iafor
The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning
Volume I – Issue I – Winter 2014

IAFOR Publications
Executive Editor:
Joseph Haldane
The International Academic ForumThe IAFOR Journal of Language Learning
Editor:Ebru Melek Koç, Izmir Institute of Technology, Turkey
Editorial Board:
Brad Blackstone, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Yang Ying, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Laura J. Taylor, Yaşar University, Turkey
José Medina, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain

Published by The International Academic Forum (IAFOR), Japan
Executive Editor: Joseph Haldane
Editorial Assistance: Lindsay Lafreniere
IAFOR Publications. Sakae 1-16-26-201, Naka-ward, Aichi, Japan 460-0008
Journal of Language Learning
Volume I – Issue I – Winter 2014
IAFOR Publications © Copyright 2014
ISSN: 2188-9554
Online: http://iafor.org/iafor/publications/iafor-journals/
iafor-journal-of-language-learning/
Cover image by thaths/Flickr
https://www.flickr.com/photos/thaths/1777143190

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning
Volume I – Issue I – Winter 2014
Edited by Ebru Melek Koç

Table of Contents
Notes on Contributors

1

Introduction
Ebru Melek Koç

3

Evaluating the Effects of Input-based Approaches to
the Teaching of Pragmalinguistics and Sociopragmatics
in Second Language Pragmatics: A Case of English Request Hedges
Masahiro Takimoto

5

Memory Retention in Second Language Acquisition and Instruction:
Insights from Literature and Research
Elvira Sanatullova-Allison

21

Game-Based Tasks for Foreign Language Instruction:
Perspectives on Young Learners' Vocabulary Acquisition
Masoumeh Mehregan

35

Strategies and Problems Encountered by Teachersin Implementing Mother Tongue - Based Instruction
in a Multilingual Classroom
Jane K. Lartec, Anastacia M. Belisario, Jamaica P.
Bendanillo, Hanni K. Binas-o, Novefirst O. Bucang,and Jan Lorie W. Cammagay

47

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Notes on Contributors
Masahiro Takimoto is a professor at College of Science and Engineering at Aoyama
Gakuin University, Kanagawa, Japan. His current research interest is in applying
cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. He has published four
major articles, "The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the developmentof learners’ pragmatic competence” in Modern Language Journal (2008), “Exploring
the effects of input-based treatment and test on the development of learners’
pragmatic proficiency” in Journal of Pragmatics (2009), “The effects of input-basedtasks on the development of learners' pragmatic proficiency” in Applied Linguistics(2009), and “Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics” in Journal of
Pragmatics (2012).
Elvira Sanatullova-Allison is an Associate Professor of Foreign Language/ESOL
Education at Oklahoma State University – Stillwater (U.S.A.). She is a former K-12
language teacher and has been a language teacher educator in the United States for thelast 15 years, having served in various teaching-administrative positions at Concordia
University – Nebraska, the State University of New York – Potsdam, Chatham
University, and St. Lawrence University. She holds a Ph.D. and an M.A. from the
University of Nebraska – Lincoln (U.S.A.) and a B.A. from the Yaroslavl State
Pedagogical University (Russia) and the Uzbekistan State University of World
Languages.
Masoumeh Mehregan holds an MA in TEFL from University of Isfahan, Iran. She iscurrently lecturing at different language institutes and universities in Iran. Her researchinterests are teaching vocabulary and language skills, discourse analysis andpragmatics.
Dr. Jane K. Lartec is the Associate Dean and Professor of the School of Teacher
Education, Saint Louis University, Baguio City, Philippines. Her research focuses on
language, culture, multilingual education, special education, and inclusive education.
She is an active officer of professional organizations in the Philippines for languages
and education. She is a recipient of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Researchat her university for her research publications in international and national refereed
journals.
Anastacia M. Belisario, Jamaica P. Bendanillo, Hanni K. Benas-o, Novefirst O.
Bucang and Jan Lorie W. Camagay are student researchers from the School of
Teacher Education, Saint Louis University, Baguio City, Philippines. They are
students taking up Bachelor of Secondary Education with English as their field ofconcentration.

1

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

2

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Introduction
Ebru Melek Koç, Editor-in-Chief
Dear Colleagues,
It is my pleasure to announce the publication of the first issue of the IAFOR Journalof Language Learning published by the International Academic Forum (IAFOR). The
IAFOR Journal of Language Learning is an open access, peer-reviewed, international
journal. It encourages interdisciplinary research, with the primary focus being on
language learning and its relation to the other academic disciplines such as applied
linguistics, educational technology, sociology, and psychology.
The objective of the IAFOR Journal of Language Learning Journal is to publish upto-date, high-quality research papers; to provide significant contributions to theknowledge and practical application in language learning and teaching; and to provide
a forum for scholars, researchers, language educators within the Asian context as well
as around the world.
The first issue of the journal involves four articles, three of which are research papers
and one review article. The first article focuses on polite requests in English.
Masahiro Takimoto examined the effects of two types of input-based approaches―combination of pragmalinguistics- and sociopragmatics-focused instruction (CI)and sociopragmatics-focused instruction (SI) on learners' recognizing and producing
English request hedges. Since there are only a few studies that have explicitly linked
classroom resources to the effects of sociopragmatics-focused learning on L2
pragmatic competence, the results of this study contribute to our understanding of theeffectiveness and usefulness of the sociopragmatics-focused activities in teaching
English request hedges. In the second article, Elvira Sanatullova-Allison, reviewed
the essential theoretical and empirical research literature that discusses the role ofmemory in second language acquisition and instruction. She examined underlying
issues of memory retention in second language acquisition (e.g., attention andawareness, explicit and implicit language learning and knowledge) and specificinstructional approaches fostering memory retention (e.g., incidental vocabulary
learning, grammar processing instruction, and focus on form method). Masoumeh
Mehregan, investigated the impact of language games on the vocabulary
achievement of Iranian learners. In line with the significance of task-based teaching in
the promotion of language learning and the importance of games for teaching
language to young learners, the present study tackles a fundamental question ofwhether games have any effect on young language learners’ vocabulary learning. The
last research article, which is very interesting, is about Mother Tongue – BasedMultilingual Education (MTB-MLE). Jane K. Lartec, and the co-authors Anastacia
M. Belisario, Jamaica P. Bendanillo, Hanni K. Binas-o, Novefirst O. Bucang, andJan Lorie W. Cammagay, explored the effective strategies of teachers in
implementing the MTB-MLE in a multilingual education and the problems that theyencountered.
This inaugural issue of the journal owes much to many people. First of all, thanks are
due to the members of the editorial board, and the volunteer reviewers, who have3The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

generously contributed their time and expertise. Thanks are also to the IAFOR office
staff for their help and guidance in bringing out this first issue.
Finally, I hope you enjoy reading the articles featured in the first issue of the IAFOR
Journal of Language Learning. We welcome your comments and thoughts andsubmissions which will make a substantial contribution to the development andsuccess of the journal.
Ebru Melek Koç
Editor4

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Evaluating the Effects of Input-based Approaches to the Teaching of
Pragmalinguistics and Sociopragmatics in Second Language Pragmatics:
A Case of English Request Hedges
Masahiro TakimotoCollege of Science and Engineering at Aoyama Gakuin University, Kanagawa, Japan.
Abstract
The present study examined the effects of two types of input-based approaches―combination of pragmalinguistics- and sociopragmatics-focused instruction (CI)and sociopragmatics-focused instruction (SI) on learners' recognizing and producing
English request hedges. 45 Japanese learners of English participated in the study.
Treatment group performance was compared to that of a control group on the pretests, post-tests, and delayed post-tests: an unplanned written-production test, an
unplanned written-judgment test. The results showed that the CI and SI groups
performed significantly better than the control group on an unplanned writtenjudgment test. There were no statistically significant differences between the twotreatment groups on the unplanned written-judgment test, which indicated that thesociopragmatics-focused instruction attracted the attention of the SI group to thesociopragmatic features of English request hedges directly, and the group perhaps
then transferred their attention to the pragmalinguistic features of English request
hedges. As a result, the sociopragmatics-focused activities alone had some effects onrecognizing English request hedges. However, a comparison of those learners in thetwo experimental groups in the unplanned written-production test demonstrated anadvantage for the CI group and implied that the input-based learning through not only
sociopragmatics-focused activities but also pragmalinguistics-sociopragmatics
connection activities contributed more to deep perceptual and mental processing ofEnglish request hedges, thereby resulting in developing more firmly establishedexplicit knowledge.
Keywords: sociopragmatics, input-based, hedge, pragmatics

