as about their past and present attitude towards the use of the MT. In most cases, the answer to these questions revealed whether the teacher belonged to the group of E or E+H teachers.

However, in some cases, additional questions were needed to decide whether the teacher could be considered as the user of the MT or not. Finally, the criteria for being an E teacher were the following:

· he/she was principally against the use of the MT in the classroom

· he/she did not resort to the use of the MT at any part of the lesson except for very peculiar cases (e.g.: explaining the meaning of an abstract word at beginner level)

· he/she did not avoid the MT with all groups but there were certain groups where it was consistently avoided, for example, with all groups above beginner level

The use of Hungarian for translation was not a criterion for being an E teacher, since both at final exams of secondary schools and at state language exams translation is part of the exam, and it is a skill required of an EFL speaker. Therefore, translation has to be taught even by E teachers.

The questions made only for E teachers were concerned with the reasons for avoiding the use of the MT in the classroom as well as with how this is put into practise and what its consequences are (questions 9-12 and 14). Because of the elementary level of the two groups participating in the research, the avoidance of the MT at this level was given special attention (question14). With the help of question 13 the factors determining the avoidance of the MT were elicited. The criteria for being an E teacher did not exclude those who sometimes had to resort to its use; consequently, these special occasions were also investigated. These cases can be defined as those ones when the progress of the lesson is completely obstructed by the avoidance of the MT, for example, when students do not understand an explanation because of the lack of background knowledge (question 15). A teacher was considered to be the user of the MT if:

· the MT had a constant function at almost each of his/her English lessons; i. e. it was used constantly for instructions, explaining grammar, giving the Hungarian meaning of words, comparing Hungarian with English

· they did not plan the use of the MT in advance but it happened regularly at the lessons to make the lesson run “smoothly” and to save time

Questions 8, 12 and 13 helped to find the reasons for using the MT and its major functions, while special attention was drawn to elementary level students. Questions 10 and 11 attempted to collect information about how E+H teachers manage to use Hungarian “wisely”, i.e. to avoid excessive use and to make it really beneficial to the students.

            The third part of the interview included two statements based on the principal reasons for the use of the MT mentioned in the literature. All teachers had to express their opinion about these statements. These two sentences also helped the subjects to summarise their view about the role of the MT.

            The fourth part of the interview questions dealt with the topic of translation. Since translation is a realistic and often tested skill of an EFL speaker, both groups of teachers were asked what they think of translation tasks and what role it plays in their lessons (question 18 for E teacher, 19 for E+H teachers).

            The last, open question gave freedom to the teachers to express their opinions about the topic from those aspects which might have been not included in the interview.

3.4.4 Procedure

The contact with the teachers was established personally. Having received information about the topic of the interview, they were eager to participate in the survey. None of the teachers refused to answer any questions.

The interview was guided. The order of the questions was determined in advance and the answers were audio recorded.

Despite the structured questions, the subjects could elaborate the topic and express their own views. The interview was quite similar to a conversation. No third person was present at the interviews which lasted 20-25 minutes. The interviews were conducted in Hungarian so that language problems could not hinder teachers from expressing their views.

3.4.5 Validity and reliability

The range of the teachers who were interviewed was rather restricted. On the one hand, it was only 16 teachers; on the other hand, they taught students between the age of 10 and 18, mostly in secondary schools. Besides, all the teachers had the chance to work with highly motivated students with quite good abilities. That is the reason why it is important to emphasise that the interview subjects did not provide a representative sample.

As far as reliability is concerned, all the teachers were enthusiastic about the topic. Their openness suggested that they did not intend to modify their views because of the interview. The questions were neutral and did not seem to influence the teachers. In some cases, it caused some problem to determine which group the teacher belonged to but the established criteria helped to decide.

The teachers found the questions easy to understand, except for the two statements about the two principal reasons for the use of the MT. The statements had to be repeated and needed clarification in several cases.

3.5 Student questionnaire

3.5.1 The aim

The purpose of the student questionnaire was to see how the students of the E and E+H group evaluated the first term of the academic year 2001-2002 in connection with the use or avoidance of the MT in their English lessons.

With the help of the questionnaires, it was possible to compare the two groups’ progress and behaviour from the students’ point of view. Besides, even though this was not a representative sample, the answers provided some data to be compared with the opinion of those students whose attitude towards the use of the MT was studied in Greece, Japan and Spain (see section 2.5).

3.5.2 The subjects

The questionnaire was administered to the E and E+H group, and they were filled in by all twenty students. The detailed description of the two groups can be found in section 3.2.2.

3.5.3 The development of the questionnaire

Two types of questionnaire were developed for the two groups. There were some common questions (questions 1-6, and 8), while the rest were different. The questionnaires were developed in Hungarian. The original and the translated versions can be found in Appendix 6. The questions can be put into four groups:

· attitude towards the English language (question 1,2)

· classroom atmosphere (questions 3, 4)

· difficulties with English (questions 5, 6, 8)

· opinion about the need for the MT (questions 7, 9, 12)

· advantages and disadvantages of using/avoiding the MT (questions 10, 11, 13, 14)

· self-evaluation (question 15)

· suggestions for the future lessons (question 16)

The techniques applied in the questionnaire range from the use of multiple choice questions to the application of scales. Besides, open questions were also put into the questionnaire. The scale-type and the ranking questions made it easier for the students to find what reflected their opinion, while the open-ended questions made it possible to express their own opinion freely.

3.5.4 Procedures

The questionnaires were filled in at the beginning of February, after the end of the first term of the 2001-2002 academic year. When I took the questionnaires to the classroom, the students were still not aware of the fact that they had been observed and participated in a study. They needed 20-25 minutes to fill in the questionnaires.

3.5.5 Validity and reliability

Only 20 students were involved in the study; consequently, the sample cannot be considered to be representative. This method mostly provided data to make the research in the two groups more comprehensive.

All the students were interested in the questions and were quite surprised that they were asked about their opinions concerning the English lessons. It was emphasised that there existed no good answers to the questions, which helped to get reliable answers.

The test was piloted on one student at the age of 14 so that it could be assured that the questions were not ambiguous. None of the students had problems with interpreting the questions.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Analysis of the teacher’s journal

As the teacher of  two groups from the beginning of the 2001-2002 academic year, I conducted an experiment with the two groups: in one group (E group) I did not use Hungarian from the first lesson, while in the other group (E+H group) I consciously made use of the MT. The aim of this research was to discover how the use or the avoidance of the MT would affect classroom atmosphere, including the students’ behaviour, and the progress of the students.

I focused on two aspects of the lessons besides writing down what happened at the lessons:

· the advantages and disadvantages of the use or the avoidance of the MT

· group atmosphere

The teacher’s journals in both groups made it possible to compare the two groups on the basis of these two aspects, which helped to find an answer to the research question. The first aspect covered the effective reasons for the use or avoidance of the MT, while the second aspect dealt with the affective reasons. The practical aspect of the use of the MT was integrated into these two types of analyses. Although the two groups had the same number of lessons each week, it was not only the pace of progress which resulted in the fact that the Nth lessons were not concerned with the same topic in all cases. The holidays also contributed to the different progress at the two classes. However, these differences due to the external factors like holidays were equalled in the two groups by the end of the first term. To analyse the long journal of more than 90 pages, I tried to focus on the above mentioned two aspects in the following situations:

· the first lessons in the two groups (the beginning of the experiment)

· lessons dealing with the same unit of the book

· lessons when the aim was the same in the two groups (they progressed in parallel) but by the end of the lesson the two groups’ progress deviated from each other

· the last lesson in the first term (the end of the experiment)

The first and the last lessons are discussed in detail to give a comprehensive description about the input and the output in both groups, while the interim stages will be discussed as a continuum on the basis of the most important happenings at the lessons. In the description of the interim stages the most important happenings of the selected lessons and other characteristic features of the two groups perceived at other lessons will be discussed.  The beginning, the interim stages and the end of the experiment are described from the above mentioned aspects separately (see section 4.1.1 for the students progress and section 4.2 for the group atmosphere). The pages of the teacher journal concerned with the above mentioned lessons can be found in Appendix 1, where the lessons in the E and E+H group were placed opposite each other to make parallel comparison easier between the two groups. Although the numbers of the last lessons differ in the two groups (it was the 54^th lesson in the E group, and the 56^th lesson in the E+H group), they had the same number of lessons with me because two lessons were held by a substitute teacher in the E+H group.

4.1.1 The advantages and disadvantages of the use or avoidance of the MT –the students’ progress

To examine the advantages and disadvantages of the use or the avoidance of the MT, I divided the first term into three parts. On the basis of the diary I studied  the beginning of the term, the changes through the term and the end of the term. I was interested in how the advantages and disadvantages had changed during the first five months.

4.1.1.1 The beginnings

            In both groups the first English lesson was on 30^th August 2001. I planned to teach some simple sentences so that the students could say their names, ages, where they were from, etc. I also included a game with a ball of wool to make practise more fun.

            To conduct the first lesson in the E group was a real challenge for me. I was determined to avoid Hungarian, and tried to rely on choral repetition a lot. Since I did not put anything on the board in the first ten minutes of the lesson, the students tried to imitate my utterance as one flow of speech. They managed to find at least one word in each sentence which made it clear for them what the meaning of the sentence was. The frequent repetition and the chance to practise both in groups and individually contributed to the fact that the students were very successful.

            It was very interesting that after the first sentence I pronounced, one student tried to translate it immediately into Hungarian. After each new sentence I said, the students repeated it altogether. The student in the role of the interpreter tried to help the students who did not manage to understand the meaning of the sentence. This girl could help because she had learnt some English in the third and fourth classes of the primary school but later she gave it up. However, after I put the first sentence on the board, it was not only the “interpreter” but these sentences which served as a crutch for the students.

After learning the three questions and answers, the first game could also be conducted at the first lesson. The ball of wool surprised the students; however, mime and facial language helped a lot to make the task clear for the students. Nevertheless, it took more than five minutes to explain the task. Besides body language, I only used very simple words in English like “OK?”, “Yes?”, “No?”, “Alright.” and “Good.”.

            The aim of the lesson was accomplished, and the avoidance of the MT did not cause chaos in the classroom. During the lesson I would have needed Hungarian only for one reason, i.e. to tell the students that they should not worry at all if compared with German, the pronunciation was more difficult, and also that they should not try to analyse the sentences. I really found it useful to avoid the MT since it forced the students to concentrate so intensively that they did not even think of trying to compare the sentences because of their different structures. They could only focus on the communicative aspect of the task, which was just the aim of the lesson.

            At the same time, the first lesson in the E+H group did not bring the same feeling of success. I started the lesson in the same way as in the E group with saying a very simple sentences about myself. First, they behaved in the same way as in the other group and repeated the sentences. However, when the first sentence appeared on the board, one of the students asked immediately  what “is” means in the sentence. Since I planned in advance that whenever the students had complicated questions, I would make use of Hungarian, I always answered these questions in Hungarian.

            The more sentences were on the board, the more questions the students had about the structure of the language and the less time was spent on using English. When it turned to playing the game with the ball of wool, the students took it for granted that I would introduce the task in Hungarian. The constant use of the MT for the structural analysis made them get used to resorting to Hungarian whenever they had questions. Consequently, they could understand the task much easier and played the game more quickly. However, they could not do more tasks at the lesson since the analysis during the lesson took about the same time as the much longer instructions in the E group.

            Therefore, after the first lesson, I had the feeling that the avoidance of the MT had more advantages than disadvantages since it was needed only for the affective reason to calm the students down, while at the E+H group’s lesson its use resulted in too early structural analysis, which had no real advantage for the students. The handling of time did not cause problems at this point even if it took more time to introduce an activity in the E group.

4.1.1.2 On the way to…

After five lessons of English, both groups could ask some simple questions from each other, could introduce themselves, could count from one to ten, and learnt the most essential greetings and goodbyes. By this time, the different methods did not result in a different pace of progress in the two groups. However, by the end of the 6th lesson I found the avoidance of the MT more useful than its use.

The E group started the 6^th lesson with a word test. I prepared in advance to be able to explain that they should fill in the gaps on the paper with words we had learnt. However, some students panicked because of the unfamiliar word test, and they could not work. I realised that these special word tests were too difficult for the students. I would have really needed Hungarian to calm the students down and discuss with them how they should prepare for these “word trials”.

After the word test, we played a game with greetings. The game needed the pre-teaching of some adjectives. The students had no problem with guessing meaning and really enjoyed it. However, when the role cards were handed out, the students got completely confused. First, some of them did not even understand why they were given cards. By this time it became clear that their language learning experience did not really include tasks like this before. Consequently, it took a lot of time to explain and demonstrate what they were to do. The use of the MT for practical reasons, i.e. to facilitate teacher-learner communication (Harbord,1992) would really have been useful in this situation. One student even asked in Hungarian why I was not willing to use Hungarian.

Nevertheless, the students managed to understand their task after about 8-10 minutes and started to do the task. The very simple game turned out to be very enjoyable for the group. They enjoyed both acting and listening to the others. Without the use of the MT, it seemed to be a meaningful exercise for the students to greet each other in English. The avoidance of the MT caused another difficulty when the meaning of “How do you do?” was asked. It took quite a long time to explain how this this special form of greeting is used; still, they managed to understand it.

At this lesson the use of the MT was missed for effective reasons; i.e. to clarify the task and to clarify the register of one greeting. Finally, we could not finish the exercise by the end of the lesson; still, the game proved to be challenging for the students.

As far as the E+H group is concerned, they also started the 6^th lesson with a word test but it was designed in a different way: they simply had to write down quickly the English equivalent of certain words. They were asked the same number of words as the E group but it took about half as much time as with the E group (approximately five minutes).

The game with the greetings could be conducted much easier with the E+H group. The words expressing the moods were introduced with the help of Hungarian and the task management was also achieved by means of the MT. However, the students did not find the game as challenging as in the E group. With the use of the MT the special atmosphere was missing from the class. The students’ question about why they should act it out and my Hungarian explanation destroyed the original aim of the game; i.e. to communicate in English in different moods and roles.

The game did not take the whole lesson; consequently the students also learnt the names of the week and practised it. The students could not help asking questions about the structure “It’s Monday”. They seemed to find pleasure in these analyses and my Hungarian explanations made them satisfied. However, at the end of the lesson I had the opinion that the use of the MT was not useful at all even if  time was not wasted and more exercises could be done in this group. I had the feeling that my use of the MT to provide structural explanations spoiled the atmosphere of the lesson.

Consequently, after six lessons, the use or the avoidance of the MT started to reveal both advantages and disadvantages at both sides. While more material was covered with the E+H group, they could not really enjoy communication with each other and were more and more frequently lost in structural analyses. At the same time, the E group progressed more slowly and the short panic of the first lesson seemed to reappear again and again. Nevertheless, as more and more lessons were held in the two groups. I had the following observations in connection with the use or avoidance of the MT:

As the time passed, the members of the E group started to use English to express their problems and ask for help. However, one student wanted to translate orally anything I said. First I let her do this if I saw that at least three or four students did not understand the instructions or the explanation. However, as the time passed, some students started to take it for granted that she would help them. As a result, I had to pay attention to this student so that her translation could not spoil the English communication at the lessons.

Besides, the more grammar structures the groups learnt, the more chances they had to get confused. Hungarian interference caused problem in both groups but it was much easier to dissolve them in the E+H group with the help of the MT. At the 14^th lesson it was “your” and “yours” which caused problems for some students. Since the possessive pronouns occurred for the first time in the text and it was not the aim of the lesson to teach them to the students. As a result, I tried to give only a superficial explanation which could calm the students down and make them focus on the communicative aspect of the task. Another example for this was the incorrect use of the “there is/are” structure. The students from both groups frequently wanted to say *on the desk is an apple and did not understand why this structure was incorrect in English. While this problem was solved with the help of the MT in the E+H group, in the E group I had to develop a special technique to solve these problems and provide short explanations. The magic word was “Hunglish”. After a few problems they learnt that in these cases it was useless to try to compare the two languages. Whenever a grammatical problem arose, I let one or two members of the group said one or two words in Hungarian to help the group understand the most important concepts.

Later, as the E students became more confident and the texts of the book were longer, the need for structural analysis arose even in this group. However, I found it much easier to fence off questions which would have only wasted time. Answers to the questions about the word order in longer texts or about unknown structures would have made the students more confused were answered by saying “don’t worry”, which the students seemed to accept. Still, if their problem was closely connected to the structure learnt, I attempted to provide an explanation in English. The different characteristics between “to be” and other verbs were realised by the students when they saw the different types of question forms. However, I never brought up structural problems, it was always the students who first realised and mentioned them.

Nevertheless, even the relevant grammar problems and mistakes could make the students rather frustrated and could change the flow of the lesson unexpectedly. At the end of November the students in both groups were familiar wit the present simple and could use it in oral tasks. The situational presentation seemed to be clear for the students in both groups; still, the E group made a lot of mistakes in the homework. At the 40^th lesson the students became so confused that they asked me to explain the simple present tense once more. At this point if I had used Hungarian, I would have tried to clarify the differences in questions and statements with the help of some Hungarian words; however, I do not think that there would have been anything else on the board in that case. Instead of Hungarian I used grammatical signs on the board and the students managed to understand the concept. I would have found the MT useful for consoling the students and encouraging them not to give up. It was very difficult to help the students mentally in English and with the help of body language. It seemed as if all their problems came to the surface at this lesson. While I was trying to explain the basics of the simple present as they required, they tried to connect it to the possessive structure “have got” and seemed to be absolutely confused. They could not focus on one problem at one time, which made it even more difficult to calm them down.