5

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

1. Introduction
Schmidt (1993) argued that three senses of consciousness (attention, awareness, andintention) are all useful and necessary in second language (L2) learning, and therecent studies in L2 pragmatics within the consciousness-raising instruction
framework have provided empirical support that some forms of consciousness-raising
instruction help learners notice target pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic features(e.g., Alcόn, 2005, 2012; Koike & Pearson, 2005; Martіnez-Flor & Fukuya, 2005).
The term “pragmalinguistics” refers to the knowledge of the strategies for realizing
speech intentions and the linguistic items used to express these intentions, whereas theterm “sociopragmatics” refers to the knowledge of the social conditions governing
language use. (Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1983). The findings of L2 pragmatics suggestthat without a pragmatic emphasis on L2 or foreign language lessons, learners would
not pay attention to or be aware of the target pragmatic features. These studies havemainly been designed to raise learner consciousness of the pragmalinguistic factors oftarget pragmatic features. That is, in the aforementioned studies, the pragmalinguisticfeatures had priority over the sociopragmatic features. However, in regularcommunication, the sociopragmatic factor plays a key role and people first raise theirconsciousness toward the sociopragmatic features and then enhance their awarenessof the pragmalinguistic features, arriving at their own generalization with respect tocontextually appropriate language use. Thus, a key issue here is the extent to which it
is possible for learners to reach their own generalization regarding contextuallysuitable language use based solely on sociopragmatics-focused activities.
1.1. Input-based Studies of L2 Pragmatics
Schmidt (1993) suggested that consciousness as awareness, consciousness asattention, and consciousness as intention play significant roles in language learning.
According to Schmidt, awareness and attention are closely related. In other words,
what we are aware of is what we attend to, and if attention is required for learning,then awareness is also required for learning. The attention- and awareness-oriented
instruction is to some extent linked with input-based explicit/implicit instruction.
Among the interventional studies in the teaching of pragmatics, some have found that
pragmatic features can be taught either explicitly or implicitly together with certain
input-based activities (e.g., Fukuya & Clark, 1999; Rose & Ng, 2001; Takahashi,
2001, 2005; Tateyama, 2001; Tateyama, Kasper, Mui, Tay, & Thananart, 1997). Ellis(2008) suggested that it is the manipulation of input rather than output that is more
likely to result in the integration of intake into learners’ implicit/declarativeknowledge. A review of these limited available attention- and awareness-oriented
input-based L2 studies of pragmatics demonstrates that they were largely motivatedby the theories and frameworks built for consciousness as attention and awareness in
L2 language learning. Thus, the present study is also more motivated by the attentionand awareness-oriented theory and framework and, as such, is interested ininvestigating whether learners’ attention and awareness of sociopragmatic features
alone lead them to successfully reach their own generalization for contextually
appropriate language use.
Thus far, there have been only a few studies that have explicitly linked classroom
resources to the effects of sociopragmatics-focused learning on L2 pragmaticcompetence. Ohta (2001) examined how two adult learners of Japanese as a foreign
language developed the ability to use listener responses in Japanese, in particular

6

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014expressions of acknowledgement and alignment. The analysis indicated the variabilityof the developmental pace of the two learners, but implied that the two learners
followed similar developmental paths moving from expressions of acknowledgement
to alignment. The results also indicated that natural learning through the interaction
activities of the classroom setting is possible. Taguchi (2012) examined, in an
immersion setting, how classroom discourse influenced the development of pragmatic
comprehension and production of learners of Japanese as a foreign language. She
noted that a number of jokes, expressions of sarcasm, and indirect communications
assumed shared context and background knowledge between teachers and learners
and that these opportunities made a contribution to learners’ development of
pragmatic comprehension. The studies by Ohta (2001) and Taguchi (2012) may be
the only existing studies that explicitly relate classroom resources to sociopragmaticsfocused learning of L2 pragmatics through classroom interactions. They disclosed thatsociopragmatics-focused output-based learning is effective and that classroom
interaction contributes to raising learner consciousness toward sociopragmatic factors
first and pragmalinguistic factors of L2 pragmatic features second. While their outputbased studies in sociopragmatics-focused learning are noteworthy, the present study
goes further and examines whether sociopragmatics-focused input-based learning iseffective in developing L2 pragmatic competence.
Among all attention- and awareness-oriented input-based L2 studies of pragmatics,
the studies by Takahashi (2001, 2005) are the only studies that explicitly associateclassroom instruction with sociopragmatics-focused input-based L2 pragmatics
learning outcomes. Takahashi (2001, 2005) examined the effectiveness of four typesof input enhancement conditions for Japanese learners regarding the acquisition ofpolite request strategies and the results of discourse completion tests and self-reports
indicated that the explicit group learned all of the request strategies more successfully
than the other three groups, but she found that some of the participants in the explicit
teaching condition and the form-comparison condition used non-target forms in the
discourse completion tests and were inclined to use the phrase I wonder if you could
VP predominantly across all situations, regardless of degree of imposition. This
indicated no clear evidence of developing sociopragmatic competence and attested to
the necessity of developing not only pragmalinguistic but also sociopragmaticcompetence. This leads to the debate as to what sort of input-based approach is mostappropriate for allowing learners to quickly and efficiently access and integratesociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge.
To date, only a small number of studies have compared the effects of the combinationof pragmalinguistics- and sociopragmatics-focused input-based instruction withsociopragmatics-focused input-based instruction on recognizing and producing L2
pragmatic features. For this reason, there is no conclusive evidence in the literature as
to whether sociopragmatics-focused input-based learning is effective in L2 pragmatics
learning. The present study aims to explore the effects of sociopragmatics-focused
input-based learning on recognizing and producing English polite requests. The
following research question is investigated in the present study:
What are the effects of sociopragmatics-focused input-based instruction onrecognizing and producing English polite requests?

7

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

2. Methodology
2.1. Participants
Forty-five university students in three intact classes (three sophomore listening
comprehension classes) at a university in Japan participated in the present study. The
participants were non-English majors, studying in the College of Science andEngineering, who did not know that English hedges were the target features of thestudy. The participants’ English proficiency level was assessed to be at theintermediate level, as defined by a TOEIC score between 500 and 700. The threeintact classes were randomly assigned to two treatment groups and one control group.
The two treatment groups received the following input-based instructional treatments:a combination of pragmalinguistics- and sociopragmatics-focused instruction (CI) (n= 15: female = 0, male = 15) and sociopragmatics-focused instruction (SI) (n = 15:
female = 1, male = 14). The control group consisted of 15 participants (n = 15: female= 3, male = 12). The participants’ first language was Japanese, and their average age
was 20 years. All participants studied English for eight years at schools in Japan, andthe results of a pre-test indicated that they had not learned any target pragmaticfeatures.
2.2. Target Structure
Finding the fact that Japanese EFL learners tended to use the mono-clausal English
request forms (e.g., Would/Could you VP?) when bi-clausal request forms (e.g.,
Would it be possible to VP?) were more appropriate, Takahashi (1996, 2001, 2005)
explained that Japanese EFL learners lack the L2 pragmalinguistic knowledge that an
English request can be mitigated by embedding one clause within another clause. In
addition, Hill (1997) discovered that even though the proficiency of Japanese EFL
learners increased, they continued to under-use clausal hedges, lexical hedges, andsyntactic hedges (past tense and progressive form). Hedges belong to the subcategoryof mitigation, which is a strategy for softening or reducing the strength of a speech act
whose effects are “unwelcome to the hearer” by trying to make the act more palatable(Fraser, 1980).
Hill (1997) concluded that the under-use of those hedges attributed to L1 interference
because those structures are not available in the Japanese language. Thus, the focus of
the present study is on teaching lexical/clausal hedges and syntactic hedges in English
request forms.
Lexical/clausal modal hedges soften the difficulty that the speaker experiences whenasking the hearer to perform a request by modifying the request form lexically or
clausally, whereas syntactic hedges modify the Head Act syntactically by mitigating
the level of difficulty that the speaker experiences when asking the hearer to performa request through syntactic choices3. Takahashi (1996) argued that there are three
types of clausal modal hedges: “(a) mitigated-preparatory questions (the speaker asksa question concerning preparatory conditions or poses a permission question byembedding it within another clause), (b) mitigated-preparatory statements (thespeaker states a preparatory condition by embedding it within another clause), and (c)mitigated-want statements (the speaker states his or her want or wish that the hearer
will perform the action in a hypothetical situation)” (p. 220). A list of hedges used in
the present study is presented in Table 1.

8

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Table 1
List of hedges used in the present study
Syntactic hedges
Progressive form

ExamplesI am wondering if you could lend me abook.
I was wondering if you could come.

Past tense
Lexical and clausal hedges 	  	 Modal adverbs
Mitigated-preparatory questions
Mitigated-preparatory statements
Mitigated-want statements
here.

ExamplesCould you possibly come here?
Would it be possible to come here?
I wonder if you could come here.
I would appreciate it if you could come	 In the dialogues and situations included in the instructional and testing materials,
three variables were carefully controlled: (a) power (the status of the speaker withrespect to the hearer), (b) distance between actors (the relationship between the
speaker and the hearer), and (c) imposition level of the request (the difficulty that the
speaker experiences when asking the hearer to perform the request). These threevariables were chosen because in cross-cultural pragmatics, they are viewed as thethree independent and culturally sensitive variables that subsume all other variables
and play an important role in speech act behavior (Brown & Levinson, 1987).
2.3. Instructional Treatments
Each teaching session for the two treatment groups and the control group lasted 20
minutes, and the instructor presented all directions in Japanese during each teachingsession. Teaching sessions were conducted by the same instructor once a week forfour weeks in three intact classes at a university in Japan. The instructor was also theresearcher.1 No extra activities or explicit metapragmatic explanations containing thetarget pragmatic features were given during teaching sessions. Special care was taken
to ensure that all groups spent equal amounts of time (20 minutes) on activities andthat they received equal amounts of exposure to the target pragmatic features.
2.3.1. Pragmalinguistics- and sociopragmatics-focused instruction (CI). The
experimental treatment for the CI is composed of three tasks.
Task 1: Pragmalinguistics-focused activities (5 minutes). The participants read eachsituation and dialogue in their handouts and then listened to them. The target
pragmatic features were highlighted and boldfaced. The participants were asked tocopy the underlined requests in two dialogues and compare the underlined request
forms in the two dialogues. They were then required to find the differences between
the two requests.

9

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Task 2: Sociopragmatics-focused activities (10 minutes). The participants were
instructed to rate the closeness between the two characters and the difficulty level ofthe request in the two dialogues.
Task 3: Pragmalinguistics-sociopragmatics connection activity 1(5 minutes). The
participants were asked to rate the level of politeness of the requests in the two
dialogues and write a list of ways the requests could be made more polite.
2.3.2. Sociopragmatics-focused instruction (SI). The experimental treatment for the
SI consists of two tasks.
Task 1: Reading and processing for meaning activities (10 minutes). The participants
read the same situation and dialogue for general understanding in their handouts as
the ones included in the handouts for the CI, and they then listened to them. The
target pragmatic features were neither highlighted nor boldfaced.
Task 2: Sociopragmatics-focused activities (10 minutes). The participants were
instructed to rate the closeness between the two characters and the difficulty level ofthe requests in the two dialogues.
2.3.3. Control group. Lessons for the control group were designed to help participantslearn new English words and phrases. The participants in the control group watched ashort English video for 10 minutes and were taught about words and phrases used in
the video by the instructor. The participants were not exposed to any target pragmaticfeatures through the video and were not taught about any target pragmatic featuresduring the lessons.
2.4. Testing Instruments and Procedures
The present study adopts a pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test methodology toevaluate the effectiveness of the instructional treatments. The pre-test wasadministered a week prior to the first instructional treatments, the post-test was givena week after the treatments, and the delayed post-test was administered four weeks
after the treatments to determine the long-term effects of the treatments. Each test wascomposed of a discourse completion test (an unplanned output-based test) and an
acceptability judgment test (an unplanned input-based test) because Hudson, Detmer,
and Brown (1995) suggested the necessity of multiple modalities in the testing
instruments in order to investigate variability of learners performance based on datacollection methods. The DCT is adopted because Kasper (2000) argued that the DCT
is an effective data collection strategy when the purpose of the study is to inform
about learners’ pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge of the target
pragmatic expressions studied in class, even though the DCT does not produce
naturally occurring conversational data. The test items do not overlap with thetreatment materials.
The study targeted situations with a high level of imposition combined with powerand distance because English request hedges tend to be used in situations with a highlevel of Imposition (Hill, 1997; Hudson, Detmer, & Brown, 1995; Takahashi, 2001).
The situations with high levels of imposition were modified from those validated byHill (1997), Hudson, Detmer, and Brown (1995) and Takahashi (2001). Three

10

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

versions of the discourse completion test and the acceptability judgment test weredeveloped and employed to minimize test-learning effect. 2
2.4.1. Discourse completion test (DCT). The discourse completion test was an
unplanned written-production test that required the participants to read short
descriptions of each situation in English and write what they would say in eachsituation in English. The appropriateness of the request forms was evaluated on a 1- to
5-point Likert scale. A request that reflected the most appropriate use of request
hedges was awarded five points. For example, for a high imposition item, one point
was awarded for Please ~, two points for Can you ~, three points for Could you ~,four points for Is it possible for you ~ , and five points for I was just wondering if itwould be possible for you to ~. The more appropriate the syntactic and lexical hedges
the participants used in their requests, the higher the scores they obtained. As there
were 10 high imposition items on the test, the maximum score was 50 points.
2.4.2. Acceptability judgment test (AJT). The acceptability judgment test was an
unplanned written-judgment test that required the participants to read written
descriptions of each situation in English and then evaluate three isolated requests on
an 11-point scale3, one at a time, in a 10-minute period. The participants who
evaluated the three requests in accordance with the acceptability judgment of native
English speakers4 were awarded five points. The participants who did not assess all
three requests consistent with native English speakers were awarded zero points. As
there were 10 high imposition items on the test, the maximum score was 50 points.
3. Results
With respect to internal consistency, average Cronbach alpha reliability estimates forthe discourse completion test and acceptability judgment test were calculated to be.841 and .837, respectively, indicating fairly high internal consistency for the two
tests.
Content validity rather than criterion and construct validity was assessed because of
the small number of cases. To ensure content validity, situations of the two tests were
carefully planned and matched to a theoretical framework based on imposition, powerand distance variables as follows:
Table 2Distribution of Variables (Version A for the DCT and AJT)
S4
I +
P ±
D +

S6
+
±
+

S10
+
±
+

S18
+
±
+

S2
+
–
+

S8
+
–
+

S12
+
–
+

S14
+
–
+

S16
+
–
+

S20
+
–
+

S1
–
±
–

S3
–
±
–

S5
–
±
–

Note: S = Situation; I = Imposition; P = Power; D = Distance+ = More; – = Less; ± = Equal

11

S11
–
±
–

S13
–
±
–

S7
–
+
–

S9
–
+
–

S15
–
+
–

S17
–
+
–

S19
–
+
–

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

The normality assumption was verified through SPSS, which did not show a violationof the normality assumption. The following section summarizes the results for the
discourse completion test and the acceptability judgment test. The overall alpha level
was set at .05.
Results from the discourse completion test. The results of a two-way ANOVA withrepeated-measures showed a significant main effect for instruction (the CI, SI, andcontrol), F (2, 42) = 18.46, p = .000 < .05, Eta2 = .976 and a significant main effectfor time (the pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test), F (2, 42) = 3.19, p = .046 < .05,
Eta2 = .071. However, no significant interaction effect between instruction and time
was found, F (4, 42) = 3.49, p = .142 < .05, Eta2 = .142. The post-hoc Scheffé tests
for the main effect of treatment indicate the following contrasts: (a) the
pragmalinguistics- and sociopragmatics-focused instruction (CI) group performed
significantly better than the sociopragmatics-focused instruction (SI) group and thecontrol group; (b) there were no statistically significant differences between thesociopragmatics-focused instruction (SI) group and the control group. Results of theone-way ANOVA analysis in Figure 1 and Table 2 disclose that, although there wereno statistically significant differences between the three groups on the pre-test scores[F (2, 42) = 1.54, p = .226 > .05, Eta2 = .068], the two treatment groups indicatedgains from the pre-test to the post-test, and the pragmalinguistics- andsociopragmatics-focused instruction (CI) group demonstrated further gains from thetime of the post-test to the delayed post-test test, whereas the sociopragmatics-focused
instruction (SI) group demonstrated losses from the time of the post-test to thedelayed post-test.