As for learning words, it was very rare that this caused problems for the students. They got used to learning words through activities in the E group. However, certain areas of the vocabulary were difficult to be explained. At the 35^th lesson the expression “doing sports” made several students confused. It was the same with the prepositions of place since they got confused when they realised that there was no one-to-one equivalence between the English and Hungarian prepositions. However, they got used to this quite frequent phenomenon, which proved to be very useful. They learnt it very early that they should not expect to find exact equivalents for each word in the two languages, which helped them a lot to understand texts. It rarely happened that they got lost in the details of the texts in the book. They were much better than the E+H group in skimming texts. I experienced that the learning of the new words was one of the most enjoyable part of the lesson for the group. Everybody was involved in finding the meaning of words without demanding the use of the MT.

Consequently, on the basis of my diary it seemed that the E group was on the way towards success in learning English. Although the grammar was not so easy to understand, after the students got more familiar with the new structures and had a chance to practise, their achievement was not worse than that of the other group. What I would really have made use of the MT for was to console the students when they felt confused and started to panic. However, as time passed, the students gradually realised and believed that it was possible to learn the grammar  without the MT. This was proved by the fact that their grammar tests were not significantly worse than the other group’s.

At the same time, the E+H group’s progress was much more linear. The lessons ran smoothly without any serious problems. The number of “analysis” questions decreased as the students got familiar with more and more structures. Two opposite processes went on in the two groups as the time passed: the number of problems seemed to increase in the E group, while the lessons became more and more balanced in the E+H group. They still had questions about the grammar but these questions became more and more useful.

At the 14^th lesson they did not have a lot of structural questions which helped to keep the lesson dynamic. However, even the few structural questions were enough to make two students deviate from the topic of the lesson. However, when the focus of the lesson was not so much on fluency like at the 40^th lesson, the structural problems occurred more frequently. The E+H group also had questions about the simple present; still, these problems were solved much quickly. At the 40^th lesson the reading task provided an opportunity for one student to ask his usual structural questions. However, I could not really feel how much explanation he needed. Consequently, I realised that some students would have needed only one word but I gave a longer explanation in texts, which slowed down the lesson and made the students bored.

Although the learning of the grammar never caused panic in this group, unlike in the E group, they were not better at using the structures. They seemed to understand the simple present more quickly than the E group; however, when they had the role-play activity at the 22^nd lesson, they made all the mistakes which caused confusion in the E group.

As far as the learning of words is concerned, I realised that I resorted to the use of the MT less and less frequently. The reason for this was the fact that giving the Hungarian equivalents of the words dislocated me from the rhythm of teaching and slowed down the lesson. However, the students were quite unwilling to rely only on my English explanation and wanted to hear the Hungarian word as well. Gradually, they got used to the use of English explanation with words which were not so difficult to understand.

What I really found Hungarian useful for was to encourage them when they were tired and disappointed. A funny comment or question proved to be very useful in these  cases. It also helped to provide some additional information about British culture when it could be connected to the content of the lesson. At the 14^th lesson one student had some questions about British Quiz Shows, which were answered in Hungarian. These short stories did not take much time and helped the students to get closer to the culture behind the language.

Still, the E+H group did not use English for communication as often as the other group. It was frequent even in November that the students could not really understand why the info-gap exercises were done. They seemed to find these exercises too childish and did not take it seriously. At the 40^th lesson some students were quite unwilling to share the information about their text with their partner, which caused difficulties. While the E group were very enthusiastic in these exercises because they were concentrating on English all through the lesson, the E+H group found it more difficult to focus only on English. When they seemed to be unwilling to cooperate with each other in English I used the MT to explain why it should be important to use English instead of Hungarian.

However, the use of the MT seemed to be very disadvantageous when the instructions were given to the students. The students got used to the use of the MT in these cases but I felt uneasy helping them in Hungarian; consequently I started to use less and less Hungarian in instructions from November.

4.1.1.3 The end

The first term ended on 24^th January. Until that time I had 54 lesson with the E group and 56 with the E+H group but we spent the same number of lessons together in the two groups (see the reason in section 4.1). When I finished writing my diary, my views about the advantages and disadvantages of the use or avoidance of the MT concerned with the students’ progress were as follows:

Compared with my earlier view, I found much fewer advantages of the use of the MT after more than 50 lessons. Since the students gradually got used to the English explanations, the limited time of the lessons could be spent efficiently without helping the students in Hungarian. They also learnt the essential instructions during the five months unconsciously; consequently, the avoidance of the MT was no more an obstacle to the efficient use of time at the lessons.

By the end of January, the E+H group initiated fewer and fewer discussions about the structure of English. It seemed as if the earlier analysis had served to make the students more confident; at the same time, there were less unfamiliar structures in the book. Still, the occurrence of more difficult texts might bring about structural analysis again in the future. Besides, I also experienced that the lessons lacked dynamism because of the use of the MT. Another disadvantage of the use of the MT occurred around December and became significant in January. I experienced that the use of the MT did not encourage them to solve minor problems without my help. They did not try to ask question - even about minor problems - in English. Temporarily, their “strategy” to ask for help from the teacher in Hungarian seemed to be more useful but in the long run this may lead to failures in genuine communication in English when the teacher would not be there to help.

One important advantage of the use of the MT - even after five months - was connected to bringing the culture behind the TL close to the students. These explanations and small stories helped to make the students interested not only in learning the language but learning about culture. Besides, the very short explanations for completely unfamiliar structures that appeared in texts proved to be useful as well. However, I had to keep these explanations short and made them only as long and thorough as to dispel confusion. These explanations were extremely useful for  two students who were unwilling to understand English sentences if they panicked. The panic blocked their thinking; consequently, speaking in English even intensified their problem. Consequently, some Hungarian proved to be useful in these situations all through the five months.

As far as the E group is concerned, by the end of January the panic completely disappeared from the lessons. They were very good at getting their meaning across with the help of very simple English sentences. They also became more confident and enjoyed initiating simple conversation in English. The lessons were still very lively and they were much more dynamic than in the E+H group.

As for grammar explanations, when the present continuous was presented in January they had much fewer problems with it than with the simple present. None of them started to panic and they could even understand the main differences between these two tenses. However, it might be partly due to the “interpreter’s” help at the lessons. The problem with this role still existed in January. Her moderate help at the lessons proved to be essential for the students who were not so good at English. That is the reason why I decided to “legalise” this role in the classroom. However, the more knowledge the students will have, the less frequently she will be allowed to help her classmates. Besides, the intense concentration was still essential at the lessons and its loss caused problems all the time. However, in five months I collected enough experience about who were prone to lose attention; consequently, I tried to pay special attention to them and prevent them from getting lost.

My experience about the advantages and disadvantages of the use and avoidance of the MT strengthened my view that its avoidance was more advantageous. Although its avoidance caused both effective and affective problems at the beginning of they year, by January most of the problems disappeared and the advantages remained.

However, the panic in the middle of the term and the fact that some topics were covered in a shorter time in the E+H group, made the E group lag behind the E+H group. At the last lesson in the first term, the E+H group  was one and a half  unit ahead of the E group.

The E+H group started the last  lesson with a very dynamic warm-up to practise the present continuous. They did not use any Hungarian at this point of the lesson, while my instructions were given both in English and Hungarian. I hoped that one month later I would use only English for this function. The reading exercise was done in the form of a gap-filling exercise. Most of the new words were introduced without using Hungarian. When it came to filling the gaps, I did not need Hungarian. The students understood the text and managed to find the missing words although they did not really cooperate with each other. At this lesson the only important role of the MT was to give instructions. The lesson ran smoothly and neither the students nor I felt the need for the MT for any other reasons. This lesson presented that the less frequent use of the MT did not seem to be disadvantageous for the group.

As for the E group, at the 54^th lesson they managed to write a short composition about a man after learning some new words. The students could do without the MT and seemed to be confident in telling their stories. The new words did not cause any problem either. By the end of the lesson they were able to speak about what they could find in their house with the help of the “there is/there are” structure. The use of the MT was not essential at any point at the lesson. The group made progress and they were able to follow my instructions. The “interpreter” translated some new words and reminded the group of the “there is /there are” structure but later, the group did not need her help and performed very well.

4.1.1.4 Interpretation

The different phases of the groups’ progress supported different views about the use of the MT in the classroom. The beginning of the academic year proved to support the use of the MT for facilitating teacher-student rapport (Harbord, 1992). The panic in the E group was probably due to the fact that the students were forced to understand the teacher; otherwise they had to face the uncomfortable feeling of being lost. Some of them could not feel secure in this situation, which could even block their thinking. The maximum exposure to the TL caused problems to some students because they wanted to get some support in the MT at the very beginning of their studies.

The E group had some problems also with grammar, which seemed to require the use of the MT at certain parts of some lessons. However, this problem arose only gradually. The students were able to tolerate and accept that they did not understand each part of the sentences unlike the E+H group. Still, after a time this insecurity became intolerable and the students broke out panicking when the simple present tense was practised and revised. This sudden outburst was probably the result of a longer process. Temporarily, they seemed to be able to ignore some problems but finally, they could no longer tolerate insecurity. On the other hand, the need for the MT to explain grammar was also connected to my uneasiness about some students’ failure in tests. The weaker students might have found my English explanations very difficult to understand; consequently, their failure seemed to be partly my failure as well. However, some “extra” practice and the students’ mutual help seemed to be enough to solve this problem. As the students got used to the situational presentation of grammatical structures, they felt more and more confident.

At the same time, grammar did not cause such a problem for the E+H group; some of them were even much more interested in structural problems than in the use of the language. It may partly be due to the fact that learning a language for this group was rather an individual activity than learning as a part of a community and participating in genuine communication. That might partly be the reason why they found pleasure in analysing grammatical structures. First they wanted to understand the building up of the language so that later they would be able to use it efficiently. At the same time, the E group wanted to overcome the difficulties which hindered them from expressing their ideas and wanted to understand and use it as soon as possible. Consequently, they repeated the new structures and focused on its use, while the E+H students primarily wanted to understand each part of the sentences. As a result, the MT proved to be an obstacle in creating genuine communication in English in the E+H group. Besides, the lessons were less dynamic in the E+H group because of the constant switch from one language to the other. This switch also contributed to the loss of dynamism of the lessons.

By the end of the term the useful functions of the MT concerned with the students’ progress were to dissolve confusion when unexpected grammar structures occurred in texts and also to bring the culture behind the language close to the students. The later use of th MT supported  Prodromou’s (2001) view, while the earlier one was connected to Atkinson (1987).

Confusion had two main sources in the groups: panic because of not understanding the teacher’s English instructions and explanations or problems with certain structures or exercises. If  the majority of the students did not understand an explanation or they faced a serious problem, the use of the MT might help the students not to lose confidence.

However, the avoidance of the MT helped to make the lessons more dynamic, which might have been partly due to the fact that all the students in the E group were forced to focus on the content of the lesson. The avoidance of the MT resulted in the students’ much more intensive  attention at the lesson. Still, the weaker students might have found it more demanding and might have lagged behind the others in understanding new concepts. At the same time, the E students learnt to ignore minor problems which only blocked comprehension.

While the use of the MT seemed to give confidence in handling structures of the language, its avoidance seemed to give more confidence in its use. As Harbord (1992) claimed, the avoidance of the MT prevented over-analysis of the TL and helped to open the pathway to fluency much easily.

4.1.2. Group atmosphere

The observation of the group atmosphere was concerned with the students’ relationship with the teacher and with each other. I focused on how they cooperated with one another, and how they could cooperate with me. The change of the group atmosphere will be introduced in the same way as the use of the MT: first the beginning of the academic year, then the atmosphere of the  interim stages, and finally, the end of the experiment will be described.

4.1.2.1. The beginnings

As for the E group, the group atmosphere of the first lesson was very unusual. The students had to face a completely unfamiliar situation. Although they had learnt German at primary school, they were not used to avoiding the use of the MT at German lessons. Some of them were really frightened when they had to utter sentences in a language they had never spoken in their life. However, the choral repetition seemed to make the students more confident and some of them were even eager to say their own sentences about themselves in front of the group.

Help played a very important role at the lesson. The students who found the task very demanding were given help by their classmates all the time. They were given explanations on what they should have done by those students who understood very quickly what they had to do.

By the end of the lesson, all the students seemed to enjoy the game with the ball of wool. The process helped the students not to be afraid of saying a simple sentence in English. They cooperated with each other and also paid attention to me. The fact that I never answered their questions in Hungarian did not cause alienation since the new, unfamiliar characteristics of the lesson like the game were much more important for the students.

At the same time, the E+H group behaved rather differently. Since I used Hungarian when they had some questions, they were not encouraged to cooperate  with one another. They tried to do everything alone and even laughed at one another when they  pronounced a sentence very strangely.

Besides, none of them found the task very demanding and did not feel confused. By the end of the lesson I had the feeling that they were able to understand everything unlike the E group; still, they did not seem to enjoy the game as much as the other group; i.e. it was not a real challenge for them.

4.1.2.2 On the way to …

The more lessons the two groups had, the more different the group atmosphere and the students’ behaviour proved to be. The 6^th lesson was the first occasion when the differences between the two groups’ behaviour were really highlighted.

The 6^th lesson starting with the word test caused panic in the E group. They asked for help from me, while I tried to help them in English. Some of them were extremely surprised at my reaction to their problems. Two of the students could not really make use of my help and became rather disappointed. One of them even asked why I could not speak in Hungarian.

However, the learning of the new words broke the ice since all of them found it  very challenging. The atmosphere of the lesson changed a lot at this time. Finally, when it turned to the game with the greetings, they really felt relaxed after they managed to understand what their task was. They paid attention to each other, tried to play with their voice and encouraged the students who were too shy to start  acting out the mini dialogue.

At the same time, the 6^th lesson in the E+H group did not create the same atmosphere as in the E group. During the word test there was no problem, the students were able to accomplish the task.

When the new words were presented, they paid attention and wrote down each word; still, they had a completely passive role in it. Besides, the game with the greetings did not create the same vibrant atmosphere as in the E group. They found the game childish and did not really understand the aim of the task. They understood everything, said the greetings but it was not a challenge for them. They did not even need one another’s help since I clearly gave them the instructions in Hungarian.

Since this game was finished much more quickly than in the other group, we had time to go on. It was interesting that the new expressions, the days of the week interested them much more than greeting each other in pairs.

Despite the more “effective” lesson in the E+H group, I enjoyed the lesson with the E group much more since I could feel that they started to act and behave as a part of a community and found some exercises really enjoyable, which made the lesson very colourful and vibrant.

Later, as more time was spent with the two groups, I experienced the following negative and positive characteristics of the E and the E+H group:

The more lessons passed, the more the E group became a real community. Whenever a student had a problem the others  tried to help at once. Those students who found it very difficult to get used to the avoidance of the MT were constantly consoled by some classmates. At the 14^th lesson one student said that he was unable to understand the text without some help in the MT. His classmates helped him and translated for him  some sentences. They also tried to encourage him not to give up. Later, it became quite frequent that the better students translated what I said to the weaker students to help them not to lose the thread at the lesson.

However, the more grammar structures they learnt, the clearer it became that some students were totally confused. The lesson concerned with the simple present (40^th lesson) brought to the surface all their problems and they asked rather ironically why I found pleasure in not using Hungarian. Suddenly, all of them started to ask questions connected to the simple present. Even the explanations I put on the board could not persuade one or two students that they could understand the structure if they had not been so stubborn.

Besides, there were two students in the group who were resistant to accept the “only English” method and kept saying that they were unable to get used to this situation. It was very difficult for me to establish a good relationship with them. One of them even tried to boycott the lessons with absolutely irrelevant questions in Hungarian. I tried to encourage these students outside the classroom and it seemed to be quite successful in the long run. Although one of them left the school and the final result could never be seen, the other girl gave up her resistance and gradually believed that she would be able to learn English. Besides, the rest of the group tried to console these students and tried to persuade them that they would get used to this strange and first rather awkward situation. By January these problems disappeared and all the E students were willing to cooperate with me. From this time, the lessons of the  E group became even more dynamic.

Besides the resistance of a few students, I also had to face some students’ failure at tests. Sometimes I had the feeling that the use of the MT would have prevented the occurrence of these problems. I urged the students to come to me after the lesson if they had any question; still, they hardly came to me with problems connected to their English studies. It might have been due to the fact that they thought that I would speak in English even then, which would not help to solve their problems. On top of that, one of the students who was quite bad at  written tests seemed to enjoy the lessons very much, which made me feel that I was partly responsible for his constant weak achievement in tests.