12

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Figure 1. Interaction plot for DCT
Note: CI= Pragmalinguistics- and Sociopragmatics-focused instruction; SI=
Sociopragmatics-focused instruction.
Table 3
Descriptive statistics for DCT
Treatment
Pre-test
CI
SI
Control
Post-testCI
SI
Control
Delayed postCI
test
SI
Control

Score
50
50
50
50
50
50
50

Mean
30.80
26.07
26.53
31.20
28.40
20.87
32.80

SD
10.80
7.45
5.18
12.27
5.88
1.19
7.99

50
50

20.20
19.73

0.86
1.33

Note: CI= Pragmalinguistics- and Sociopragmatics-focused instruction; SI=
Sociopragmatics-focused instruction.
Results from Acceptability Judgment Test (AJT). The results of a two-way repeatedmeasures ANOVA for the acceptability judgment test revealed a significant main
effect for instruction, (the CI, SI, and control), F (2, 42) = 6.78, p = .003 < .05, Eta2 =.244, a significant main effect for time (the pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test),
F (2, 42) = 21.56, p = .000 < .05, Eta2 = .339, and a significant interaction effectbetween instruction and time, F (4, 42) = 7.12, p = .000 < .05, Eta2 = .253. The posthoc Scheffé tests for the main effect of treatment show the following contrasts: (a) the
pragmalinguistics- and sociopragmatics-focused (CI) and the sociopragmaticsfocused instruction (SI) groups performed significantly better than the control groupon the post-test and delayed post-test test; (b) there were no statistically significant
differences between the pragmalinguistics- and sociopragmatics-focused instruction(CI) and the sociopragmatics-focused instruction (SI) groups on the post-test and thedelayed post-test. The results displayed in Figure 2 and Table 3 demonstrate that
although there were no statistically significant differences between the three groups ina one-way ANOVA analysis of the pre-test scores, [F (2, 42) = .17, p = .847 > .05,
Eta2 = .008], the two treatment groups made significant gains from the pre-test to thepost-test, F (1, 28) = 44.92, p = .000 < .05, Eta2 = .616, and the positive effects forthe two treatments between the post-test and the delayed post-test were maintained, F(1, 28) = 2.29, p = .141 > .05, Eta2 = .076, as evidenced by results from a two-way
ANOVA with repeated-measures.

13

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Figure 2. Interaction plot for AJT
Note: CI= Pragmalinguistics- and Sociopragmatics-focused instruction; SI=
Sociopragmatics-focused instruction.
Table 4
Descriptive statistics for AJT

Pre-test
Post-test
Delayed posttest

Treatment
CI
SI
Control
CI
SI
Control
CI

Score
50
50
50
50
50
50
50

Mean
2.67
2.67
3.67
24.67
18.67
2.33
19.00

SD
7.76
3.72
3.99
18.27
15.06
3.72
16.71

SI
Control

50
50

16.67
2.33

21.10
3.72

Note: CI= Pragmalinguistics- and Sociopragmatics-focused instruction; SI=
Sociopragmatics-focused instruction.

14

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

4. Discussion
The results indicate that the two treatment groups performed significantly better thanthe control group as measured by the acceptability judgment test. However, the results
also demonstrate that the CI group exhibited more statistically significant
improvement than the SI group in the discourse completion test, whereas nodifference was evident on the acceptability judgment test.
As no information regarding the psycholinguistic processing involved in either thetwo types of treatments or the testing instruments are available, any explanations to
the research question must be speculative and explanatory in nature. During the CI
and SI treatments, the participants in both treatment groups seem to have noticed bythemselves the target pragmatic features by paying attention to and becoming awareof not only the relationship between the forms and meanings of the target features but
also the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic features of English request hedges, afinding that is consistent with Hyland’s (1998) argument that learners must identify
hedging items and appreciate the circumstances under which they can be usedappropriately for the purpose of being able to use hedges appropriately. With respect
to the CI treatment group, the participants engaged in the three types of activities - thepragmalinguistics-focused activities, sociopragmatics-focused activities, and thepragmalinguistics-sociopragmatics connection activities. Craik (2002) claimed thatthe quality of a memory trace relies on the level or depth of perceptual and mental
processing where meanings and forms are linked. Meaning, in this case, encompasses
both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic meaning. In other words, when theparticipants focused more on the pragmalinguistic-sociopragmatic connections of thetarget features, they are inclined to heighten their consciousness of pragmalinguistic
and sociopragmatic meaning. The pragmalinguistics-sociopragmatics connection
activities in the CI treatment were designed to require the participants to access andintegrate their pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic factors of English request hedges.
Thus, it is likely that the pragmalinguistics-sociopragmatics connection activities
raised greater consciousness of processing pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic
meaning, thereby resulting in improved pragmatic competence.
On the other hand, the participants in the SI group engaged in the two types of activity- the reading and processing for meaning activities and the sociopragmatics-focused
activities. However, they did not work on the pragmalinguistics-focused andpragmalinguistics-sociopragmatics connection activities. Nonetheless, the participantsin the SI group performed as well as the CI group in the acceptability judgment test.
This suggests that the sociopragmatics-focused activities in the SI treatment focused
the attention of the participants on the sociopragmatic features of the target pragmatic
expressions directly, and the participants perhaps then transferred their interests andattention to the pragmalinguistic features, thereby guiding them to connect thepragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic features. Accordingly, in view of the results of
the acceptability judgment test, the sociopragmatics-focused activities alone within
the SI treatment appear to be effective. Furthermore, the treatments in the twotreatment groups were repeated in view of Sharwood Smith’s (1993) suggestion that
initial enhancement becomes more effective through repeated exposure as it guides
the participants to have more opportunities to analyze discrete features and derive
rules, thus internalizing the features in their systems.

15

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

The question now arises as to why the SI group did not perform as well as the CI
group on the discourse completion test while no difference was observed in theacceptability judgment test. First, this is likely owing to the different types ofactivities. The participants in the CI group engaged in the pragmalinguistics- andsociopragmatics-focused activities, whereas their counterparts in the SI groupengaged in only the sociopragmatics-focused activities. It is natural to think that thepragmalinguistics- and sociopragmatics-focused activities in the CI treatment directed
the participants’ attention to and made them more aware of the specific relevant
linguistic forms, functional meanings, and relevant contextual features. Therefore, it
is reasonable to assume that the participants in the CI group attended to thepragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic resources of English request hedges more
intensively than their counterparts in the SI group, thereby developing explicit
knowledge that was more firmly embedded and thus more easily and rapidly accessedon the discourse completion test.
Second, the present study speculates that the disadvantage of the SI treatment may berelated to how strongly established the participants’ explicit knowledge is. The
participants in the SI group were able to address the acceptability judgment test, an
unplanned written-judgment test because the test required only judgment andrelatively lower demands than a production test. However, the SI group was not able
to cope with the discourse completion test, an unplanned written-production test to thesame extent as the CI group because their working memories were weighted downwith the higher demands of the test, which made it difficult for them to access theirmore weakly entrenched explicit knowledge. Ellis (2008) suggested that the terms
explicit/implicit label the type of knowledge learners have according to whether it isconscious or intuitive, whereas the terms declarative/procedural address the degree ofcontrol the learners have over their explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge. Ellis(2008) further explained that procedural explicit knowledge refers to the conscious
knowledge or explicit knowledge of L2 items that can be accessed relatively easily
and rapidly and which can be used for production, whereas the declarative explicit
knowledge refers to the conscious knowledge or explicit knowledge of L2 items thatare accessed more slowly. Therefore, it can be surmised that explicit knowledge
formed through the CI treatment is procedural, whereas explicit knowledge
established through the SI treatment is declarative.
The results of the present study are different from those of Takahashi (2001, 2005)
with regard to the fact that the present study found evidence of learners acquiringsociopragmatic competence. The most apparent causal factor for this distinction may
be attributable to the focus of activities in which the participants in the present study
engaged. Both studies examined instructional approaches for Japanese learners
acquiring English polite request strategies from the input-based perspective. However,
the instructional approach in Takahashi’s studies focused more on pragmalinguistics,
whereas the sociopragmatics-focused activities in the present study emphasizedsociopragmatics. Takahashi (2001, 2005) reported no clear evidence of developing
sociopragmatic competence among some participants and attested to the essentialityof encouraging learners to engage in not only pragmalinguistics-focused activities but
also sociopragmatics-focused activities. Rose (2005) suggested that sociopragmatics
is frequently an area of difficulty for language learners. Thus, it could be
hypothesized that the sociopragmatics-focused activities rather than the16The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

pragmalinguistics-focused activities may have helped the participants grasp difficult
sociopragmatic features and then directed their attentions to pragmalinguistic features.
5. Conclusion
The present study investigated the relative effects of two types of input-based
approaches on recognizing and producing English request hedges. The results showthat the pragmalinguistics- and sociopragmatics-focused instruction involving theprocessing of English request hedges through pragmalinguistic-sociopragmaticconnections has a stronger impact on the recognition and production of English
request hedges. In addition, the results also indicate that sociopragmatics-focused
instruction is effective on the unplanned written-judgment test only if learners areable to attend to and become aware of both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic
resources of English request hedges.
One pedagogical implication for teachers, then, is that teachers should be aware that
effective input-based instruction can occur when the tasks provide learners with
opportunities for processing both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic features of thetarget structures. Furthermore, it is advisable for the task to be repeated so that theconnections between pragmalinguistic-sociopragmatic factors of target features are
significantly reinforced. Such tasks may prove of great value in improving learners’
L2 pragmatic competence.
One major limitation of the present study, which involves the selection of testing
instruments, should be taken into consideration in future research. The present study
adopted the discourse completion test, which is a non-interactive instrument that does
not produce natural conversational data. Accordingly, as the discourse completion test
is limited as a testing instrument for assessing the participants’ pragmalinguistic andsociopragmatic knowledge for English request hedges, the data from the discourse
completion test in the present study led us to discover only what the participants
noticed. A natural interactive testing instrument would have allowed us to better
determine more about what the participants are actually capable of doing. In addition,
the evaluation questionnaire or interview should be administered to supplement thepresent study qualitatively to consider whether the aims of the instructional treatments
had been achieved and how the instructions could be improved for future use.
Despite the shortcoming, the present study contributes to our understanding of theeffectiveness and usefulness of the sociopragmatics-focused activities in teaching
English request hedges. However, more research is needed to confirm the outcome ofthe present study, especially the effects of teaching sociopragmatics in L2 pragmatics.
Issues regarding the effectiveness of teaching sociopragmatics in L2 pragmatics havegenerated more questions than answers in terms of optimal instructional approaches
for pragmatic development. Nevertheless, going through the unique challenges andopportunities to determine the real nature of effectiveness and usefulness of teachingsociopragmatics in L2 pragmatics will definitely be rewarding and certainly serve toexpand future scholarship not only in the area of interlanguage pragmatics but also in
the wider field of applied linguistics.

17

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Notes
1

In behavioral research, researcher expectancy can be a problem when the researcher
teaches and selects experimental groups. The researcher followed the instructionalguidelines rigidly controlled for the effect with the double-blind technique after thedata were collected to minimize any researcher expectancy effect during thetreatments.

2

If the study begins with the pre-test, the test with the same items can influence
performance on the post-test and follow-up tests. To minimize the influence, three
versions of the instruments were developed.

3

The acceptability judgment test used an 11-point Likert scale. According to Hatch
and Lazarton (1991), a broader range in scale encourages more precision in
respondents’ judgments.
4

Ten native speakers provided three isolated requests in each situation. Ten native
speakers of English were required to read written English descriptions of 20
situations. They were asked to write what they would say in each situation, and they
were then presented with a series of isolated requests and instructed to score the first
request on an 11-point scale and then to score subsequent responses proportionallyhigher or lower in accordance with the degree of perceived acceptability. The native
speakers’ data were relatively uniform and consistent (SD = .82 ~ 1.08, range = 2.00
~ 4.00). These data were used as the baseline data for the DCT and AJT.

18

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

ReferencesAlcόn, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context?
System, 33(3), 417-435.
Alcόn, E. (2012). Teachability and bilingualism effects on third language learners’
pragmatic knowledge. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9(4), 511-541.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universal in language usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Craik, F. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present and future? Memory. 10, 305318.
Ellis, R. (2008). Study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Fraser, B. (1980). Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(4), 341-350.
Fukuya, Y., & Clark, M. (1999). Input enhancement of mitigators. In Bouton, L (Ed.),
Pragmatics and language learning, monograph series 10 (pp. 111-130).
Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics forapplied linguistics. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Hill, T. (1997). The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Temple University, Japan.
Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. (1995). Developing prototypic measures ofcross-cultural pragmatics (Technical Report #7). Honolulu, HI: University of
Hawai‘i Press.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatic research. In H. Spencer-Oatey, (Ed.),
Culturally speaking (pp. 316-341). New York: Continuum.
Koike, D., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in thedevelopment of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481-501.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Martіnez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’
production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33(3), 463-480.
Ohta, A. (2001). A longitudinal study of the development of expression of alignment
in Japanese as a foreign language. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics
in language teaching (pp. 103-120). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System,
33(3), 417-435.
Rose, K., & Ng, C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments andcompliment responses. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics inlanguage teaching (pp. 145-170). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In G.
Kasper & S. Blum-Kulk (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). Oxford
University Press, New York.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165-179.
Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences, and pragmatic development.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 18(2), 225-252.

19

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing interlanguage
pragmatic competence. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics inlanguage teaching (pp. 171-199). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Takahashi, S. (2005). Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: A
qualitiative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics.
System, 33(3), 437-461.
Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanesesumimasen. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching(pp. 200-222). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L., Tay, H., & Thananart, O. (1997). Explicit andimplicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics andlanguage learning, monograph series 8 (pp. 163-178). Urbana-Champaign,
IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.

20

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Memory Retention in Second Language Acquisition and Instruction:
Insights from Literature and Research
Elvira Sanatullova-Allison
Foreign Language/ESOL Education,School of Teaching and Curriculum LeadershipCollege of Education,Oklahoma State University, U.S.A., elvira.allison@okstate.edu
Abstract
This article reviews some essential theoretical and empirical research literature that
discusses the role of memory in second language acquisition and instruction. Twomodels of literature review – thematic and study-by-study – were used to analyze andsynthesize the existing research. First, issues of memory retention in second language
acquisition (e.g., attention and awareness, explicit and implicit language learning andknowledge) are investigated. Second, instructional approaches conducive to memory
retention in second language acquisition (e.g., incidental vocabulary learning,grammar processing instruction, focus on form method) are examined. Additionally,
created by the author with the Inspiration software program, a literature map of thereviewed and additional research related to the topic is presented in the Appendix forreader’s reference.
Keywords: memory, memory retention, second language acquisition, second
language instruction

21

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Introduction
This article presents a review of some essential theoretical and empirical research
literature that discusses the role of memory in human learning, in general, and insecond language acquisition and instruction, in particular. I used two models ofliterature review – thematic and study-by-study – to analyze and synthesize theexisting research on the topic. I start with an investigation of underlying issues related
to memory retention in second language acquisition and proceed with an examinationof specific instructional approaches conducive to memory retention in the context of
second language learning. To provide a visual summary of the reviewed andadditional research, I created a literature map with the Inspiration software program,which is included in the Appendix 1.
Memory Retention in Second Language Acquisition
In this section, I provide an overview of related theoretical and empirical research by
first examining the fundamentals of human learning and memory and, second, byinvestigating the issues of memory retention directly associated with second language
acquisition.
Fundamentals of Human Learning and Memory
Houston (2001) analyzed the basis of human learning and memory presented intheoretical and experimental psychological research. According to Houston, retention
processes cannot be separated from the acquisition and transfer parts of the entire
learning process defined as “a relatively permanent change in behavior potentialitythat occurs as a result of reinforced practice” (2001, p. 4). All of these processes areinterconnected and distinctions among them are somewhat arbitrary.
The information-processing approach to memory is based on the separate-storage
model and the levels-of-processing approach. In the separate-storage model, theindividual is seen as an information-processing system. Once an item is perceived, it
enters primary memory (PM) with short-term storage. Rehearsal is necessary for theitem to remain in PM and, if rehearsal is long enough, the item may enter secondary
memory (SM), which is long-term storage. Bruning, Schraw, and Ronning (1999)
state that metacognition, the knowledge people have about their own thoughtprocesses, guides the flow of information through the three consecutive memory
systems: sensory memory, short-term memory, and long-term memory. Long-term
memory is made of declarative and procedural knowledge: the former is theknowledge about facts and the latter is the knowledge about how to perform tasks.
Houston (2001) argues that in the levels-of-processing approach, “the durability of amemory trace is determined by the depth to which it is processed” (p. 270). Semanticnetwork models of memory deal with the storage of semantic, meaningful material.
According to this model, knowledge is stored through multiple interconnectedassociations, relationships, or pathways (Houston, 2001). The issue of the distinction
between long-term versus short-term memory, recall versus recognition, episodic
versus semantic memory, automatic versus controlled processing, contextual cues andstate-dependent memory are some of the essential issues in memory retention.
Research shows that the processes of organizing to-be-remembered information
improve retention. For instance, chunking, word associations, recall by category,