As far as discipline problems are concerned, they could not spoil the atmosphere in the classroom. Although the students were quite noisy in the “guessing games” concerned with the new words, I managed to discipline them even in English with very simple sentences like “Stop talking”.

However, besides these problems with two students out of the twelve, the group atmosphere became more and more vibrant, which might also have helped those students who had problems with English.

As for the E+H group, their behaviour had different characteristics. What I found positive in this group was that they had a good relationship with me. None of them questioned the benefits of the use of the MT and they were willing to perform the exercises. There were no weak students, or at least all of them were able to follow the lessons.

Despite these advantages, the group atmosphere was not so good in this group. The students did not help one another so frequently as in the E group. Even in pair work activities they wanted to work individually and only reported back the results. At the 14^th lesson I perceived that they did not work in pairs when they had to collect words; rather, they worked individually and reported back their own words. They did not face a challenge which they would have had to cope with together. They simply sat at the lessons, followed the teacher’s instructions and did what was expected. Still, genuine English communication hardly occurred, which was exemplified by the information gap activity at the 40^th lesson. They could not really enjoy the task and tried to solve their problem very quickly. However, as more time passed on and I managed to explain to them why the oral tasks were important and they changed their behaviour gradually and became more willing to do these exercises as it was expected of them.

Besides, they did not pay much attention to one another. Both at the 14^th and 40^th lessons it was typical that whenever one student had a question, some students lost attention. Consequently, there were more discipline problems in this group. They deviated from the topic easily and could influence each other very much. However, Hungarian did not always help to solve these problems quickly and effectively. They usually had some comments, which resulted in additional responses and wasted the precious time that could have been spent on using English.

4.1.2.3 The end

As I spent more and more lessons with the two groups, I perceived that the E group’s positive characteristics became even more dominant while some of the negative ones disappeared. At the same time, there was a change in the E+H group as well. Although the basic advantages and disadvantages remained the same mentioned in section 4.1.2.2, the disadvantages were experienced less and less frequently. Consequently, these positive and negative effects will not be presented here once more.

As for the E group, the girl who refused to cooperate with me seemed to change her attitude. After she got her first five in English, her behaviour changed a lot and she started to work conscientiously. Besides, the boy who was quite weak in written exercises found those areas where he was even better than most of his classmates. While he turned out to be very good at guessing words, the girl who had been resistant to participate in the lessons actively became very good at understanding instructions and could help the others when a less familiar exercise was to follow.

At the same time, the group still worked very dynamically and the students helped one another a lot. At the 54^th lesson some students were able to help one student even with grammar explanations in Hungarian. However, the more knowledge of English they had, the more I tried to suppress their use of Hungarian. Although it took more time to ask in English, they were able to form their questions in the TL if I asked them.

It became more and more natural for the group that I did not use Hungarian. While earlier they complained about the lack of Hungarian explanations occasionally, this did not happen at the end of January at all. They seemed to accept me as an English teacher who did not make use of the MT.

The last lesson in the term had a similar group atmosphere to what was described earlier. The students worked very busily to find the meaning of words and helped each other with the help of Hungarian. Besides, even the weaker students were very successful in pair work.

As it was mentioned in section 4.1.1.3, from January I started to decrease the use of the MT at the lessons of the E+H group. Two students first panicked but the others did not really worry about it. Since they were used to my help in Hungarian, they expected me to help them and they did not turn to their classmates. The two panicking students often resorted to the use of the MT and they needed some Hungarian explanations. However, they gradually got used to the very restricted use of the MT.

The E+H students started to work more as a group after I started to give instructions in English. They laughed less at each other  and concentrated much more intensively on the lessons. The discipline problems also became less frequent after reducing the use of the MT. They paid more attention to the lessons, which created a better group atmosphere.

At the 56^th lesson I hardly used the MT. The students enjoyed the miming game and most of them participated in guessing the meaning of the new words. However, it was rather annoying that two students were unwilling to write down the meaning of any word unless I said their meaning in Hungarian. They did not accept their classmates right guesses and needed my support. The same kind of dependence was still experienced when the students had to read a text in their book. The danger of being lost in the details was still relevant at the end of the first term. At the same time, they became more confident in interpreting the instructions. They hardly ever needed help in Hungarian and got used to the use of English in these situations.

4.1.2.4 Interpretation

As far as the group atmosphere of the two groups is concerned, interesting changes could be observed during the first term.

The E+H group did not face a great challenge at the beginning of the year and started the work without real cooperation. They did not feel the need for other students’ help since I was there with the Hungarian explanations if necessary. While they made a good progress, the group atmosphere was not very vibrant and they did not really enjoy the communicative exercises. In the E+H group no sign of panic could be perceived. The use of the MT restricted the English input they were given and they were quite resistant to use it. The behaviour of the E+H group did not support the advantages of the use of the MT for facilitating teacher-student rapport mentioned by Harbord (1992) at the beginning of the year. However, later the use of the MT became very important to make the students’ familiar with unknown tasks. This situation was similar to what Burden (2000) might have experienced among the Japanese university students who were not used to communicative tasks at the English lessons. The presentations of these types of tasks and some explanations about why they were useful helped the students to get used to the unknown methods. Nevertheless, my help in the MT made the students pay less attention to their classmates’ problems. Consequently, it was more difficult to create group cohesion in the E+H group.

On the other hand, some students easily started to panic in the E group, but it did not lead to bad teacher-student or student-student rapport as it was suggested by Atkinson (1987). The group cohesion became much better in the E group. The students of the E group probably needed much more help than the E+H students. The E students could experience that peer help was sometimes more useful than the teacher’s help since they were able to communicate with each other even in Hungarian. The “interpreter” of the group emerged just for this reason; i.e. she wanted to help her classmates. Besides, the lessons had such a good atmosphere with the constant “guessing game” that even the weaker students enjoyed it. Their difficulties in understanding my explanations seemed to be compensated by their successful guessing. Consequently, the avoidance of the MT provided a wider range of areas in which the students had the chance to find their own strength.

The level of group cohesion seemed to be closely connected to the use or the avoidance of the MT. After the use of the MT had been restricted in the E+H group, the students cooperated more frequently with one another and paid more attention to the teacher.

4.2 Classroom observation

Two types of classroom observation were made. The aim of the outside observer’s visit to my lessons in both groups helped to test the reliability of my journal; i.e. whether an outside observer perceived the same as me or not, while the second type of observation was conducted to collect additional information about the two groups and to see to what extent their behaviour and progress were typical at the English lessons.

Katalin Brandt’s observations were studied on the basis of the two lessons she visited. Here, a general view will be given about the E+H group as well as about the E group on the basis of what the advantages and disadvantages of the use or avoidance of the MT were and what the group atmosphere was like in the two groups from. Afterwards, the results will be compared with my self-observation to test reliability. The outside observer’s  observation and the teacher’s diary about the 34^th lesson in the E group and 35^th lesson in the E+H group can be found in Appendix 2.

4.2.1 Classroom observation I. –the E+H group’s lessons from the outside observer’s point of view

It was the 33^rd and 35^th lessons that the outside observer visited in the E+H group. The 33^rd lesson focused on Unit 9 in Blueprint. The students practised expressing their likes and dislikes and got familiar with an informal letter concerned with general introduction. At the 35^th lesson the students dealt with Unit 10 about cities and towns around the world. The aim of the lesson was to learn how to express the location of places and to get familiar with places which can be found in a city or a town.

4.2.1.1 The use of the mother tongue

The observer listed the following uses of the MT at the two lessons: (the “+” or the “–“ sign indicates whether the observer found it useful or not to use the MT for this function)

· giving instructions (+)

· clarifying instructions (+)

· providing grammatical analysis about difficult structures (-)

· discipline problems (+)

· giving the Hungarian equivalents of English words (-)

The above mentioned uses of the MT were consciously built into the two lessons and they all appeared in my teacher’s journal as well. The observer realised that giving instructions in Hungarian proved to be essential in several cases because the instructions given in the book were not understandable for the students and the teacher’s English explanations did not help either. She had the impression that some of the students could clearly understand the English instructions and they could have helped the weaker students. At the same time, the grammar analysis was not considered to be very useful. As it was mentioned in connection with the group atmosphere, these Hungarian questions and the answers provided an opportunity for the rest of the class to deviate from the topic. As a result, discipline problems occurred, which also needed the use of the MT. In these cases the MT seemed to be beneficial because the students could easily understand what the teacher’s problem was. As for the use of the MT to teach word, the outside observer perceived that it would have been possible to avoid its use in several cases. When the teacher attempted to explain words and avoid the MT, the students were quick and enjoyed guessing the meaning of the words. She had the impression that providing quickly the Hungarian equivalent of the words was not so useful because the students needed reinforcement several times and the Hungarian equivalents had to be repeated several times, which was boring for some of the students. However, when the students had to understand a longer, text, the use of  the MT seemed to be useful because they could understand much more easily the meaning of complex sentences. Besides, the observer mentioned that most of the students’ pronunciation was quite poor, which may partly be due to the fact that they had less opportunity to hear spoken English and to practise it.

            As far as my self-observation is concerned, I found the use of the MT important when there were difficult structures in the text that the students had to read and they had some questions. However, I thought that the use of the MT to give instructions was useless. I had the impression that the students simply got used to hearing Hungarian instructions and found it more convenient than concentrating intensively. I also experienced that the students automatically resorted to Hungarian when they had some problems. Besides, it was observed that the grammar I explained to them at the previous lessons still caused problems, which discouraged me from providing Hungarian grammar explanations. At the same time, I shared the experience with the observer that the occasional avoidance of the MT in explaining the meaning of words did not cause problems for most of the students.

4.2.1.2 The group atmosphere

On the basis of the two lessons, the outside observer had the impression that the students’ relationship with each other was rather changeable. When they had to work in pairs, they cooperated with each other but did not always help when only one or two students did not understand an exercise. They were also rather impatient when some students had some “additional” questions connected to the exercise they were just doing. The observer realised that there was one boy in the group who liked analysing sentences from the text. Whenever he raised a question, some students lost attention, which caused a problem for the teacher. It was observed that when they worked in pairs, they seemed to concentrate on their task but when it came to checking, or giving the instructions, some of the students lost attention. The fact that instructions had to be repeated disturbed the dynamism of the lesson.

As for the teacher-student relationship, the observer thought that the teacher was helpful and tried to help students to understand the tasks as clearly as possible even with the help of the MT. The outside observer also observed that when the teacher tried to avoid the use of the MT, some students started to panic; i.e. they asked the teacher to say it in Hungarian because they did not understand anything. In these cases the teacher helped the students and the feeling of panic disappeared

            Besides, the students seemed to enjoy most of the communicative tasks like talking about their likes and dislikes. However, the more mechanical, drill-like activities did not really motivate them.

            In comparison with my observation, the outsider’s view about the class was quite similar to what I wrote into my teacher’s journal. I had the feeling that the group atmosphere should have been improved in the group. Together with the observer, I had the impression that the students were not cooperative enough even when they were just accomplishing the tasks. I also had the impression that the time spent on providing explanation for one or two students’ questions was a waste of time for the rest of the group.

4.2.1.3 Interpretation

The outside observer’s observation and my teacher’s journal proved to be quite similar to each other. Both the observer and I experienced that the use of the MT did not clearly contribute to making the lessons more effective. Some explanations were useless, and the students did not pay attention to one another when they had some special questions connected to the content of the lesson. Both the observer and I had the impression that the lessons were not dynamic enough, which seemed to be partly due to the fact that the use of the MT unintentionally slowed down the lesson. At the same time, the observer suggested that I should use less Hungarian so that the students would not have the chance to chat when somebody had a question.

In general, the classroom observation in the E+H group supported the reliability of my teacher journal since the outside observations strengthened my own view about the group atmosphere and the use of the MT.

4.2.2 Classroom observation I.- the E group from the outsider’s point of view

The observer visited the 33^rd and 34^th lessons in the E group. The 33^rd lesson focused on the presentation and practise of the simple present within the context of talking about people’s lifestyles. At the next lesson the question and negative form of the simple present were introduced and it was practised through expressing likes and dislikes. The aim of the two lessons were to make students familiar with the simple present and to use it in speaking about their lifestyles, likes and dislikes.

The outside observer’s observations were studied on the basis of what the advantages and disadvantages of the avoidance of the MT were, and what the group atmosphere was like.

4.2.2.1 The avoidance of the mother tongue- advantages and disadvantages

The observer tried to differentiate between the advantages and disadvantages of the avoidance of the MT. In the following two columns the advantages and disadvantages perceived by the observer can be seen:

Advantages                                                               Disadvantages

· understanding instructions easily                            · too difficult word test- an additional source of stress

· dynamic lesson                                                       · some words remained unclear

· no useless “deep” structural analysis                      · occasionally too much noise

· colourful presentation of words

The outsider experienced that the lesson was much more dynamic with the E group. She also observed that the students could understand the English instructions. The grammatical explanations were simple and clear which helped the students not to be lost in details. There was no need for Hungarian even for correction because the students also helped each other to correct their mistakes. She did not experience that the English explanations prevented the students from understanding the simple present. Although they had several questions but these really helped to make their concepts about the new structures much clearer. Besides, the avoidance of the MT contributed to the more frequent use of pictures in explaining words which was considered lively and colourful.

At the same time, her observations suggested that there were some disadvantages of the avoidance of the MT. She claimed that some words were understood only vaguely, which probably made the students confused. On the other hand, the constant guessing game at the lesson sometimes created very much noise. However, it was not the result of the lack of attention but the very intensive concentration which created noise in the classroom. Still, it made the clarification of the grammar structures and words more difficult. 

4.2.2.2 The group atmosphere

On the basis of the two lessons, the observer claimed that the students helped each other a lot. When the new structure was introduced, the students tried to find the rule and solve the problem together. The students had a lot of questions closely connected to the content of the lesson and they got the answers in most of the cases. However, it was typical in the E group like in the E+H group that whenever a specific question arose, only those students paid attention to the teacher’s explanation who asked the question. The observer had the impression that some students were bored during these explanations. At the same time, the students cooperated with each other in any type of exercise. She observed that everyone tried to contribute to finding the meaning of the English words and they really enjoyed the lesson.

As for the student-teacher relationship, the observer experienced that I was able to communicate in English with the group quite successfully. The students did not seem to feel frustrated because of the avoidance of the MT; the “only English” method did not create a wall between the students and the teacher. The students were willing to cooperate and did not give up finding answers to their questions.

The students’ attitude towards the different types of tasks seemed to be very positive. Unlike the E+H group, they enjoyed even drills. However, the complex exercises caused more problems in this group than in the E group. According to the observer, some of the students frequently needed extra clarification of the tasks. It was true for the word test at the beginning of the 34^th lesson. The outsider observed that some students were in panic and could not understand what they should have written down about the family tree. Still, the teacher’s individual help in English seemed to calm the students down and they managed to do the test.

Compared with my teacher’s journal, I had a similar opinion about the two lessons. I thought that I could establish a good relationship with the students at these two lessons; besides, the students were found to be very cooperative. However, I did not realise that some of the students were bored while I tried to provide additional explanation for grammatical problems. Another difference was that I did not find the noisiness of the group during the guessing of words because I focused on their active participation at the lesson. Besides, I also experienced that one weaker student was extremely active at both lessons and contributed a lot to finding the meaning of words. Consequently, she seemed to be more confident at these lessons. At the same time, I also felt that the word test was confusing for the students. I even found it unfair because some students were so worried that they could not do their best.

4.2.2.3 Interpretation

The outside observation and the teacher’s diary provided quite a similar picture about the E group. As for the avoidance of the MT, it did not cause serious problems in the class. The vibrant atmosphere in the group was experienced by the outside observer but she also realised that it sometimes resulted in too much noise, which might have caused problems for those students who were weaker in understanding my English explanations. On the contrary, I did not realise the negative effects of the active participation of the group in the lesson. It might have been due to the fact that as the part of the group I mostly focused on the students’ active participation in the lesson and to help them find the meaning of the words.

Consequently, from the outside the negative effects of the avoidance of the MT could be seen more clearly than from the inside as a part of a very energetic group. At the same time, the experienced advantages of the avoidance of the MT were very similar in the two types of observations, which supported the reliability of my observations.

4.2.3 Classroom observation II.-the E+H group’s German lesson

The aim of the observations made at the two groups’ German lessons was to collect some additional information about the  groups and see what differences there were between their behaviour at the English and German lessons. The lesson of the E+H group I visited focused on the development of the students’ productive skills. The aim of the lesson was to practice the narration of past events. The students’ task was to create a story in pairs with the help of pictures shown with the help of a projector. After having reported back the stories, they also read the original story and answered some comprehension questions. In the following sections, I am going to examine the lesson from the three aspects mentioned in 3.3.2.3, i.e. concentrating on what the group atmosphere was like, how the students worked at the lesson and if it differed from their work at the English lessons both in quality and quantity, and also if  they made use of the MT in the lesson.

Before I visited the lesson, I had spoken with the German teacher, who was in her early thirties, several times; as a result, I knew that the teacher made use of the MT at the lessons. Since she started to teach the class at the beginning of this academic year like me and used the MT like me, I expected to find some similarities between the two language classes.

4.2.3.1 The group atmosphere

On the basis of my teacher’s diary it was clear that the E+H group did not establish as close a relationship with each other and with the teacher as the E-group. It was very important to see whether their behaviour was significantly different at the German lessons or not.

As far as their relationship with the German teacher is concerned, they were quite open and had a good two-way communication with the teacher. While they were trying to put together the story, they often asked for help from the teacher, who gave them some ideas to continue the story. However, the teacher sometimes seemed to be rather disappointed because the students did not really appreciate the imaginative and thought-provoking exercise which required a long preparation from her. She expected them to make use of the opportunity to create their own story; however, they did not have a lot of ideas. This was the reason why they stopped talking several times and this led to awkward silence in the classroom. Still, the teacher was very patient and had several thought-provoking questions to help them keep talking. There was one pair who were prone to use Hungarian and were not concentrating on the exercise. Although the teacher tried to encourage them to use German, they did not really change their attitude, which seemed to disappoint her. On the other hand, she was very successful with the other part of the group since she managed to provoke them into discussion for the last fifteen minutes of the lesson. After a very problematic beginning with the unenthusiastic students, she was able to change most of the students’ attitude.

The students’ relationship with each other was quite similar to what I had experienced at my lessons. The eight students worked in pairs at the lesson. When they were given the instructions, one pair did not clearly understand what they had to do with the words written around the pictures. They did not even try to ask for help from the students sitting next to them but turned to the teacher. As the students were working in pairs, I observed that they were not very cooperative. It happened several times that the two students in a pair did not really speak to each other. It seemed as if they had decided in advance who spoke when but they did not listen carefully to each other’s words. This was supported by the fact that when it turned to reporting back to the group, two out of the four pairs could not retell their complete story because they could not remember the parts the other person had spoken about.

When it turned to reading the original story, the students seemed to work more effectively on their own. While reading the text, there was only one student who asked a question from the student sitting next to him. They were quite confident when they checked the exercise and they did not hesitate with their answers.

In general, the atmosphere of the lesson was very changeable; the lesson started with great enthusiasm on the teacher’s side, which later faded away because of the students’ negative attitude towards a creative task. However; gradually,most students managed to understand and accept the teacher’s request and started to work more effectively and communicatively.

4.2.3.2 The students’ work at the lesson

            Considering the students’ work at the lesson, they started to put together their story quite slowly except for one pair. Their first reaction was silence. Afterwards, one of them turned to the teacher to ask her to explain once more how they should put together the story. One pair managed to start working after the teacher went up to them. These girls also had problems at my lessons and they always asked for help in Hungarian. They behaved in the same way at this lesson. That member of the group who liked analysing English from the very beginning of the year, worked quite conscientiously all through the exercise. When he wanted to say a complex sentence, he usually asked the teacher to check his sentence. As the lesson went on, he asked for this checking less and less frequently  and worked more and more independently of the teacher. As far as the two boys who were the best at English are concerned, their performance was quite good at the German lesson as well. Their story was quite long and they did not ask for help from the teacher although they had not appreciated the idea of creating their own story. It was true for most of the students that they could not manage to make a lively discussion with their partner all at once. The two students who were not very good at the task, did not seem to be disappointed at the end of the lesson because they were much better at the reading task.

In general,  story-telling seemed to be far from being the favourite type of activity in this group. The freedom given to them in solving the exercise was too much and they needed some guidance in Hungarian. When they worked on the original text, they had to answer certain question and worked alone, which seemed to be much more enjoyable for them. The teacher was also more satisfied with them after finishing the reading comprehension exercise.

4.2.3.3 The use of the mother tongue

            As for the use of the MT, it was an integrated part of the lesson. Both the teacher and the students used it several times. It was used  by the teacher for the following reasons:

· to repeat instructions

· to encourage students

· to explain why the exercise was done

· to provide explanation about German sentence structures

It can be seen that both effective and affective uses of the MT were present at the lesson. While the instructions were originally given in German, two students were so confused that the teacher was forced to resort to the use of Hungarian. In the next two cases its use was due to the huge gap between the teacher’s and the students’ enthusiasm. When she saw that the students did not really find pleasure in the exercise and only uttered very short sentences, she asked them what was wrong with the exercise. The students answered in Hungarian and said that they did not like the figures in the picture and found it difficult to connect the pictures to one another. The fourth type of the use of the MT was connected to one boy’s questions about sentence structures. In this case, the teacher tried to be very short and did not spend more than a minute on answering the students’ questions.

Besides, the students used Hungarian to ask questions from the teacher about how to do the task and what certain words meant. The MT was also used when the students tried to explain why they did not manage to cope with the task so easily.

4.2.3.4 Interpretation

The observation of the E+H group’s German lesson confirmed the reliability of my teacher’s diary since both the German teacher and I used the MT at the lessons and the results of the two observations showed similarities.

The E+H group did not really rely on one another at the lesson and mostly trusted only the teacher. Besides, they constantly used Hungarian when they had questions to the teacher. Their behaviour might have stemmed from the fact that the constant use of Hungarian became - with Prodromou’s metaphor - a drug in the class; i.e. they overused it and it prevented the lesson from turning into a lively, talkative German lesson.

At the same time, the teacher had to fight along two lines: not to lose enthusiasm and make her students interested in the task as well as to avoid overusing Hungarian. The students seemed to have been used to getting help in Hungarian whenever they had any problems. However, this did not made the students think and cooperate with one another. However, the use of the MT by the teacher to encourage students and obtain some information about their resistance to be creative seemed to be quite useful.

The observation seemed to support my experience; i. e. that students found communication in the TL more difficult if they were allowed to use the MT in the classroom, and the teacher also used it for giving help or explanations. On the other hand, the students did not work as a real group, which was similar to the situation at my lessons.

It can be concluded that in all three aspects the English and the German lessons were quite similar to each other. Since the characteristics of the two classes were almost the same (use of the MT at the lessons, same class size, new teachers from this year), the similar results seem to strengthen the reliability of my teacher’s diary.

4.2.4 Classroom observation II.- the E group’s German lesson

The aim of the observation of the E group’s German lesson was the same as at the German lesson of the E+H group.

The E group’s German teacher was a lady in her early forties. The lesson I visited focused on preparing the students for a test. After checking the homework, they wrote mini dialogues, acted them out, spoke frontally with the teacher, solved some grammar exercises, and finally, played a game.

I knew in advance what was going to happen at the lesson; consequently, it was easier to concentrate on the three aspects I chose to observe.

4.2.4.1 Group atmosphere

My first impression was that I was in the wrong class: the students sat in lines and did not speak to each other. During the checking of the homework there was absolutely no communication among the students. They seemed to be involved in checking their homework but only some students were doing this; the others found more interesting activities to do under the desk.

It was very typical throughout the lesson that the students did not have to and were not encouraged to communicate with each other in the TL. They wrote the dialogues alone and did not ask for help from each other. It was only during the role-play that they spoke with each other in German. Even when they were asked questions by the teacher, they always tried to cope with the task alone. During the checking of the exercises they did not pay attention to one another. Even when there was a game at the lesson, they were asked to work alone and made some comments on the exercise.

As far as the teacher-student relationship is concerned, there was quite a large distance between the students and the teacher. While the other German teacher was about ten years younger and was very close to the students, this teacher kept a distance between the students and herself. The students were very disciplined and polite, which might partly be due to the fact that she was a middle-aged teacher. Despite this distance, she encouraged the students and was open to answer their questions. There were only two cases when she had to warn two boys to remain silent. She did not get involved in the students’ exercises: she was standing behind her desk during most part of the lesson.

It can be concluded that the classroom atmosphere was not very warm as the students were asked to work alone almost all through the lesson and they had no genuine communication with each other.

4.2.4.2 The students’ work at the lesson

The achievement of the students was surprising. One of the boys who was extremely active at my lessons  was completely passive at this lesson. He just copied the exercises and sometimes said one word or a sentence. The same kind of passivity was typical of one of the best students in the E group who usually helped other students by explaining what to do.

At the same time, there was one enthusiastic boy hose behaviour resembled the way he behaved at my lessons. However, he could not help so much his neighbour with whom they cooperated a lot at my lesson. Besides, there were some students who were much better in the kind of exercises they practised at the German lesson than in the more speaking-oriented tasks of my lesson. To my great surprise, a girl who had had a negative attitude towards English for more than two months, behaved completely differently at the German lessons. While at my lessons she still had fears and she was quite hesitant to say anything, at the German lessons she always raised her hand and gave the right solutions.

The roles at the German class and English classes seemed to be exchanged among the members of the group: active people at the English class became passive at the German class,  and the passive students turned out to be more active.

4.2.4.3. The use of the mother tongue

At the German lesson of the E group, the MT was used for the following reasons:

· to provide  grammar explanations

· to repeat some instructions first said in German

· to handle discipline problems

At the beginning of the lesson the MT was not used. The teacher used German instructions, which was followed by the checking of the homework. Although they were at pre-intermediate level in German, they had some difficulties in understanding the instructions and asked the teacher in Hungarian. First she answered in German and repeated the task but the more frequently comprehension problems occurred, the more she was prone to use the MT.

During the frontal speaking activity, most of the students paid attention to each other but always had comments in Hungarian and not in German which prevented the task from being done dynamically. At the same time, some students who were not asked to act out the role play lost their attention.

When it turned to grammar practice, the use of the MT became frequent. They repeated some useful rules connected to the declination of German pronouns in the MT. However, it became clear when the students solved the exercises that hardly any of them really paid attention to the MT explanations. There was even discipline problem with one boy who was unable to pay attention to these explanations. The ineffectiveness of these Hungarian grammar revisions was proved by the fact that while doing the exercise, more students asked the teacher about the declination which had already been put on the board. Finally, they managed to solve the exercises.

After finishing these exercises they played a game. Although the teacher attempted to explain the game in German, she realised that she would run out of time; as a result, she switched to Hungarian and explained it quickly. When the lesson ended, she gave the homework in Hungarian.

4.2.4.4 Interpretation

While at my lesson the E students were very active, cooperative and communicative, at this lesson they did not really need these skills. They mostly worked alone or spoke with the teacher, which might have been partly due to the use of the MT at the lesson. However, it might have been also connected to the fact that the teacher was about twenty years older than me, which might have influenced the methods she applied at the lessons.

Besides, the students’ achievement was also different. Those students who were good at writing could perform well at this lesson but creative ideas or real thinking did not play an important role. The discipline problems with one of the boys might have been connected to the fact that he could not find any opportunity at this lesson when he could have proved his strength. While at my lessons he was very good at guessing the meaning of words and understanding instructions in the TL, there was no need for these skills at this lesson.

The use of the MT was also very important  at the lesson. The students could sit back and relax whenever they had a problem - mostly concerned with grammar - and they simply asked for clarification in Hungarian. I would not have found it reasonable to use Hungarian to clarify the instructions because there were several students in the group who could have helped those ones who were confused. The use of the MT for grammar explanations did not really work since it was only the students who were just asking the question who really focused on the task. However, the use of the MT to explain the rules of the game was useful since they could not have finished the funny task without it.

4.2.5 Comparing the results of the two observation

In general, this observation strengthened my view that the avoidance of the MT influences the group atmosphere and also the students’ behaviour. The fact that both German teachers made use of the MT at the lessons resulted in the fact that the behaviour of the  two groups’ became very similar to one another.

The E group were less cooperative at the German lessons where they used the MT. They had to face fewer challenges at the lesson and they did not need other students’ help to do the tasks. At my lessons the same students helped one another much more frequently and formed a real group; however, at the German lesson individual performance was appreciated. One boy in the group who was very active at my lessons despite his weakness in writing, had no chance to reveal his strength at this lesson. Besides, the group worked less dynamically than at my lessons.

As for the E+H group, they behaved almost in the same way as at my lessons. They were not very eager to cooperate with each other, which was an obstacle to create real communication at the lesson. It seemed that the students were used to relying on the teacher all the time. Like in the E group, the pace of the lesson was always slowed by the use of the MT, which made the lesson less dynamic. At this lesson I experienced that if the students got used to resorting to the MT whenever they wanted to, the teacher’s attempts to reduce its use and give exercises where the students should use the target language solely could easily end in failure. Consequently, the avoidance of the MT seemed to create better group from a group dynamics point of view.

4.3 Teacher interviews

The aim of the teacher interviews was to see how non-native teachers of English made use of the MT in Hungary. Besides, the interviews also provided data to compare Hungarian teachers’ attitude with the views presented in the literature. The findings will not be represented in tables because the number of teachers belonging to each group did not justify the use of percentages. The answers were put into categories which will be placed in separate lines. At the end of each line the numbers in brackets indicate the number of choices.

4.3.1 E+H teachers

Among the 14 teachers E+H and E teachers were represented in the same number by coincidence. Out of the seven E+H teachers, i.e. teachers who used Hungarian regularly at the English lessons, three teachers were from the capital and  four from the countryside. There was only one case when determining which category the teacher belonged to caused some difficulties. Although this teacher’s general attitude was to avoid the use of the L1, she admitted that she found it unavoidable to use it at the lessons at secondary school. In all the other cases the teachers were clearly on the side of using the MT in the classroom. Instead of names I will use letters for the teachers. The most important characteristics of the teachers can be seen in the following table:

Table 8: E+H teachers’ profile

(“s” stands for secondary, “p” stands for primary school teachers.)

4.3.1.1 Reasons for using the mother tongue

As far as the general attitude towards the use of the MT is concerned, it was four out of the seven E+H teachers who had decided to make use of the MT from the very beginning of their teaching career. Two teachers modified their “only English” view because the ability of their groups hindered them from putting their original ideas into practice. Although they attempted to use only English at the lessons, the students could not follow the teacher  and did not make any progress; consequently, after a very short time (three or four lessons) they gave up their view and started to use Hungarian to make their students more successful at the lessons. Teacher C changed her mind as soon as she started  to teach in secondary school after teaching at language schools. Basically, she changed her view because the time-limit of 45-minute-lessons was unusual for her. While at language school classes she usually had 90 minutes, the shorter lessons at secondary school made her scared and she  thought that efficiency within this time boundary could only be achieved with some resort to the MT.

The general reasons for using the MT were the following: (the numbers in brackets indicate the number of choices)

· to use time more efficiently (4)

· to make students more confident (3)

· to help students who have a certain learning style (1)

· to conform to being  non-native and not perfect  teachers of English (1)

· to create good classroom atmosphere (1)

· to save energy (1)

More than half of the E+H teachers mentioned saving time as a general reason for the use of the MT. At the same time, students’ confidence served as another reason for its use. Three teachers mentioned that some of the students needed the support of the MT to be brave enough to speak in English or do a task. Teacher G and Teacher D also said that some of their students did not have very good language skills; consequently, the use of L1 could make it easier for the students to follow the lessons. However, it was only the teacher who used to teach in a language school (Teacher C), who mentioned the students’ different learning style as a reason for using the MT. She claimed that some students needed the MT to learn efficiently; consequently, avoiding the MT could lead to the failure of these students. These students needed Hungarian equivalents of words and also exhaustive grammar explanations because they tended to analyse the language. Quite similarly, it was only Teacher A who mentioned the fact that her students learned in a non-native environment. This teacher from Budapest with more than 30 years of experience in teaching claimed that Hungarian secondary school students spent maximum two hours a day on learning English. Consequently, teachers should not expect students to think in the TL. One teacher from Dunakeszi highlighted the same special circumstance from the teacher’s point of view, i.e. that non-native English teachers sometimes lack the words or the clear explanations to make their lessons’ content easily comprehensible. Besides, Teacher G from Vác also claimed that the key to good classroom atmosphere seemed to be the use of Hungarian at his lessons. Since in his school most students first have a negative attitude towards languages due to the compulsory learning of Latin,  changing their attitude is essential to have successful lessons. It was quite surprising that Teacher B mentioned saving energy as a reason for using the MT. She said that being overloaded can easily modify the methods used in the classroom and lead to switching to methods which demand less preparation from the teacher.

In general, the reasons for using the MT with elementary students of English did not significantly differ from the teachers’ general reasons. These reasons were the following:

· to make their knowledge accurate (7)

· to make students confident (3)

· to make use of students’ intelligence and general knowledge (1)

Teacher A with more than 30 years of teaching practise said that she had been using  the MT for the same reasons at all levels because all the students learned in a non-native environment. In addition, she also claimed that the students’ intelligence was so much higher than their level of English at elementary level that teachers would lose something very valuable if they did not make use of their intelligence. Students are not small children acquiring a language but have a conception about the world, know one language; consequently they might feel rather uncomfortable when they encounter a foreign language and all their thoughts in the L1 are suppressed by being exposed to the target language all the time. At the same time, all the other teachers mentioned accuracy as the reason for using the MT at elementary level. Teacher F compared the use of the MT to building a castle on a rock: if students are given some help in the MT, their knowledge will be much firmer and they will be more confident in the use of the TL. The primary school teacher from Budapest also argued that pupils at the age of ten would find it extremely difficult to understand the TL explanations at this level; consequently, if the MT is avoided, it can make them completely confused. 