22

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

stimulus or cue selection, verbal and visual coding, use of pictures and mnemonics
can improve memory through organization, elaboration, and imagery. Language
enables humans to retain information and communicate in highly sophisticated ways.
The psycholinguistic approach to language argues that language usage is genetically
based and involves hypothesis testing as well as creative thinking. Word storage isthought of in terms of the principles of semantic-network models such as hierarchies,matrices, feature comparisons, and spreading activation. According to the principles
of Chomsky’s transformational grammar, by applying different transformations to the
deep-structure content (the meaning of a sentence), humans can develop different
surface structures (organization of words) to express the same ideas.
Now, I turn to the analysis of the issues of memory retention directly concerning
second language acquisition, such as types of memory, awareness and attention, andimplicit and explicit language learning and knowledge.
Memory in Second Language Learning
Ellis (2001) described the types of memory used in second language learning. He
proposed a Working Memory (WM) Model, in which a Supervisory Attentional
System (SAS) regulates information flow within the working memory. Ellis applied aconstructivist approach to second language acquisition, which holds that generalprocesses of human inductive reasoning lead to language learning. “There is no
language acquisition device specifiable in terms of linguistic universals, principles
and parameters, or language-specific learning mechanisms” (Ellis, 2001, p. 38). Bates,
Thal, and Marchman, as referenced by Ellis (2001), found that “learners’ language
comes not directly from their genes, but rather from the structure of adult language,
and from the constraints on communication inherent in expressing non-linear
cognition into the linear channel provided by the human vocal-auditory apparatus” (p.
38). Chunking is a major principle of human cognition. Its essence, which is bringing
together a set of already formed chunks in memory and welding them together into alarger unit, represents a fundamental associative learning process occurring in all
representational systems.
Attention and AwarenessAttention and awareness seem to play a major role in understanding language learningand retention. How do attention and awareness affect learning and retention?
Schmidt (2001) stressed that attention is necessary in order to understand every aspectof second language acquisition. If there can be learning without attention, thenunattended learning is possible. However, its relevance and scope seem to be limited
for second language acquisition. Attended learning is far superior, and is also
important and necessary for practical purposes in second language learning.
Preparatory attention and voluntary orienting vastly improve encoding. Intentionallyfocused attention may be a practical necessity for successful language learning.
Passive approaches to learning are likely to be taken by slow and unsuccessful
language learners. A sole reliance on reading and listening for vocabulary learning isvery inefficient. To choose between the encoding specificity hypothesis and the global
attention hypothesis, Schmidt (2001) argues that attention must be specificallydirected to a particular learning domain and not just global. Noticing, or relatively

23

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

concrete input data, is the interface between the input and the developing of language
system.
Implicit and Explicit Language Learning and Knowledge
The question of how implicit and explicit language learning and knowledge occur
enables a better understanding of the nature of language learning and retention.
Definitions. N. Ellis (1994a) pointed out that implicit learning is the acquisition ofknowledge about the underlying structure of a complex stimulus environment by aprocess which takes place naturally, simply, and without conscious operations. In
contrast, explicit learning is a more conscious operation where the individual makes
and tests hypotheses in a search for structure.
Nature of implicit learning. Winter and Reber (1994) defined implicit learning as a“generalized, domain-free inductive process that derives information about patterned
relationships in the stimulus environment, and represents these relationships in an
abstract and tacit form” (p. 117). Presented with complexly structured sequences ofstimuli of an artificial grammar, subjects are asked to memorize them. The crucial
issue is not “to establish that no participation of consciousness is possible, but onlythat conscious knowledge as assessed by available indicators is insufficient to accountfor the subjects’ performance on a given task” (p. 130). Knowledge from implicit
learning is at least partly tacit (implicit) and unavailable to conscious introspection.
From an evolutionary perspective, the primacy of the implicit in unconscious
processes encompasses the fundamental primary cognitive faculties that serve as thefoundation for conscious capabilities. A generalized process of induction that isessentially content free is given innately. The process specific approach is contrary to
the Chomskyan content specific approach that supposes an innate structure oflanguage.
Role of explicit knowledge. R. Ellis (1994) described the theory of instructedlanguage learning, the goal of which is to explain how instructed learners develop theability to use their linguistic and pragmatic knowledge in their production of correct
and appropriate sentences. If the acquisition of explicit knowledge involves
memorization, problem-solving, and inductive and deductive teaching approaches, theinput can become implicit knowledge when the learner carries out noticing (paying
attention to specific linguistic features in the input), comparing (comparing thenoticed features with the features the learner typically produces in output), andintegrating (constructing new hypotheses in order to incorporate the noticed features
into the interlanguage system). The process of developing implicit knowledge also has
two stages: first, input becomes intake through the operations of noticing andcomparing, and second, intake becomes part of the learner’s interlanguage system.
“Intake occurs when learners take features into their short or medium term memories,
whereas interlanguage change occurs only when they become part of long-term
memory” (p. 93). Although adult learners benefit more than children do from explicit
knowledge, explicit knowledge cannot substitute for implicit knowledge: “Ultimately,
the success in L2 learning depends on implicit knowledge” (p. 97). Even thoughpractice is the principle means of developing both types of knowledge, the forms ofpractice are different. Implicit knowledge becomes automatic by using corrective
action, retrials, continual communicative practice, and confronting the mismatch

24

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

between flawed and model performance. The automatization of explicit knowledge
may be attained through controlled and constant grammar practice activities.
Achievement of automatization allows the learner to release attention for thecontrolled processing of new L2 forms. The learner’s knowledge of the world and L1
are other types of knowledge that contribute to instructed and naturalistic second
language acquisition.
Contrary to the input and interaction hypothesis, it is not comprehension of input per
se that leads to learning, but rather a lack of comprehension and a gap in knowledge
leading to mis- or non-understanding that aids learning: “Learning becomes possible
when the learner admits responsibility for the problem and so is forced to pay close
attention to the input” (Ellis, 1994, p. 103). In conclusion, not all input becomesintake. Explicit knowledge plays a central role in language pedagogy and formal
instruction contributes primarily to explicit knowledge which can facilitate later
implicit knowledge. Since automatizing their existing knowledge may interfere withacquiring new knowledge, learners will need to choose whether to process to achievecommunication or to acquire knowledge.
Ellis (1994b) reviewed research to determine which human cognitive capabilities are
acquired implicitly and which are learned explicitly. By reviewing implicit,
incidental, and explicit vocabulary learning hypotheses, Ellis cited Jensen who said
that “the crucial variable in vocabulary size is not exposure per se, but conceptual
need and inference of meaning from context, which are forms of education. Hence,
vocabulary is a good index of (academic) intelligence” (p. 220). Also, Stenberg, as
cited by Ellis, added: “…simply reading a lot does not guarantee a high vocabulary.
What seems to be critical…is what one has been able to learn from, and do with, thatexperience” (p. 219). Although interrelated, input and output processing abilities do
not correlate highly with either cognitive mediational components or intelligence.
Repetition priming with the use of lexical decision, word identification, and word
stem completion tests are the main techniques for studying implicit memory. Imagery
mediation using keywords methods, semantic mediation, and metalinguistic strategies
for inferencing and remembering are explicit, deep processing, and mediational
strategies in L2 vocabulary learning. To conclude, while naturalistic settings provide
learners with exposure and motivation and reading for implicit acquisition oforthography, explicit, deep, and elaborative processing of semantic andconceptual/imaginal representations through explicit inferencing from context
enhances memory retention of the multiple meanings of vocabulary.
Tasks and rules. Robinson (1996) examined if complex rules can only be learned
implicitly whereas conscious explicit learning is effective when the rules are simple
and salient to the learner. The study involved 104 intermediate adult English language
learners in Hawaii, who were native speakers of Asian languages. The results
indicated that the implicit and incidental conditions were not superior to the rulesearch and instructed conditions in accuracy or speed of performance on complex
rules. Participants’ responses to simple rule sentences were significantly faster thanresponses to complex rule sentences in all conditions.

25

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Second Language Instruction for Memory Retention
In this section, I review relevant research literature pertaining to two sets of issues:learning and teaching principles that improve second language acquisition andinstructional approaches that enhance memory retention in second language learning.
Learning and Teaching Principles
The literature highlights the following principles in regard to effective second
language learning and teaching: intentional versus nonintentional learning, sentence
processing, task-based instruction, and task-induced involvement construct.
Incidental versus intentional learning. Hulstijn (2001) noted that the majority of L2
learners have to learn a large amount of vocabulary. Is incidental or intentional
vocabulary learning more conducive to language learning? Three issues wereconsidered: first, the quality of information processing when an unfamiliar word is
first encountered; second, the quantity and quality of rehearsal activities needed for aword to be permanently available; and, third, the training of automatic access to word
knowledge necessary for fluent language use. Functional architecture-style models
and connectionist models are two means by which lexical knowledge is represented
and processed. It is unclear which L2 lexical features must or may be acquired. For
any lexical entry, an individual’s mental lexicon will often comprise both less andmore than the information included in dictionaries. The practice of discouraging
procedures of intentional vocabulary learning is an ill-informed understanding of theterms ‘incidental’ and ‘intentional’ learning. Telling or not telling students that they
will be tested afterwards on their knowledge is the critical operational feature
distinguishing incidental from intentional learning. The quality and frequency of theinformation processing activities, such as elaboration on aspects of a words’ form andmeaning and rehearsal, and not the learner’s intention, the task itself, or the presenceor absence of post-test determines retention of new information.
Distributed practice with increasing intervals after correct retrievals and shortintervals after incorrect retrievals generates a much higher retention rate than massed
practice does. Items that are difficult to learn should be overlearned to ensure longterm retention (Hulstijn, 2001). Encountering new words in context and extensive
reading, as advocated in current L1 and L2 pedagogy, are neither necessary nor
sufficient for efficient vocabulary expansion. Readers should apply a variety ofdecontextualization skills and write down the lexical information encountered during
reading. New information should be frequently reactivated, beginning with shortintervals and leveling off at approximately monthly intervals (Robinson, 2001). To
attain automaticity of high-frequency words, learners should be exposed to reading
and listening texts which contain only familiar words, which is the ‘i – 1’ (‘i minusone’) level. Lexical information must be reactivated regularly for it to remain quickly
accessible. Intentional vocabulary learning, as well as drill and practice, must have aplace in the L2 classroom, complementary to (not instead of) the well-establishedprinciples of incidental and contextual learning. Computer programs and otherelectronically-mediated technologies can be well suited to help in that.
Task-induced involvement construct. Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) stated thatelaboration and motivation in L2 vocabulary demonstrated higher retention and