4.3.1.2 Ways of using the mother tongue

In the following section the functions of the MT, factors determining its use and techniques applied to avoid its overuse will be discussed. The E+H teachers were asked what they used Hungarian for at the lessons. They mentioned the following functions:

· to explain grammar (6)

· to give Hungarian equivalents of English words (5)

· to summarise and clarify what the students have been taught (2)

· to compare Hungarian and English (1)

· to discuss problems concerning the homework (1)

· to give instructions (2)

· to do administration (2)

· to solve discipline problems (2)

· to keep students’ attention (2)

It was only Teacher C who did not use Hungarian for explaining grammar. She said that grammar should be applicable in the TL; consequently, if students knew it in L1, it did not contribute to using English more efficiently. In general, she used English for explaining word and only very rarely to highlight the main point in some grammar if all the class seem to be confused. Still, the majority of E+H teachers used English for grammar explanations. Other uses of Hungarian helping to learn the structure of the TL were to compare the two languages and to summarise and clarify what was taught. However, it was only a minority of E+H teachers who used Hungarian for these purposes. Still, it might be possible that the use of Hungarian for grammar explanations included the comparative methods and clarification.

To help the students learn words seemed to be the other main use of Hungarian. While most teachers simply thought of giving the Hungarian equivalent of words. Teacher A also emphasised that Hungarian helped her to teach the register of the words. She claimed that without the use of Hungarian, the meaning of several words would not be clear for the students and they could easily use them in the wrong context.

Giving instructions in Hungarian was not a widely claimed use of the MT. Even the two teachers using L1 with this purpose said that they only resorted to Hungarian when students did not understand their instructions in English  and they did not find it worth spending time on instructions when more useful exercises could be performed.

Besides, some uses of the MT referred to situations when the use of the L1 was not directly connected to the content of the lesson. The use of Hungarian for administration was supported by claiming that these issues were so far from the content of the English lesson that discussing them in English would be too artificial. Quite similar reasons were provided for the use of L1 if discipline problems occurred. Two teachers said that they could discipline effectively only in Hungarian and the use of English in these situations would only worsen the situation. Teacher G from Vác claimed that he had a certain style and used certain words among the students to have a good relationship with the students, which could not be imitated in English. Consequently, if the source of some problems was not connected to the lesson, he tried to solve them in Hungarian.

Keeping the students’ attention seemed to be a very peculiar use of Hungarian. The E+H teachers’ answers indicated that Hungarian could help to “wake” students up and help them find the way back to the “world” of the English lessons. Joking around the class in Hungarian was mentioned by two teachers as one of the most effective means to achieve this.

The  reasons E+H teachers mentioned for using L1 at the lessons  led to making two groups:

· effective reasons

· affective reasons

The first group contained teachers who thought that the main function of L1 was to make the students’ English more accurate. Five of the E +H teachers belonged to this group. The other two teachers’ main reason for using the L1 was that its avoidance would cause frustration and loss of confidence in their students. Both of these teachers used to think that the MT could be neglected in the classroom but the ability and the motivation of their students forced them to use the MT as well. Teacher G’s situation with the students rather negative attitude towards languages has already been mentioned, while Teacher D said that her groups’ ability did not allow her to use only English despite her original plan. She complained that some students had problems even with understanding some Hungarian words and the avoidance of Hungarian caused frustration and demotivation among students. As a result, she felt forced to change her methods and she built the use of the MT into her lessons. Nevertheless, she said that whenever she had a group with better abilities, she did all attempts to minimise the use of Hungarian.

After having seen the possible uses of the L1 in the class, we can obtain some information about what factors determine its use. The following factors affecting the use of the MT were mentioned:

· level of English (2)

· level of motivation (2)

· age (1)

· time (1)

· group size (1)

· learning style (1)

The level of English was mentioned as a determining factor in two cases. These teachers claimed that the higher level of English students had attained, the less Hungarian was used in the class. Two teachers mentioned the students’ motivation. If they have a group with high motivation, they resort to less Hungarian; however, less motivated groups refuse to invest a lot of energy into trying to understand English explanations and instructions. Consequently, as these teachers mentioned, the avoidance of the MT could easily lead to a disaster at the English lesson.

It was interesting that only Teacher E mentioned age as a determining factor. She said that very young learners needed more Hungarian because they easily got confused if less L1 was used. However, this does not mean that with older students the use of the MT would be neglected; its functions still remains the same.

At the same time, Teacher C claimed that it was the available time that really determined the use of the MT. Whenever she did not suffer from the lack of time, her use of the L1 decreased significantly. She also mentioned the importance of students’ learning styles; if her group were full of students who could learn more effectively when the  Hungarian equivalent of words were given to them and if they were not left in uncertainty, they needed more Hungarian at the lessons.

As far as group size is concerned, only Teacher G regarded it as an important factor. He claimed that 20-25 students could make it much more difficult to concentrate; as a result, without Hungarian more students would lose the thread. He also experienced that in his small groups (extra lessons in the third and fourth academic year) he tended to use less Hungarian.

The use of Hungarian can easily lead to its overuse like “giving lectures” about some grammar points. One would have assumed that all teachers try to avoid overusing the L1 and try to focus on finding the balance between the L1 and L2. However, some of the teachers seemed to be fairly tolerant towards overusing the L1. Teacher B from Budapest claimed that she sometimes resorted to Hungarian because of laziness and in these cases she could not control her use of the MT. At the same time, Teacher G even confessed that he did not consider it a problem if the lesson sometimes turned into speaking about English and about the culture behind the language in Hungarian. He found this useful because these discussions had helped several students to change their attitude towards English. The level of his students’ English would not have allowed to speak about his experiences in Great Britain or about some interesting historical facts in English. It was also surprising that Teacher A emphasised that the overuse of English as a metalanguage in explanations about grammar could do much more harm than the use of Hungarian.

However, besides these special responses the following techniques were mentioned by the other teachers for avoiding the overuse of Hungarian:

· self-monitoring (1)

· responding in English to students’ Hungarian questions (1)

· keeping explanations short and always following them up by practice (1)

The teachers using these techniques did not complain about overusing the MT. All of them said that they were successful in finding the balance between the L1 and L2.  Self-monitoring was defined as paying special attention to the use of Hungarian at certain lessons. After these lessons Teacher E tried to evaluate the benefits of its use compared to the time spent on it. She said that it served for her as a built-in control not to use too much Hungarian. The other two possibilities were said to be applied at each lesson. All these teachers said that it was a rather difficult task to keep the balance and thought that the overuse of L1 was at least as harmful as its complete avoidance.

If the balance is found between the two languages, the benefits of using the L1 in the class are mainly due to the fact that students have firm knowledge of the L1 which they can rely on and help them to understand and learn another language. It was not surprising that all the E+H teachers tried to make use of the L1 knowledge of students. They expected students to be familiar with Hungarian…

· parts of speech (2)

· sentence analysis (subject, predicate, object, etc. ) (2)

· differences between styles and registers (1)

In almost all cases it was the field of grammar where teachers would have liked to rely on the students’ knowledge of the MT. All the E+H teachers mentioned the students’ knowledge about syntax in Hungarian. Teacher C said that if the students were able to analyse sentences, she could save time because the explanations about grammar could be shortened through putting the signs of parts of speech or constituents like subject or object on the board. It could also help to reduce the use of Hungarian at the lesson. Nevertheless, these expectations sometimes seem to get far from reality. Teacher D and Teacher F complained that they could not rely on the students’ knowledge of their MT because of their superficial structural knowledge of the L1. Both of them claimed that without a firm structural knowledge it was rather difficult to make the students understand English grammar. On the other hand, one teacher said that the main use of the students’ knowledge about Hungarian could be used to compare the two languages and to draw their attention to the different structure of the two languages.

Besides the knowledge of grammar, two teachers also emphasised the importance of the students’ knowledge about styles and registers. Teacher A found this very important to help the students improve their skills in translation, while Teacher I considered it essential in making the students’ use of the L2 more appropriate.

As far as translation is concerned, all the E+H teachers made use of translation at the lessons. Translation of complete texts was not considered as a criterion for being E+H teacher since translation skill is needed at the final exam and it is important for EFL students. Consequently, this kind of translation is not studied here since it did not help to differentiate E teachers from E+H teachers. However, translation can have several other functions at the lessons. The following “special” uses of translation were mentioned  among E+H teachers:

· written translation of separate sentences to check comprehension (2)

· written translation of separate sentences to practise grammar (3)

· written translation of separate sentences in tests (1)

· oral translation of separate sentences to practise grammar (2)

The quite wide range of the uses of translation suggests that the reason for its use at the lessons is not only the requirements of the final and language exam All the teachers mentioned that translation helped to improve the students’ style and accuracy. Its use for checking comprehension was found to be important because the students sometimes understood the texts rather superficially and without translation the misunderstandings could not be revealed so easily. Translation from Hungarian to English to practise grammar was used to draw the students attention to the structural differences between Hungarian and English. Besides, it was considered as a “diagnosis” of students’ problem with grammar. The oral translation from Hungarian to English had the same reasons; i.e. to improve students’ grammatical and structural knowledge. Teacher A said that the oral translation was also more dynamic than written translation and required intensive concentration from the students. Teacher F said that she used translation from Hungarian to English even in tests. She claimed that being able to fill in gaps or choose the right solutions could not ensure that the student really had firm knowledge of the grammar. What she found a more reliable test of grammar was translation because this required students to realise what tense or structure should be used as well as to see the differences between the two languages clearly.

Although all the teachers used translation, Teacher G warned against the danger of overpractice. He claimed that if students did too many translations, they got used to translating all their thoughts from Hungarian to English, which could become an obstacle to the learning of the TL. On the other hand, students may get the false impression that each sentence in the MT has an equivalent in the TL or vice versa.

4.3.1.3. General attitudes towards the use of the mother tongue

The two statements about the advantages of the use of the MT helped to examine the E+H teachers’ point of view. The first statement claimed that both teaching and learning were less effective if the MT was neglected. Although all the E+H teachers agreed with the statements in general, some of them made comments on them and restricted its relevance. Teacher F drew attention to the fact that at primary schools or secondary schools English played a special role; it was not only a language but also a subject at school. Consequently, some students simply find it too demanding not to use the MT at English lessons. If they are not motivated enough or have bad experience about learning English, they will not be willing to adjust to the “only-English” method. At the same time, Teacher B mentioned that being a non-native teacher was a very special case because teachers were also the learners of the language. As a result, non-native teachers cannot be so perfect in the TL as to be effective in teaching without making use of their MT.

As far as the second statement is concerned, it claimed that teachers could save time with the use of the MT. While all the E+H teachers agreed with the statement in general, Teacher F mentioned that for a short time the avoidance of the MT could bring illusory success. She said that it could happen that the group made quite a fast progress in speaking and listening but the deeper knowledge they acquired, the more problems occurred concerning grammar. At this point the teacher had to use the MT and repair the collapsing basis of the students’ knowledge.

Among the general comments there was one which was made by five out of the seven E+H teachers. They claimed that in teaching nobody should try to apply rules rigidly. Teachers should be flexible and always take into consideration the characteristics of each group they teach. Teacher A said that if the teacher was confident enough, his or her aims could be achieved regardless of the fact whether the MT was used or avoided at the lessons.

4.3.1.4 Interpretation

The data about teachers’ use of the MT obtained from seven E+H teachers supported two categories of Harbord’s (1992) use of the L1, i.e. to facilitate teacher-student rapport and to facilitate learning. The use of Hungarian for facilitating learning was more frequent than its use for establishing a good rapport. The reason might be traced back to the fact that in secondary schools teachers and learners have numerous possibilities outside the classroom to establish a good rapport. Therefore, its use for helping learning was more important. The results suggest that teachers prefer to use Hungarian for explaining grammar and the meaning of words. It was interesting that the use of the L1 for facilitating communication – Harbord’s third category- like discussing classroom methodology or giving instructions in the L1 did not get priority. It may be due to the fact that discussing the content of the lessons is not an issue of negotiation in most Hungarian secondary schools. On the other hand, the avoidance of the MT in giving instructions suggests that basically, E+H teachers want to spend as much time as possible on the TL and do not want to make students completely dependent on the L1.

The findings indicate that E+H teachers use the MT consciously and fairly consequently. Its use was determined by several factors but none of them were significant. However, it is worth mentioning that students’ lack of motivation encourage students to use the MT in the class. On the other hand, there might be cases when teachers must give up their own ideas and conform to the level of the students lest the lessons should turn into a disaster. Two out of the seven E+H teachers seemed to make use of the L1 for this reason.

While the literature mentioned the use of the students’ MT from native English teachers’ point of view, my interviews with non-native teachers provided other explanations for its use besides its benefit on learners. Medgyes (1994) view was supported by E+H teachers, claiming that non-native teachers are also learners of the TL and they could easily make use of it to make learning easier for the students. On the other hand, it can help teachers feel more confident and motivate students in learning.

Atkinson’s (1987) statement claiming that the use of the MT could save time was supported by E+H teachers. Still, the use of the MT does not make teaching and learning automatically more effective: teachers warned against its overuse and emphasised that despite the use of Hungarian the aim of the lessons still remained to provide as many opportunities as possible to use English. The MT seemed to help the students to affirm their knowledge of the TL, which later would contribute to its more effective use.

4.3.2 E teachers

Those teachers were considered E teachers who were principally against the use of the MT in the classroom and did not resort to the use of the MT at any part of the lesson except for very peculiar cases (e.g.: explaining the meaning of an abstract word at beginner level).

There were seven E teachers among the fourteen teachers of primary and secondary schools. Two of them were teachers from Dunakeszi, while five of them were from the capital. These teacher will also be represented by letters. Their profile is presented in the following table:

Table 9: E teachers’ main characteristics

(“s” stands for secondary, “p” stands for primary school teachers.)

4.3.2.1 Reasons for avoiding the use of the mother tongue

While among the E+H teachers it happened that some of them changed their views through their teaching career, this was not experienced among E teachers. All of them have thought from the very beginning of their teaching career that the use of the MT should be avoided. However, as far as the students’ use of the MT is concerned, Teacher H, who started to teach young children between the age of 10 and 14  only a few years ago, admitted that she became more tolerant towards their use of Hungarian.  At the same time, Teacher K also confessed that whenever he did not have enough time to prepare conscientiously for the lessons, he realised that at one or another point of the lesson he tended to resort to the use of Hungarian. Still, as this happened rarely, Teacher K was put into the group of E teachers.

As far as the general reasons for the avoidance of the MT are concerned, the following reasons were mentioned:

· to create an opportunity (if not the only one) which is similar to the non-native environment and to get students used to this situation (3)

· it is more convenient for the teacher (1)

· to force them to concentrate all through the lesson (2)

· to develop a useful learning strategy (3)

The most frequent reason for avoiding the MT was that the “only English” method could create a very special atmosphere in the class; i.e. it could imitate the situation when students get into a non-native environment. Teacher H emphasised that for average secondary school students of English there were not many opportunities to practise English orally. Consequently, teachers should help to provide opportunities to use English. On the other hand, this situation also forces students to use strategies which can help them in those situations when there are no Hungarians around them but only foreigners. Teacher I said that later students would get into situations without dictionaries and interpreters and they should be able to communicate successfully in those situations. This special atmosphere can help students to use paraphrases or circumlocutions and to improve their strategic competence. Teacher K mentioned useful learning strategy connected to how students managed to express their thoughts in the TL when they could not find the appropriate word. He said that the development of this strategy was the result of forcing students into pseudo non-native environment. Teacher M and Teacher N emphasised that young students easily failed to focus on the lesson for forty-five minutes. They experienced that if they did not provide the crutch of the MT to find the lost thread, they were forced to pay attention and focus on what was happening at the lessons provided they felt motivated to learn English.

Besides the general reasons for avoiding the use of the MT, E teachers also mentioned what factors determined their decision to choose the “only  English” method. The following criteria were mentioned:

· the students’ age (2)

· the students’ level of English (1)

· the teacher’s perseverance and attitude (1)

The teachers, whose method depended on the age, said that very young learners needed Hungarian. Teacher I said that these learners sometimes did not know even the Hungarian word they were looking for, and they tended to lack enough experience in how to communicate successfully. At the same time, Teacher H said that she only let very young learners to ask the question “Can I say it in Hungarian?”. Only if she said yes, could the children use the MT. Considering the level of learners’ English, only one teacher mentioned it. However, it was largely due to the fact that out of the seven E teacher there were only three teacher who taught students from beginner level. Still, two of them said that they did not resort to Hungarian even at beginner level. Teacher L mentioned that it was the teacher’s own decision which really determined the use or avoidance of the MT, while the students were able to get used to any of the methods if it was applied consequently.

            As far as elementary level students are concerned, five out of the seven teacher taught elementary groups; consequently, only their answers could be analysed. There was only one teacher who said that she did not avoid the use of the MT if she had a complete beginners’ group. However, the other four teachers avoided the use of the L1 even at this level. Teachers K, M and N all shared the view that students got used to their method if they realised that the teacher really insisted on avoiding the MT. Teacher M said that with consistent avoidance of the MT at the lessons, the students could realise that English was not simply a subject to be learnt but a living language form the very beginning of their English studies. Teacher L also emphasised that her success in avoiding the use of the L1 depended on how she prepared in advance; i.e. if she invested time into teaching students the most essential language in the classroom to understand instructions and be able to ask, she could avoid using the MT.

4.3.2.2 Advantages and disadvantages of avoiding the use of the mother tongue

Two important reasons brought up against the “only English” approach are that it can significantly slow down progress at the lesson, and it can cause uncertainty and confusion in some students’ mind about difficult concepts or words.

As far as the danger of the slow pace of the lessons is concerned, five teachers thought that this danger was relevant. Two specific cases of wasting time were mentioned:

· explaining the meaning of words (3)

· giving instructions (2)

 It was not surprising that the explanation of  the meaning of words was mentioned as an example by Teacher J and Teacher H. However, Teacher N emphasised that it was only with abstract words that these explanations required  more time. At the same time, Teacher H said that teachers could  also waste time giving the Hungarian equivalent of words because sometimes they were lost in explaining the registers or differences in style, and students were also prone to react in Hungarian in these situations.

As for instructions, two teachers recommended some strategies to avoid the problem of slow progress. Teacher L said that she always asked a student to say the instructions in Hungarian once for the class if some of them seemed to get lost. Teacher K had a more general recommendation. He claimed that if the teacher prepared conscientiously for the lesson and thought over the explanations he or she would apply, the problem could be avoided.

E teachers seemed to have certain strategies to be assured that students could understand the explanations and what they had to do. All the E teacher said that to “diagnosis” of students’ understanding could be made through having a look at their face and how they began to work. If the teacher realised that some students had problems and hesitated, the following strategies were suggested by the E teachers:

· to make small units of the instructions and repeat them separately (2)

· to ask simple questions from them concerned with the supposed problem (1)

· to ask students to repeat the instructions in Hungarian or give a summary (3)

· to give an example (2)

Besides these strategies, Teacher I mentioned that good preparation could help to avoid these problems. She prepared for the listening tasks  and pre-teaches the words needed for understanding instructions. Although three teachers suggested a summary by the students in the MT, Teacher L refused any use of Hungarian- even by the students. She claimed that if students were allowed to provide a Hungarian summary or she “gave in”, students would get used to the comfortable feeling of getting help in Hungarian and would not develop any strategy to solve problems in English. Still, whether the E teacher allowed students  to help in Hungarian or not, none of them said that they had students who always got lost at the lessons.

            The teacher’s constant use of English at the lessons can be the source of  both joy and sorrow. The following memorable and positive experiences were mentioned:

· students’ creative use of English (2)

· special student-teacher relationship (2)

· students became intrinsically motivated to read books in English (1)

Teacher N and Teacher L mentioned that their students above elementary level could create very enjoyable jokes in English. Teacher M said that she was always very satisfied when the students learnt to define words very creatively. Teacher I said that in her classes the only use of English led students to start reading English books alone. She mentioned that it might be due to the fact that they never spoiled reading in English with stopping all the time and giving the Hungarian meaning of each unknown word. While the above mentioned practices are connected to the students’ performance, another source of joy connected to the teacher’s constant use of English was that the students  associated the teacher with the TL. Wherever they met, they connected the teacher’s personality to the English lesson and started to speak in English.

            However, the constant use of English might also cause problems in the classroom. Although the responses of the E teachers indicated that they were prepared for comprehension problems and knew how to help the students who felt lost, it did not mean that they always managed to prevent or solve these problems. The following inconvenient and rather awkward situations were mentioned:

· the students lose confidence, and panic because of the teacher’s avoidance of the MT (4)

· difficulties with establishing a good relationship with some students (2)

· the weaker students in a group can easily feel helpless (1)

Four E teachers mentioned that there were some students who lost their confidence and became frustrated because of the lack of the MT at the lesson. Teacher J said that some students’ learning style required the use of the MT; however, their need was not satisfied in an “only English” class. She also mentioned that it was rather difficult to establish a good relationship with these students because they constantly felt uncomfortable at the lessons. Both Teacher M and Teacher N had this problem with pupils in the fifth class. They experienced that they needed the support of the MT at the beginning of their studies. It was not rare that some pupils came to them with tears in their eyes after the lesson complaining that they had not understand a word at the lesson. However, both teachers seemed to be convinced that if these pupils could feel the good intention behind the unfamiliar method, they could easily get accustomed to it; the crisis could disappear after one or two months. What could also cause problems was the differences between the students within one group. It was Teacher I who mentioned this problem and said that it usually occurred when she was given a new group. The students who are on a higher level can discourage the weaker ones with their comments, which only makes these student even more frustrated.

The interviews also helped to obtain information on whether there existed situations when T teachers had to resort to the use of the MT. The E teachers mentioned the following situations:

· to solve serious discipline problems (3)

· to console students if they have some mental problems (1)

· classroom administration demanding too much time (3)

· when all the students feel confused (1)

· contrastive use of the MT when the students first meet a grammatical problem (2)

The use of Hungarian for discipline problems was mentioned by two teachers. Teacher L said that she only resorted to Hungarian for this purpose if the problem was quite serious and simple English sentences would not help. At the same time, Teacher H said that the very rare and unexpected use of a Hungarian sentence to make students concentrate proved to be very effective. Another use of Hungarian was not connected to the content of the lessons but to good teacher-student rapport. Teacher H said that if the teacher wanted to establish a good relationship with the students, serious personal problems would not be discussed in the TL.

Besides, the results suggested that some content-based use of the MT could also occur among E teachers. Teacher I mentioned that in some very special cases students were simply unable to understand her  question or explanation; consequently, to keep the wheels of the lesson move, she resorted to the use of the MT to solve the problem. Besides, Teachers K and N claimed that when students encountered a grammatical problem like attempting to apply Hungarian structures in English sentences, the contrastive use of the MT at the right time could help students to gain confidence in handling grammar structures. However, they used the MT for this reason only under pre-intermediate level.

Since the use of the MT for translation was acceptable even for E teachers, their use of translation at the lessons is discussed separately. All the E teachers made use of translation but it played different roles. These can be put into the following groups on the basis of the responses:

· to translate texts in writing (7)

· to translate certain sentences chosen form reading texts orally (1)

· to translate some short sentences orally to highlight some grammar points (1)

There were two teachers who said that they set translation as homework for the students since it was too time-demanding. All the other teachers said that they integrated translation into some of their lessons. Teacher N said that she sometimes used translation form English to Hungarian as a part of reading comprehension tasks. She chose one sentence and asked a student to translate it so that she could be assured whether the students had really understood the text or just intelligently reconstructed some sentences. She mentioned that if the MT was avoided, lazy students could easily apply techniques which made the teacher believe that they had understood the English text. Another special translation techniques was applied by Teacher K, who had some special sentence pairs to help the students see the differences between English tenses. Teacher L also mentioned that whenever she gave translation tasks to her students, they became much more disciplined and focused much more on their task at the lessons.

4.3.2.3 General attitudes towards the use of the mother tongue

The two statements concerned with the effectiveness of using the MT in the classroom were also read out for the E teachers so that they could express their opinion about these. The first statement about the general advantage of using the L1 was refused by all E teachers. To refute the statement, they mentioned the following reasons:

· native English teachers can teach without the students’ MT successfully (2)

· communication skills can be improved more efficiently with the “only English” method (4)

· the use of the L1 at the lessons can only provide firmer knowledge but not use of English (1)

While the first reason is not really relevant in the Hungarian setting, the other two reasons reflect that E teachers consider their method more effective in the development of listening and speaking skills; i.e. they can help students to obtain knowledge of English which can be more effectively used in real-life situations where there is no dictionary and teacher to help in Hungarian. Teacher N said that the “only English” method encouraged learners to express their thoughts directly in the TL. She claimed that if the students got used to the help of the MT, they tried to translate their thoughts from Hungarian to English, which resulted in very complicated and mostly “Hunglish” expressions. At the same time, the use of  the L2 in the lesson encourages the students to use simpler structures and think in the TL instead of resorting to translation all the time.

            As far as the handling of time is concerned, five of the E teachers agreed that teachers could save time with the use of the MT. However, two teachers could refute this statement claiming that

· it is the teacher’s preparation time for the lesson that determines the effective use of time (1)

· the use of the MT can also make the pace of the lesson slower (1)

In  the first case, Teacher K claimed that conscientious preparation bore its fruit; i.e. whenever he did his best to prepare for the lessons, the avoidance of the MT did not hinder the students from making good progress. However, if teachers prepare superficially, the avoidance of the MT can only lead to problems through making the students confused and discouraging them form focusing on the lesson. At the same time, Teacher J said that the use of the MT could also be troublesome because both teachers and students could easily lose control over the  use of the L1. In all these cases the teachers must help students to resort to the L2 instead of L1, which also takes time.

Besides expressing their view about the two statements, the teachers also tried to define what the possible advantages of the use of the MT could be. They mentioned the following possible reasons for its use:

· it is easier to teach grammar (3)

· it saves time (1)

· it gives students’ confidence at beginner level (1)

· it is easier to make students’ English more accurate (2)

· it is easier to check comprehension (2)

· the “only English” method can be too artificial for some students (1)

All the teachers could give reasons for using the MT in the class, which suggested that they were clearly aware of the weaknesses of the “only English” method: all these reasons were mentioned as the advantages of using the MT by E+H teachers. However, the E teachers seemed to find the advantages of avoiding the MT a way to improve communication skills or to create more opportunities to negotiate meaning, which were considered more important than the advantages of the use of the L1. However, Teachers K, J and N mentioned that there existed no rigid rules for the use or avoidance of the MT. It was the personality of the teacher and partly the characteristics of the group which determined whether the use of the avoidance of the MT could help students to be more successful in learning English.

4.3.2.4 Interpretation

            The results suggest that E teachers were clearly aware of the advantages and disadvantages of avoiding the use of the L1. In the literature it was only Medgyes (1994), who focused on non-native English teachers and claimed that one of the non-native teacher’s advantage was the use of the MT. However, the E teachers’ responses indicated that the avoidance of L1 could also be useful for the students. These teachers mainly supported their view by the fact that learning a foreign language in non-native environment radically reduced the opportunities when the L2 can be practised in real-life situations. The E teachers seemed to attempt to create a special environment in the classroom so that students could improve their communication skills and learn to be successful even if they have no dictionary at hand.

            Schweers (1999) and Burden (2000) mentioned mainly cultural reasons for the use of the MT in the classroom when the teacher was a native English or bilingual person. They suggested the integration of the learners’ culture and language into the lessons so that the teachers would not alienate themselves from the learners. However, this problem did not significantly occur among non-native E teachers. There was only one teacher who claimed that she had difficulties with establishing a good relationship with her groups; still, in general, teachers had many opportunities to maintain a good relationship even if the avoidance of the MT in the classroom created resistance and frustration in certain students at the very beginning of their studies.

            The findings also seem to suggest that the avoidance of the MT at the lessons does not necessarily mean the loss of something valuable. Teachers who prepare thoroughly can explain words or teach grammar even without the use of the MT. However, in some cases the groups seem to determine what the teacher can do in the class. The students’ knowledge of Hungarian was made use of to help the clarification of unclear explanation if the whole group were in confusion.

            While the use of the MT in the classroom was based on both effective and affective reasons, the avoidance of the L1 can mainly be traced back to the fact that students lack opportunities to use English in real-life situations and the use of the MT can create a false image about the language, and a false confidence in the learner. The affective dimension seemed rather to contradict the avoidance of the MT because students can easily become frustrated without relying on their MT.

            The reason that the avoidance of the MT results in inefficient use of time was partly refuted because two teachers claimed that the well-prepared and persevering teacher could be at least as successful in teaching as his or her E+H colleagues.

4.5 Student questionnaire

The aim of the student questionnaire was to collect data from the students who participated in the classroom research. The questions were put into groups to make the analysis more comprehensible. These groups can be seen in section 3.5.3. Since the questionnaires for the two groups were compiled in a similar way, in most cases it was possible to compare the data. The data will be presented in percentage; however, the results should be interpreted carefully since in the E+H group one student represented more than 10 % of the group.

4.5.1 Attitude towards the English language and classroom atmosphere

The first two questions highlighted  what the students thought about English at the beginning of the term and  if the two groups’ opinion about English had changed since then. The results can be seen in the following table:

Table 10 : The first impression about English and the change of the attitude in the E and the E+H groups (Responses were changed to percentage.)

As for the first impression about the English language, there were great differences between the two groups. 62,5 %of the E+H group found English an easy language, while it was only 16,6 %in the E group. At the same time, more than half of the E group (56,3%) considered English a rather or extremely difficult language, while it was only 25 % of the E+H students. Consequently, it can be concluded that the E group found learning English more challenging than the E+H group.

The answers to the second question revealed that the first impression changed more in the E group than in the E+H group. 66,7 % of the E group students changed their view about the English language in the first term, while it was only 25 % in the other group. In the E+H group there was not any negative change of view and only one student thought this in the E group. The positive changes in the E group could be put into the following categories:

· being willing to invest more energy into learning English

· finding more fun in English lessons

· success in understanding the lessons

· feeling better at the lessons

As far as the negative change is concerned, it was connected to the grammar of the language, since the student complained about  the difficulty of the English grammar.

            As the answers indicated, the change of the view about the English language was less significant in the E+H group. They mentioned two reasons for the positive change of view; i.e. they got used to the spelling system and to the rather difficult pronunciation.

To examine students’ behaviour and the classroom atmosphere at the lessons, they answered two questions: how they had  felt at the English lessons at the beginning of the academic year, and how they felt  at the end of the first term. The changes are shown in the following table:

Table 11: Change of classroom behaviour in the first term (after 54 lessons in the E group, and 56 lessons in the E+H group)

The data show that at the negative end of the scale more students could be found from the E group. 25 % of the E students felt absolutely confused, while it was 12,5 % among E+H students. At the same time,  it was about two-fifth of the students in both groups who felt very well at the first lessons of the year. On the other hand, half of the E+H group were quite indifferent at the beginning of the year, whereas, it was about 33 % in the other group.

However, the first five months of learning English influenced the two group’s behaviour quite differently: only 12,5 % in the E+H group felt the same, and 87,5 % felt a bit or much better than at the beginning of the year. As for the E group, 58,4 % felt better after five months; while 41,6 % had the same feeling. The table also shows that nobody out of the two groups felt worse after the first five months.

4.5.1.1 Interpretation

            The retrospective view of the students might have influenced the students’ response in the sense that they might have ignored some problems which were solved during the first semester. However, the answers to the first two questions suggest that the some members of the E group did not feel so good at the first lesson. They were probably quite frightened at the first lessons since they had to work quite hard to understand the teacher’s words. The new foreign language was unfamiliar to most of them and they could not make use of their MT since the teacher, with whom they tried to communicate never responded in the MT to their questions. However, the more lessons passed, the more instructions and questions they learnt at the lessons; consequently, communication became more and more intensive between the teacher and the students, and later among the students. This confusion also contributed to considering the English language quite difficult. This view could only gradually change in parallel with gaining confidence at the lessons and being able to guess the meaning of words and instructions.

At the same time, no significant change of attitude happened in the E+H group. The students felt well even at the very beginning of the year, which might have been due to the fact that the MT had “supported” them since the first lesson. Hungarian helped them not to feel lost and create a positive attitude towards English.

            However, it was only the minority of the E students who felt confused at the first lessons. Although they found English more difficult than the E+H group, most of them enjoyed the lessons. Besides, there was not any student who felt worse at the end of the first term. While the E+H group might have progressed in a more linear way and might have experienced success permanently, the E-group might have fought much more for success. That might have contributed to the result that even if the positive change was more typical of the E+H group, the more significant changes appeared much more in the E group (41,6%) than in the E+H group (25 %).

4.5.2 Difficulties with English

Questions 5, 6, and 8 were concerned with how much energy students had to invest to follow the lessons and who helped them to learn English. The need for concentration to follow the lesson and the pace of the lessons had to be indicated on a five-point Likert scale. To make the results more comprehensible, the two ends of the scale were collapsed: very intensive and intensive, absolutely no and a little concentration at the lessons; too fast and fast, and too slow and rather slow represented one category in the analysis. The table focuses only on these categories, since the mean does not provide any significant data.

Table 12: To what extent did the students need concentration to follow the English lesson and what was the pace of the lesson like? (Responses toward the mean are not indicated.)

Answer to question 5 indicates that students of the E group needed much intensive concentration to be able to follow the lesson. More than 80 % of the students had to concentrate either intensively or very intensively, while it was  only 25 % of the E+H students.  In the E group there was not any student who found no or little concentration enough to follow the lesson.

            On the basis of the results of question 6, it can be said that it was almost the same proportion of the students in the two groups who found the lessons fast or very fast (33,3% in the E group and  25 % in the E+H group). However, there was not any E student who found the lessons slow or very slow, while 25 % of the E+H students had this opinion about the lessons.

            Students’ success at the lesson can be influenced by how they manage to follow the lesson and also by what help they get to understand what remained unclear after the lessons. Question 8 contributed to obtain some information about the students’ habits of asking for help. The results can be seen in the following table:

Table 13 : To whom do  students mostly turn if they need help to learn English?