26

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

proficiency. However, there is a need for further theoretical exploration and empiricalinvestigation concerning the development of cognitive concepts. Laufer and Hulstijn(2001) proposed a construct of task-induced involvement with three motivational andcognitive dimensions – need, search, and evaluation – that are conducive toelaboration necessary for learning. No Interface (no effect of the explicit knowledge
on the acquisition of implicit knowledge), Strong Interface (explicit knowledgetransfers into implicit knowledge), and Weak Interface (explicit knowledge may
indirectly affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge by focusing learners’ attention
on features in the input) are three known positions for grammatical knowledge.
Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis is the development of the Weak Interface position.
Being subject to manipulation, incidental learning design enables the researchers toinvestigate the effect of the particular kind of information processing of interest.
Involvement as a motivational-cognitive construct explaining and predicting learner’s
success in the retention of hitherto unfamiliar words combines three factors todetermine vocabulary retention: need, search, and evaluation. The need component –a motivational and non-cognitive dimension of involvement – is based on a drive tocomply with the task requirements which can be either externally (a moderate need)or internally (a strong need) imposed. Search and evaluation – the two cognitive
dimensions – are contingent upon noticing and allocating attention to the formmeaning relationship (Schmidt, 1994a, 2000). Search is the attempt to find themeaning of an unknown L2 word by consulting a dictionary or anothersource/authority, such as a teacher. Evaluation entails a comparison of a given word
or a specific meaning with other words or meanings. According to the second
assumption, the higher the involvement load will be, the better the retention of words
will be. According to the third assumption, teacher/researcher-designed tasks with ahigher involvement load will lead to higher vocabulary retention. The Involvement
Load Hypothesis does not give any preference to input or output tasks nor does it
depend on different types of mode, such as visual, aural, or oral. It only predicts thathigher involvement in word induced by the task – either input or output – will result
in better retention.
Now, I proceed with a closer examination of the following instructional approaches
and conditions which prove to be conducive to memory retention in second language
acquisition: incidental vocabulary learning, grammar processing instruction, and focus
on form method.
Incidental Vocabulary Learning
Here, I address the question of vocabulary learning in incidental condition, tested andimplemented in second language research and instruction. The literature pertaining tomethodological questions and to issues of input, output, and tasks is also analyzed.
Historical and methodological perspectives. The term ‘incidental learning’ has been
consistently used in psychological literature since the beginning of 20th century.
Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) indicated that from the standpoint of methodologicalmeaning of incidental learning adopted in research experiments “learners are typicallyrequired to perform a task involving the processing of some information without
being told in advance that they will be tested afterwards on their recall on that
information” (p. 10). So, a test unexpected by language learners that measures their
vocabulary retention after the information-processing task is essential to so-called

27

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

“incidental learning design” (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001, p. 10) and distinguishes it from
intentional learning design in which learners are forewarned about the presence of asubsequent retention test. During the 1960s and early 1970s there was a shift from thebehaviorist paradigm toward the cognitive paradigm, resulting, in the case ofincidental learning, in the recent interest on the part of second language researchers in
the nature of the way in which stimulus information is processed by learners. It seems
that a deeper understanding of the way in which information is processed can enablelanguage educators to enhance learners’ incidental vocabulary learning and overalllanguage acquisition.
Input, output, and tasks. Research shows that particular types of input, output, andtasks enhance information processing in incidental vocabulary learning.
Vygotskiian Activity Theory. McCafferty, Roebuck, and Wayland (2001) applied
Zinchenko’s hypothesis, based on Vygotskiian Activity Theory, to second language
acquisition to test if materials connected with the goal of an action would be better
remembered than the materials connected with the means or conditions of action. Five
university English-speaking learners of Spanish in their third semester were randomly
assigned to experimental and control conditions. The results showed that increased
mental effort and the relation of a word to the goal of an activity enhanced vocabulary
learning.
Generative and communicative tasks. Joe (1998) investigated whether generative
processing tasks lead to vocabulary learning for 48 adult learners of English who wererandomly assigned to experimental, comparison, and control treatments. The results
indicated that the participants who performed the task and had high backgroundknowledge outperformed those who did not perform the task and had low backgroundknowledge. In conclusion, greater levels of generation led to a greater vocabularyknowledge gains for completely unknown target words as opposed to partially known
words.
The role of modified input and output. Ellis and He (1999) investigated the effects ofvarious exposure conditions for 50 university intermediate learners of English who
performed a listen-and-do task in three experimental groups: the premodified input,
the interactionally modified input, or the negotiated output treatment. Despite highlevels of acquisition in all conditions, the results indicated that the modified output
group scored significantly higher on the comprehension of the directions, vocabulary
recognition, and vocabulary production. Negotiation of new vocabulary in acollaborative and problem-solving manner led to deeper input processing.
Grammar Processing Instruction
Grammar Processing Instruction is an explicit focus on form that aims to alter the way
in which learners perceive and process input. It seeks to provide learners’ internallearning mechanisms with richer grammatical intake by explaining, practicing, andexperiencing input data with learner strategies (VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993). It is
opposed to explicit grammar instruction involving explanation and output practice ofa grammatical point.

28

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

VanPatten (1990) explored if learners could consciously attend to both form andmeaning when processing input. Two hundred and two university students of Spanishon three levels – first and fourth semesters and third-year conversation – wererandomly assigned to four conditions: attention to meaning alone, simultaneous
attention to meaning with an important lexical item, a grammatical factor, and a verb
form. Results indicated that simultaneous processing was rather difficult for learners.
The following questions arise as possible implications for future research andinstructional practice: Is consistent and constant awareness of form in the input
improbable if the learner’s task is to process the input for meaning? Do learners
concurrently process the form subconsciously while consciously processing formeaning? If all forms are processed consciously, does the ability to consciously
process both meaning and form develop over time?
Focus on Form Method
Doughty and Williams (1998) referred first to Long (1991) to distinguish focus on
formS from focus on form (FonF). Focus on formS “characterizes earlier, synthetic
approaches to language teaching” which is focused on “the accumulation ofindividual language elements” (Doughty & Williams, 1998, p. 3). However, focus onform “entails a prerequisite engagement in meaning before attention to linguisticfeatures can be expected to be effective” (Doughty & Williams, 1998, p. 3). Focus onform “overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise
incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication”(Long, 1991, pp. 45-46) and “often consists of an occasional shift of attention to
linguistic code features…triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or
production” (Long & Robinson, 1998, p. 23).
Communicative focus on form. Doughty and Varela (1998) discussed whether andhow learners’ attention can be drawn to formal features without distracting them fromtheir original communicative intent in a content-based ESL classroom. Thirty-fivemiddle schools students studying science at an intermediate ESL level were assigned
to FonF and control groups. Results indicated the effectiveness of incidental focus onform tasks in a communicative content-based classroom.
Conclusions
The research literature reviewed in this article addressed the following two themes
pertaining to the role of memory in second language acquisition: underlying issues ofmemory retention and specific instructional approaches fostering memory retention.
Regarding the former, the fundamentals of human learning and memory (What are thebases of learning and memory?), memory in second language learning (What type ofmemory is used in second language learning?), attention and awareness (How doconsciousness, attention, and awareness relate to each other and affect language
learning?), and implicit and explicit language learning and knowledge (What factors
affect both kinds of learning and knowledge?) provide a better understanding of thememory retention mechanism in second language acquisition. Concerning the latter,
specific teaching and learning principles (What teaching and learning principles
enhance language learning?), incidental vocabulary learning (What reading andwriting, input and output tasks and research conditions promote incidental vocabulary
learning?), grammar processing instruction (How and why does processing instruction

29

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014lead to language learning?), and focus on form method (How and why does focus onform increase language learning?) prove to be conducive to language learning andmemory retention.