The results suggest that there was not any significant source of help in either group. It was an interesting finding that among the E students, the teacher was not the most frequently used help for any student. Still, even in the E+H group it was only 12,5 %. About one third of the students in both groups did not need any external help in learning English. Besides, even the use of peer help was not significantly different in the two groups

4.5.2.1 Interpretation

The answers to questions 5,6 and 8 show that the intensity of concentration needed at the English lessons significantly differed in the E and E+H group  In the E group, the great majority (83,3 %) of the students had to concentrate intensively or very intensively to follow the lessons, while it was only 25 % in the E+H group. The fact that most of the E+H students did not need intensive concentration might be related to the finding that one fourth of them found the pace of the lessons slow. This slow pace might have been the consequence of the use and overuse of the MT at the lessons.

On the other hand, there seemed to be more challenges waiting for the E students. Consequently,  there was not any E student who considered the lessons slow or who could do with little concentration at the lessons. Consequently, the E group seemed to find the English lessons more demanding than the E+H group; they needed more attention to follow the lessons.

Considering the students’ need for help, the results did not mirror any major differences between the two groups. It was surprising, since the more demanding lessons of the E group would have suggested that the E students needed much more help. However, they did not even make use of the teacher’s help. They might have thought that the teacher would have provided English explanations even after the lessons or simply they did not consider their problems so serious to turn to the teacher.  Besides, 33,3 % of them did not need any kind of help, which was almost the same in the E+H group. Consequently, the use of the MT did not lead to less need for help.

4.5.3 Opinion about the need for the mother tongue (questions 7,  9,  12)

Besides obtaining data about to what extent the English lessons were demanding and what help the students needed, it was also important to see what students thought about the role of the MT at the lessons. Its use or avoidance at the lessons can significantly contribute to the students’ success ; as a result, the MT was studied also from the students’ point of view.

Question 7 was a bit different for the two groups. The E students expressed their opinion about whether they would have made use of the MT at the lessons. At the same time, the E+H group evaluated the usefulness of the MT at the lessons. They tried to decide how much the MT had been used at the lessons with the help of a five-point Likert scale. Since responding towards the mean had an important meaning here; i.e. the use of the MT was just satisfactory, it will be indicated together with the collapsed responses at both ends of the scale(too much and much, too little and little)  The following table shows the results:

E group about the need for the MT                                                               E+H group about the use of the MT

Table 14 : The need for and the use of the MT in the E and the E+H group

As far as the need for the MT is concerned in the E group, the results suggest that the absolute avoidance of the MT did not discourage all the students. One third of them said that they had not needed the MT at the lessons and there was not any student in the group who had felt its lack frequently. Still, 66,6 % of the E students admitted that it would sometimes have been useful to use Hungarian at the lessons.

If the use of the MT is examined in the other group, it can be seen that more than half of the E+H students (62,5%) were satisfied with its use at the lessons. However, one fourth  of the students thought that it had been overused. It was quite surprising that 12,5 % (one student) thought that it was even not used enough.

After the general view about how the students evaluated the use or the lack of the MT,  more detailed data were provided about the specific uses and the usefulness  of the MT. In question 9 the students had to evaluate the usefulness of that specific use of the MT at the lesson. In the E+H group the students did not only express the ideal use of the MT in the different cases but also evaluated the use of the MT in those specific situations at their lessons.  The results are shown in the following table:

Table 15: The ideal use of the MT in the E and in the E+H group

(To equal 100 %, the decimals may slightly differ in some lines.)

-The significant differences between the expectations of the two groups are printed in bold

As far as the answers of the E group are concerned, the students did not seem to miss the use of the MT in several fields. If the effective uses of the MT are examined, the results show that more than half of the students did not need Hungarian to check exercises at the lesson. It was quite surprising that there was not any student who said that the MT was needed more than sometimes for this purpose. Besides, the MT was not really needed for half of the students to summarise the material already covered. Still, in this area, one fourth of the students would have required its use. The results about the comparing and contrastive use of the MT are quite similar: half of the students did not feel need at all or rarely needed the MT for this but one third said that they would have liked to use it for this purpose. Even for asking questions connected to the lesson more than half of the students (58,2 %) did not require the MT. When it comes to new words, only 16,6 %  wanted the MT to be used for this purpose, while 41,6 % did not need it at all. The effective function of the MT which gained importance among the E students was grammar explanations: 66,6 % of the E students thought that the MT should be used for this purpose.

            As for the affective functions of the MT, the results indicated that more than half of the students (58,2 %) did not really need use for the MT to talk about topics not connected to the lesson.

            The practical reasons for the use of the MT were not strongly supported by the E group. One third of the students hardly needed the MT to give instructions and its frequent use was rejected by all of the E students. Besides, it was only 8,3 % (i.e. one student) who said that the MT should occasionally have been used to solve discipline problems. However, all the rest of the group completely rejected the idea of using the MT for this purpose.

            As for the ideal use of the MT, the findings revealed significant differences in the two groups. While 41,6 % of the E students did not need the MT to learn new words, there was not any person in the E+H group who would have liked to get rid of the use of the MT in this area. As for other effective uses of the MT are concerned, it can be seen that there was not any student who would have liked to reject the use of the MT completely in any of these areas. Significantly more students of the E+H group (62,5 % as opposed to 24,9 % in the E group) wanted the MT to be used for summaries. Quite similarly, while none of the E students felt urgent need for the MT to check exercises, one fourth of the E+H students found its use important. Even the comparing and contrasting function of the MT was considered much more important among the E+H students than among the E students: half of the students did not really appreciate this function of the MT in the E group, while the E+H groups’ responses suggested that most of them wanted to use it sometimes or even more frequently.

            The affective use of the MT to discuss questions not connected to the lesson was not considered very important in any group. More than half of the students  did not want to use it more than occasionally. In the E+H group, the answers suggested that they wanted to use it even less often than it had been used.

            If the practical uses of the MT are examined, it can be seen that the responses to the  use of the MT to give instructions are widely distributed among the E+H students; none of the possibilities were supported by more than one fourth of the students. Quite similarly, the handling of discipline problems was seen differently by the students. While all but one student rejected the use of the MT for discipline problems in the E group, it was only 12,5 % (i.e. one student) who shared this view from the E+H group and all the others needed the MT for this.

            As far as the difference between the real use of the MT and the wishes of the E+H students are  concerned, there were only a few cases when significant changes could be found. One example for this was the use of the MT to compare and contrast the two languages. All the students thought that it  was at least often used for this purpose at the lessons. However, it was only one fourth of the students who needed the MT so frequently for this function.  Besides, while all the students perceived that the MT was used to handle discipline problems almost all the time, they had quite different views about its use, and half of the group did not want to use the MT for this reason. Finally, they wanted the MT to be used less frequently if they had some questions not connected to the lesson.

            If the responses of the E+H group about the real, perceived use of the MT are examined once more, it can be seen that they were not always in agreement with one another. It was the area of giving instructions, learning new words and asking questions not connected to the lesson where the answers mirrored quite contradictory perceptions. In the case of giving instructions some of the students thought that the MT was used always, while some of them thought that it was rarely used. These contradictory result might decrease the reliability of the results; however, in the other fields the E+H student’ perceptions were quite similar.

            After having a close look at the expectation of the students about the use of the MT,  the twelfth question concerned with to what extent the students found the use or the avoidance of the MT useful will be examined. The students gave their answers on a five-point Likert scale. Since responses towards the median indicated that the student could not really decide, these are not indicated in the table.

Table 16: The usefulness of the use or the avoidance of the MT in the E+H and E group respectively

*the percentages do not equal 100, since responses towards the median were not analysed

The data obtained from the E+H group suggest that half of the students did not find it significantly useful to apply the MT regularly at the lessons. At the same time, the same number of students found it useful. This result does not contradict the answers to question 9, since it is an overall view about the usefulness of the MT in the five-month-learning period, while Question 9 was concerned with specific areas and focused on the future needs.

            On the other hand, the results of the E group clearly show that except for one person, they found it useful to avoid the use of the MT. Because of the same reasons mentioned above, this result does not contradict the findings of Question 9 which indicated that in some fields, some students would have found it advantageous to use the MT.

4.5.3.1 Interpretation

In the light  of the data obtained about the students’ opinion about the need for the MT, it can be said that the two groups had quite a different view about the use of the MT.

            As far as the specific uses of the MT are concerned, the results did not strongly support  Atkinson’s (1993) view about the moderate but essential need for the MT in the classroom. In general, the vast majority of the E students considered the avoidance of the MT useful. Most of them supported the need for the MT only to explain grammar. At the same time, most of them refrained from using the MT to learn new words. It seemed that the students from the E group really insisted on getting as much comprehensible input as possible at the lessons and did not want to use it for checking exercises or asking questions. However, to make the input into comprehensible output, more than 60 % of them needed clear-cut grammar explanations in Hungarian. It is probably due to the fact that English grammar explanations cannot make students confident enough in its use and need the crutch of the MT to understand clearly all the rules. The quite significant need for the comparative and contrastive use of the L1 also supports the view that rules and structural awareness seem to be quite important for the learners.

            At the same time, the E+H group had quite a different view about the English lessons. Their answers concerned with concentration and the pace of the lesson showed that most of them did not really find the lessons demanding. The Hungarian explanations, the always accessible MT made it much easier for them to follow the lessons or to get back on track if they lost attention.

            Considering the specific uses of the MT, the E+H group had quite different view from the E group. They felt much more need for the MT. They required it to check comprehension and to get clear grammar explanations They  also supported the use of Hungarian to learn new words. However, the uses of the MT not directly connected to the content of the  lesson was not supported by the E+H group significantly. It suggests that the communication-facilitating role of the MT  mentioned by Harbord (1992) may not be so important in a monolingual classroom with non-native teacher.

            If the general opinion about the use or avoidance of the MT is examined, the avoidance of the MT was supported by the E students much more firmly than its use by the E+H group. Maybe the general opinion reflecting that the avoidance of the MT was considered to be very useful in the first term means that students could make use of the avoidance of the MT. Still, in certain areas the E students would have considered the use of the MT useful. It suggests that  to make their knowledge firmer, they would need some specific uses of the MT in the future. This attitude supports the view that students should get as much comprehensible input as possible but the MT should be used in certain cases for very specific reasons.

            However the functions mentioned by the E students are rather restricted; grammar and summaries are a bit “necessary evils” of the English lessons. Still, the productive use of the language in communicative situations are not expected to be accompanied by the use of the MT.

4.5.4 Advantages and disadvantages of using/ avoiding the mother tongue (question 10, 11, 13, 14)

Questions 10, 11, 13 and 14 helped to get some information about positive and negative feelings connected to the use or avoidance of the MT and also to see what general advantages and disadvantages the students’ themselves experienced. First, questions 10 and 11 of both questionnaires will be studied. These questions revealed what specific positive and negative experience students collected in the first five months of their English studies. The results of the two groups are represented together so that they could be compared with each other. The number of students giving that response is put next to the categories which were created on the basis of the responses.

E group                                                                                 E+H group

Table 17 : Positive and negative experience concerned with the use or avoidance of the MT

Considering the E group, the types of negative experience outweigh the positive ones. However, it is important to mention that the students contributed more than one comment. 9 out of the 12 students mentioned both positive and negative experience. Among the positive experience, the learning of new words caused the most pleasure for the E students. Most students seemed to find it funny and enjoyed guessing meaning very much. One student also found it very pleasant when he was the only one who found the Hungarian equivalent of the word “scenery”. It was quite interesting that some students considered it as a positive experience when they managed to understand an English utterance without the other group members’ help.

The negative experience suggests that the absolute lack of the MT caused uncertainty in many students. Besides, they had to concentrate very intensively from the very beginning of the term to follow the lesson; consequently, for weaker students this may have caused several problems.. At the same time, some students found it also frustrating that they could not completely follow grammar explanations. However, the most interesting comment was concerned with the method of teaching vocabulary. There was one boy in the group who did not appreciate this way of learning words. He did not like it when his classmates were too lively and competed with one another to find the meaning of the word first. Since none of the negative experience was shared by a significant part of the class, this seemed to be more person-specific than the positive experience.

As for the E+H group, they could find some positive experience connected to the use of the MT at the lesson. The positive experience of understanding the grammar was just what the E student missed. On the other hand, the freedom of using Hungarian could also contribute to creating very funny sentences provided that the student had an idea in the MT. Besides, it is important to mention that one of the E+H students wrote down that it was the use of the foreign language and not the use of the MT at the language lesson which could make her feel happy.

The negative experience mentioned by the E+H group highlighted the other side of the coin. Clear grammar explanation and quick translation of words into English were positive experience but their exaggeration like providing too much explanation were seen as negative effects of the use of the MT.

The general advantages and disadvantages connected to the use or avoidance of the MT were put into the following table. The students tried to provide a more general, personal view about the advantages and disadvantages of using or avoiding the MT in the classroom The answers were put into categories to see the main advantages and disadvantages clearly.

E group                                                                                 E+H group

Table 18:The advantages and disadvantages of the use or the avoidance of the MT

As it can be seen in the table, some general advantages occurred as experience in the earlier table. However, they were put into both tables because what was an occasional problem for one student could also be considered as a general problem for the others. As far as the advantages of the avoidance of the MT are concerned, most of them were connected to effective communication. The students said that it helped them to be able to understand and use English in situations where the only way to communicate was to use English. Besides, they managed to memorise some everyday expressions and chunks in an easier way. Last but not least, the development of the students’ pronunciation was also said to be due to the avoidance of the MT.

At the same time, the E students mentioned some advantages which were not directly connected to effective, affective or practical reasons but to general skills which can be used anywhere and any time in their lives. One of these advantages was to be able to communicate more effectively; i.e. to get meaning across and also to listen to others. The other positive effect of the constant use of English was its help in improving thinking. The students said that they had to think intensively and develop their own strategies to understand instructions, explanations even if they could not understand each word.

However, some disadvantages of the avoidance of the MT were also mentioned. These problems were connected to effectiveness and practicality. The most frequently occurring problem was the difficulty with understanding grammar. The students found it extremely demanding to understand grammar in English and admitted that sometimes they did not manage to cope with it. At the same time, the avoidance of the MT at summaries was also considered as a problem since it could hinder the weaker students from understanding certain rules and their application.

Besides, one negative effect of the avoidance of the MT was connected to the economy of time. The time spent on explaining the meaning of words was found to be too much in some cases. However, this time-wasting referred solely to explaining more abstract words.

As for the advantages and disadvantages of the use of the MT in the E+H group, most of the advantages were just the things missed in the E group, while the opposite of the disadvantages were among the advantages mentioned by the E group. The advantages can be traced back to effective and affective reasons. The most frequently mentioned advantage was the clear grammar explanations. Besides, the use of the MT seemed to make corrections understandable. Another advantage connected to effective reasons was the easy way of learning words. Nevertheless, learning words with the help of the MT was also mentioned among the disadvantages; as a result, it will be discussed later.

Besides the effective advantages, one  affective and one practical advantage were also presented. The use of the MT made it possible for the students to express their thoughts freely because the constant use of English did not restrict them. One of the examples brought up was the situation when they could express their opinion about some irrelevant and quite strange pictures in the student book. Another advantage was that the use of the MT made it easy for the students to find the “lost thread” if they did not concentrate for a short time.

If these advantages are compared with the disadvantages in the E group, it can be seen that while the E group missed clear grammar explanations, the E+H group had access to it. Secondly, learning new words seemed to demand less time for the E+H group but was found to be rather time-consuming in the E group. Thirdly, the E+H group found it easy to keep pace with the lesson as opposed to the E group who found it very difficult.

As for the disadvantages of the use of the MT, the most frequently quoted problem was that communication in English could not improve easily if the MT could be used at the lesson. At the same time, the use of Hungarian seemed to decrease the number of the  opportunities when the newly learnt words could be practised. Consequently, the advantage of learning new words quickly does not seem to be a clear-cut advantage. Connected to the effective learning, the use of the MT was said to hinder the development of pronunciation. At the same time, one practical disadvantage was also mentioned: the use of the MT could easily lead to the loss of  attention.

The disadvantages can also be matched with the advantages in the E group. First, the E+H group missed opportunities to communicate in English, while the E group found numerous occasions and considered this as an advantage. Secondly, their pronunciation problem was solved in the E group and its development was found satisfactory, Thirdly, the E+H group thought that the use of the MT provided fewer opportunities to learn new words, while the E group learnt words even through the use of English instructions and explanations.

4.5.4.1 Interpretation

The findings reveal that neither the use of the avoidance of the MT ensured the lack of problems. In general, it can be said that the E group might have found the lessons more challenging. In both groups the students’ personal experience were closely related to the general advantages and disadvantages of the use or avoidance of the MT. Learning words with laughter, being able to understand English sentences alone were sources of joy for the E group. The environment of the English lessons seemed to be similar to the situation when the knowledge and use of the L2 were really needed. The students found it useful that they learnt English in a way which reminded them of the fact that English was not a simple subject to gain knowledge about it but a living language which could more easily form a part of their everyday life than some other subjects which mostly improve thinking and provide information about the world.

However, the E group could clearly see the disadvantages of this method. The need for Hungarian in grammar explanations was already indicated in the answers to question 9 where students considered it important to use the MT in this situation. Besides, the fun of learning words with the help of constant guessing can also be too long for some students. One of them even wrote that he constantly had the false impression that finding the meaning of some words guaranteed that he had already learnt it; however, the word tests proved just the opposite. Besides, students found it really difficult to concentrate at the lessons. This finding supports the results of question 5 concerned with the concentration needed to be successful at the lessons. Some students can lose attention more easily than others, which might cause serious problems in the long run for these students if the teacher does not help them to get back on track.

The E+H group found it very important that they could understand grammar easily and learn words quickly. However, the Hungarian explanations reduced the time for listening to and speaking in English. It was the E+H group who mentioned affective advantages of the use of the MT as opposed to the E group. The use of the MT seemed to help students express their opinions about topics in which their vocabulary was too restricted. However, this means that the teacher should be very careful not to let the lesson be sidetracked. At the same time, the use of the MT seemed to help students who tended to lose attention. Consequently, this advantage of the MT might be a disadvantage for the teacher because these students  are not really forced to concentrate as the use of the MT can easily solve their problems. While the use of the MT had effective and affective advantages, its overuse was also recognised by the students. Long explanations or long deviations from the topic did not seem to be favoured by the students.

However, if all the advantages and disadvantages mentioned by the two groups are put on scales, it is interesting that almost all the advantages in one group have a counterpoint in the other group. This suggests that both methods have advantages and disadvantages. On the basis of what the teacher would like to focus on, the right method can be chosen. According to the students, the MT should be used at  the lessons  when the focus is on grammar, while lessons concerned mainly with speaking and listening the MT can be avoided.

4.5.5 Self-evaluation (question 15)

The use or the avoidance of the MT might influence the students’ self-evaluation. Both methods can contribute to the learners’ development in certain areas but can cause also difficulties. The ratio between success and failure will determine how satisfied the students felt after five months of learning English.

The results suggest that the students’ self evaluation was better in the E+H group. The results are presented in the following table:

Table 19 :Students’ satisfaction with their achievement at the English lessons

In the light of the findings, the vast majority of the E+H group were satisfied, while this could only be said of a little more than half of the students in the E group. The reasons for being satisfied were the following:

· understanding short texts (3)

· understanding English texts on billboards (2)

· being able to write short compositions (2)

These examples suggest that E+H students are mainly successful at receptive skills. Although two students also mentioned their writing skills, nobody said that the proof of his or her success was successful communication in English. At the same time, the only dissatisfied student in the group wrote that she did not concentrate enough at the lessons and was rather inattentive.

On the contrary, it was only seven out of the twelve E students who had a positive self-evaluation. They had the following reasons for being satisfied:

· translating short texts like postcards (1)

· following the lesson much more easily than at the beginning of the term (3)

· being more successful in the difficult word tests (2)

· understanding explanations and communicating more effectively (5)

These sources of satisfaction refer to both receptive and productive skills. Understanding communication and communicating successfully were the most important evidences for being successful learners of English. They seemed to be proud of understanding the teacher, which was very difficult for absolute beginners in September. Because of the special word tests in this group (see section 4.1.1.2), some students had problems at the beginning of the year; still, later they managed to get accustomed to this kind of test and some of them could modify their learning styles.

As far as the dissatisfied E students are concerned, they brought up the following reasons for their dissatisfaction:

· being too lazy and not spending enough time on practising English (3)

· not being talented in languages (1)

· not understanding explanations at the lessons (1)

The data show that the reasons are only partly connected to the avoidance of the MT. Laziness can be a general problem, which is more to do with the personality of the student than the use or avoidance of the MT at the English lessons. However, if practice is needed because what is said at the lesson remains unclear, the source of the problem is the avoidance of the MT. In this group one student even claimed that she was not good at languages in general.

4.5.5.1 Interpretation

As far as the students’ self evaluation is concerned, the two groups evaluated their progress quiet differently. The E+H group focused on comprehension and writing, while the E group mostly concentrated on communication. It may be due to the fact that in an “only English environment” students are  forced to understand and use the TL more frequently.

            However, secondary school students’ self-evaluation is largely based on their marks which were evenly distributed in the E group. At the beginning of the year the students might have found the “only English” method quite strange. Some students needed more time to get accustomed to this and got some bad marks; consequently, this might be mirrored in their self-evaluation. At the same time, this problem did not occur in the E+H group and the energy they invested into learning English bore its fruit quite soon unlike in the E group where certain learning strategies were not profitable. One example for this was learning words one by one without understanding their contexts, which resulted in some students’ failure in word tests.

The significant differences between the two groups also reveal facts about the testing system. The students got significantly more marks for written exercises. Since the E+H group had a firm grammar knowledge, written tests were easier for them. At the same time, grammar proved to be difficult for the E group. Although they were given marks for oral tests, the written tests were more frequent. Since students are prone to determine their progress on the basis of their marks, E students were not as satisfied as E+H students. However, the differences in self-evaluation can also mean that the avoidance of the MT leads to the lack of confidence in E students because of the numerous challenges waiting for them at every lesson. Still, the marks improved in the E group towards the end of the first term, which suggests that the E group could also learn the grammar because they were motivated and invested enough energy into it. The use of different approaches in the E and E+H group seem to be necessary in the long run but I wanted to keep variable to a minimum during the research; consequently, they always wrote the same tests on the units of the book.

4.5.6 Suggestions for the future lessons (question 16)

            With the help of the last question I tried to obtain data about what modifications the students would find useful at the lessons. The results revealed if the students had any idea about how the lessons should be modified. Only the suggestions concerned with the use of the MT will be discussed here.

            As far as the E group is concerned, five out of the twelve students claimed that the lessons did not need any kind of modification, they liked it together with the avoidance of the MT. The other students’ suggestions in connection with the MT were as follows:

· use Hungarian to explain grammar (4)

· use Hungarian at the summaries before the tests (1)

As the results show, it was one third of the group who would have liked the teacher to use Hungarian when some grammar was taught. At the same time, it was only one student who suggested the use of Hungarian before tests. These recommendations formed about half of all the suggestions. The others were not concerned with the use of the MT.

            As for the E+H group, all but one student had some ideas about what should be changed at the lessons. The suggestions concerned with the use of the MT were the following:

· use more English at the instructions and explanations gradually (1)

· use only English at the lessons (1)

· force the students to use more English (1)

It was three students out of the eight who said that the use of the MT should be decreased at the lessons. There was one student who suggested the absolute avoidance of the MT, while the other two proposals were more modest. One of them focused on the teacher’s use of the L2 in explanations and instructions, while the other one focused on the students’ use of the MT. Besides, there was another suggestion which could be indirectly connected to the use of the MT since one student wanted to use more pictures when new words were taught instead of giving the Hungarian equivalents of words all the time.

4.5.6.1 Interpretation

The findings suggest that there was a moderate need for Hungarian in the E group but only in the field of grammar. Almost half of the group had no great problems with the avoidance of the MT and did not want to change anything at the lessons. This seems to indicate that the classroom atmosphere was not negatively affected by the constant use of English at the lessons. Nevertheless, the use of the MT for explaining grammar may help students who were dissatisfied with their achievement at the lessons.

More than half of the E+H group did not criticise the use of the MT. These students seemed to consider the MT a source of help; however, three students wanted a more frequent use of English. These students’ suggestions indicate that even if the students start learning English with the help of the MT, after a time they might want to “throw away” the crutch and face the challenges of trying to understand English without the aid of the MT. The recommendation to make students communicate more in English suggests that the MT can make student quite comfortable since they can resort to the use of the MT whenever they have problems. At the same time, most of the students wanted to reduce its use in giving instructions and explanations. The decrease of the need for the MT supports Burden’s (2000) findings which claimed that more advanced students needed less frequently the MT at the English lessons. This also suggests that students might need more opportunities to improve their listening skills.

As for the students’ suggestions connected to the lessons, neither of the groups needed radical changes. While the E group pointed out the advantages of the use of the MT, the E+H group pointed out the advantages of its avoidance. Consequently, it seems that the students are able to get accustomed to and benefit from any particular method that the teacher chooses. It seems to support the view of the teachers who said that what was important from the students’ point of view was the teacher’ consistence and perseverance. If teachers know the aim of avoiding or using the MT, students can feel good in any language class and make good progress.

5 Conclusion

The tools applied in this research helped to reveal what possible advantages and disadvantages can be related to the use or the avoidance of the MT with elementary level students.  The results revealed that both the use and the avoidance of the MT can have positive affects on the students’ behaviour and progress while both methods can also cause problems.

5.1 The positive effects of the use of the mother tongue

The research suggested that the use of the MT can facilitate teacher-student rapport as it was mentioned by Harbord (1992). This affective use of the MT can help to encourage weaker students and make them feel more confident; i.e. it can serve as a crutch to support the weak. The MT also makes it possible for the students to express their thoughts freely and to find the track if they lose attention. Besides, at elementary level the MT can make the students more comfortable at the lessons because the gap between their general intelligence and knowledge of the foreign language can be abridged. This function of the MT supports its use as a  reservoir (Prodromou, 2001); i. e. to provide a resource on which the teacher can rely.

As for effective reasons, teachers found the MT useful to explain grammar. Besides, saving time as a practical reason was also mentioned. The use of the MT can be beneficial for the students  to get clear grammatical explanations and to summarise the material already covered. However, the use of the MT for this reason requires the students to be familiar with some grammar concepts in Hungarian.

The MT can make progress quicker if it is used to familiarise the student with unknown types of exercises. However, this practical use of the MT seems to be restricted only to the beginning of the studies.

5.2 The negative effects of the use of the mother tongue

The findings of the research suggest that the MT can also cause both effective and affective problems in elementary classes. The use of the MT can lead to too early and unnecessary structural analysis, which can hinder the students from becoming involved in communication in English and from getting a general understanding of written texts. The support of the MT can also prevent the students from getting used to uncertainties and developing good problem solving strategies which can be quite useful in real-life use of the TL. The achievement of genuine communication in English can also be more difficult if the students are used to resorting to the MT whenever they need help. 

While Atkinson (1993) claims that the MT can contribute to good classroom management, some teachers who were interviewed as well as my experience contradicted this. The use of the MT can make the lessons less dynamic, the students may lose attention more easily. Besides, they are not forced to concentrate very intensively since the MT can help them. At the same time, my study with the E+H group suggested that group-cohesion developed more slowly if the MT was used in the classroom. In the E+H group the students are less dependent on one another since they can expect help from the teacher in Hungarian.

Besides, the overuse of the MT can fossilise the students’ learning strategy on the level of trying to translate their thoughts from the MT to the TL all the time. At elementary level a false confidence can be created in the students, which can later hinder their progress in learning English.

5.3 The positive effects of the avoidance of the mother tongue

The positive effects of the avoidance of the MT on the students’ progress and behaviour were supported both by the teachers and the students participating in the research, although the literature did not really take these into consideration. First, the avoidance of the MT can help to develop the students’ communicative abilities in English. The constant use of English can create an atmosphere in the class which makes communication in English more natural, avoiding the problem of finding “only English” communication silly and clumsy in the classroom ( Atkinson, 1993). The constant use of English can make the students more confident in speech and they can be more willing to take risks and tolerate uncertainty if they have to understand longer texts or speech. The students can become better at paraphrasing and negotiating meaning, while they can learn everyday expressions and chunks more easily.

Besides, the constant use of English can lead to better group cohesion since the students might need help more frequently. Better group-cohesion can even make the group and pair-work more effective. As opposed to Atkinson’s view (1993), the group dynamics can be much better in E groups, since the students are forced to concentrate all through the lesson because the MT cannot help them if they want to communicate with the teacher.

As the students in the E group themselves mentioned, learning English can be much more of a challenge if the MT is not used by the teacher. While the students must struggle much more to understand and to be understood, the students can be more eager to find the meaning of words and work together.

5.4 The negative effects of the avoidance of the mother tongue

The challenge of the “only English” classrooms can be frustrating for some students and may result in panicking and resistance. The teacher-learner rapport mentioned by Harbord (1992) can be seriously destroyed if the students cannot see the advantages of the avoidance of the MT. Consequently, in groups with less motivated students the above mentioned vibrant classroom atmosphere could hardly be achieved.

Another problem can be that the avoidance of the MT by the teacher, which can lead to its overuse by the students. The class may become too noisy even if it is the result of dynamism, and one or two students can emerge as interpreters in the group to help the weaker students.

Besides, as Medgyes (1994) mentions, non-native teachers might provide the students something additional with the help of the MT. The students’ need for grammar explanations in Hungarian supported this claim. The students might need some reassurance and comparison with the MT so as to relate the new structures to their existing knowledge about the structures of another language. Consequently, the lack of the MT might make the students’ knowledge less firm and the confidence gained in speech might be counterbalanced by hesitation in writing or scanning texts.

5.5 Practical suggestions

The findings of the research lead to the conclusion that although the MT is really a common property of non-native teachers and their monolingual classes, the avoidance of the MT at the English lessons can bring success as well. It is mainly the priority of the aims the teacher sets up that should determine whether the teacher uses the MT or not at elementary level.

If it is the communication skills, the ability to get the meaning across, and confidence in speaking which are given priority, the teacher can try to avoid the use of the MT. Preparation for these lessons might require much more time to think over what problems can occur but well-planned lessons can create extremely dynamic classes. To avoid panic and resistance, establishing good contact with the group before and after the lessons might be very important in a secondary school setting. Besides, if one student is occasionally allowed to translate the difficult concepts to the students, it may also help to avoid panicking. However, the teacher should pay special attention to this student so that he or  she could not become the “official interpreter” of the group.

However, if accuracy, grammatical competence are more important for the teacher and the group, the use of the MT can be quite useful. However, these teachers should apply self-monitoring to avoid its overuse and should strictly restrict the use of the MT to certain functions like giving grammatical explanations. To help the development of communicative skills, it might be useful to establish some rules from the very beginning of teaching the group concerned with when they must not use the MT at  the lessons.

The use of the MT can also be recommended in groups where there is a low level of motivation or the students’ abilities are very different. In these cases the MT can help to encourage students, to make learning more enjoyable and to raise the students’ interest in the culture behind the language.

The findings of the research and the suggestions focus only on elementary learners of English at secondary schools. The sample of the teachers and the students was not representative, which does not allow us to regard the results conclusive. Besides, English was the second foreign language of both groups, which might also influence the results.

As a result, the research can be conducted in several directions in the future. First, the results should be supported by a representative sample; i.e. more teachers should be interviewed and more students should fill in the questionnaires. Secondly, it would be interesting to investigate how very young students’ progress and behaviour differ from elder students’ on the basis of the use or avoidance of the MT. Thirdly, a study on how the MT is used for certain functions like translation or providing grammar explanations could also help to reveal how the MT can be used wisely in the classroom. Finally, the comparison of learning a language abroad in multilingual classes with learning in monolingual classes and also being taught by native versus non-native teacher could provide new insights into how language learners’ progress and behaviour are influenced by different factors.

References

Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27/1, 9-32.

Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource? ELT Journal, 41/4, 241-247.

Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching Monolingual Classes. London,  Longman.

Brown, H. D.(1994). Teaching by Principles. New Jersey. Prentice Hall.

Burden, P. (2000). The use of the students mother tongue in monolingual English “conversation” classes at Japanese universities. {On-line}. Available: http://language.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/alt/pub/tlt/00/Jan/burden.html

Edge, J. (1994). Essentials of English Language Teaching. New York: Longman.

Harbord, J. (1992). Mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal, 46, 350-355.

Hawks, P. (2001). Making distinctions: A discovery of the use of the mother tongue in the foreign classroom. {On-line}. Available: www.geocites.com/college

Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. D. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.

Medgyes, P. (1994). The Non-Native Teacher. London: Macmillan.

Prodromou, L. (2001). From Mother Tongue to Other Tongue. Nyelvi Mérce, 1-2, 92-102.

Richards, C. J.& Rodgers S. T. (1988). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schweers, C. W. (1999). Using L1 in the L2 classroom. Forum, 37, 6-13.

Appendix 1 Teacher’s diary

Lesson 1, E-group, 31.08.2001

Lesson 1, E+H group, 31.08.2001

Lesson 6, E group, 11.09.2001

Lesson 6, E+H group, 11.09.2001

Lesson 14, E-group, 27.09.2001

Lesson 14, E+H group, 27.09.2001

Lesson 40, E group 29.10.2001

Lesson 40, E+H group, 27.10.2001

Lesson 54, E group, 24.01.2002

Lesson 56, E+H group, 24.01.2002.

Appendix 2 Classroom observation- the visits to the lessons of the E and the E+H group 

The outside observer’s, Katalin Brandt’s notes of the lesson of the E group

Observation sheet for E group, 15^th November, 2001

Lesson 34, E group, 15.11.2001 The teacher’s diary

The outside observer’s, Katalin Brandt’s notes of the lesson of the E+H group

Observation sheet for E+H group, 15th November, 2001