30

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

References
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1999). Cognitive psychology andinstruction, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Coady, J. (1997). L2 vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading. In J. Coady &T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 225-237).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.
115-137). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.
1-11). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. (1994a). Implicit and explicit language learning – An overview. In N. C.
Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 1-33). London,
UK: Academic Press.
Ellis, N. (1994b). Consciousness in second language learning: Psychologicalperspectives on the role of conscious processes in vocabulary acquisition.
AILA Review, 11, 37-56.
Ellis, N. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction (pp. 33-68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. C. Ellis(Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 81-113). London, UK:
Academic Press.
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental
acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2),285–301.
Han, Y., & Ellis, R. (1998). Implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge and generallanguage proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 2(1), 1-23.
Houston, J. P. (2001). Fundamentals of learning and memory, 4th ed. Fort Worth,
TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Hulstijn, J. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments inincidental vocabulary learning. In P. J. L. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.),
Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp.113-125). London, UK: Macmillan.
Hulstijn, J. (1993). When do foreign-language readers look up the meaning of
unfamiliar words? The influence of task and learner variables. The Modern
Language Journal, 77(2), 137-147.
Hulstijn, J. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A
reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258-286). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Joe, A. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on
incidental vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 357-377.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second
language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics,
22(1), 1-26.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching
methodology. In K. DeBot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign

31

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

language research in crosscultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice.
In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition (pp. 15-42). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
McCafferty, S., Roebuck, R., & Wayland, R. (2001). Activity theory and theincidental learning of second-language vocabulary. Language Awareness,
10(4), 289-294.
Robinson, P. (1995). Aptitude, awareness, and the fundamental similarity of implicit
and explicit second language learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention andawareness in foreign language learning (pp. 303-358). Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under
implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 18(1), 27-67.
Robinson, P. (2001). Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 3-33). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment inconsciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287-301.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 225-243.
Winter, B., & Reber, A. S. (1994). Implicit learning and the acquisition of natural
languages. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp.
115-146). London, UK: Academic Press.

32

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Appendix 1

Literature Map
Memory Retention in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and
Instruction

Schmidt,
2001

3

2

AttentionversusAwareness

Attention

Schmidt,
1995

Memory for
SecondLanguage
Learning

1

Fundamentals of Human
Learning and Memory

Winter, Reber,
1994

Ellis, N., 1994b
Ellis, R., 1994

4

Automaticity,
Generalizability
and DecisionMaking

Houston, 1991;
Bruning, Schraw, Ronning,
1999
Baddeley, 2000

Schmidt,
1994

CourseDesignPrinciples

Daughty,
Williams,
1998

Role of
Explicit
Knowledge

Issues of Memory Retention
in SLA

Implicit
Learning

Definitions

Ellis, N.,
1994aEllis, N., 2001

Awareness and Attention
in SLA

Nature of
Implicit
Learning

Definitions

Long,
Robinson,
1998

Learning andPracticing
Grammar

Methodological
Perspectives

DeKeyser,1998

Laufer, Hulstijn,
2001

6

Early
Instructional
Focus onForm

Communicative
Focus on Form
Daughty, Varela,
1998

Incidental Vocabulary
Learning

Task-Based
Instruction

Task-Induced
Involvement
Construct

Skehan, Foster,
2001
DeKeyser, 2001

Laufer, Hulstijn,
2001

Teaching and Learning Principles

Incidental
versusIntentional
learning
Husltijn, 2001

Sentence
Processing
Harrington,
2001

Learner's
Aptittude

Measuring
Knowledge

Robinson, 1995

Han, Ellis, 1998

Dialogue Journals

Computer-Assisted
Word Processing

Extensive
ReadingRott, 1999

Coady, 1997
Nation, Newton,
1997

Reading7

Effects of
Mutlimedia
Annotations

Hulstijn, 1992;
Hulstijn, 1993;
Fraser, 1999;
Paribakht,
Wesche, 1999
The Role ofModified Input
and Output

Hulstijn, Trompetter,
1998

Effects of Exposure
Frequency

Inferencing ofWord Meaning

Harley, 1998

Ellis, He, 1999

5

Implicit and Explicit Language
Learning and Knowledge

Brown, Sagers,
1999

Second Language
Instruction for Memory
Retention

Focus on Form
MethodRobinson,
1996
Berry, 1994

Robinson, 1997

Writing

8

Tasks and
Rules

Chun, Plass, 1996

Use of Glosses,
Dictionary, Translation,
Reoccurence of Words,
Enhancement Activities
Kost, Foss, Lenzini, 1999;
Hulstijn, Hollander,
Greidanus, 1996;
Knight, 1994;
Paribakht, Wesche, 1997;
Watanabe, 1999

Input,
Output andTasks

Effect ofGenerative andCommunicative
Tasks

Grammar Processing Instruction

Newton, 1995;
Joe, 1998;
Zhang, 2002
Effects ofProcessing
Instruction
VanPatten,
Cadierono,
1993

Different
Types ofOutputTasks

Sumalteneous
Processing of
Meaning and
Form

GeneralAspects of
SLA

VanPatten,
Sanz, 1993

VanPatten,
1990

VanPatten,
1998

33

Effects ofMultimedia
Applications
Brett, 1998

Vygotsky's
Activity Theory
McCafferty,
Roebuck,
Wayland, 2001

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 201434

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Game-Based Tasks for Foreign Language Instruction:
Perspectives on Young Learners' Vocabulary Acquisition
Masoumeh Mehregan
Department of English Language, University of Isfahan, Iran,mehregan56@yahoo.com
Abstract
The present study attempted to investigate the impact of language games on the
vocabulary achievement of Iranian learners. The study also examined the possible
differences between male and female participants in terms of their vocabulary
learning in game-based tasks. To this end, 40 young language learners (comparisongroup = 20 and experimental group = 20) were selected. They were administered the
KET, after which homogeneity of the participants according to their proficiency level(i.e., elementary level) was ascertained. Four types of games including ‘hangman’,‘flash card memory game’, ‘bingo’, and ‘odd man out’ were used in the experimental
class, each of which lasting for five sessions. After twenty sessions of total treatment,
the participants in both groups were given a teacher-made proficiency test which
included 30 items. After ensuring the psychometric properties of the post-test and theassumptions of independent samples T-test, the analyses were carried out. Results ofT-test for the first research question showed statistically significant differences
between the comparison and the experimental groups. However, the results of the Ttest for the second research question were statistically non-significant. The
discussions of the findings are further discussed in detail.
Keywords: vocabulary learning, task-based teaching, games, gender

35

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

1. Introduction
Orientations in teaching second language vocabulary are often metaphoricallyspecified as a twisting pendulum, with the approaches in favor getting exposed tocontinuous serious evaluations and being progressively substituted by the new(however, mostly, in their nature, old) good approaches. And, it is at least risky toassume that we are advancing another step if we do not look back to consider how far
we have walked. Vocabulary has aroused the attention of researchers in the field,
while it was overlooked before 1980 (Meara, 1980). One reason of this attention is theabrupt growth of some specialized language teaching textbooks in the years after
1980 (e.g., McCarthy & O’Dell 1994; Rudzka, Channell, Ostyn, & Putseys, 1981;
Seal, 1991). The second reason is the development of a number of research articles
and books dedicated to the area of vocabulary teaching and to the using of various
vocabulary-teaching techniques (e.g., Allen, 1983; Coady & Hukin, 1997; Gairns &Redman, 1986; Nation, 2001; Schmitt & McCarthy, 1997). Many second language
teachers assume that students can learn new words incidentally and on their own,
through reading or other related activities (Zimmerman, 1994).
The use of games as an approach in the teaching of vocabulary focuses on the issue oftasks in language classrooms. Task–based teaching attends to the accomplishment ofsignificant tasks in the learning process. It is formed by the idea that if learners centeron the completion of a task, they are just as likely to learn language as they are if they
are concentrating on language forms. Instead of language syntax and function to beacquired, learners are presented with a task they have to carry out or a problem they
have to solve.
“The current task-based approaches to second language (L2) instruction encourage
the use of small group work (including pair work) in the L2 classroom as a means ofproviding learners with more opportunities to use the L2” (Storch & Aldosari, 2013,
p. 39). When teaching is aimed at promoting the communicative competence,classroom interaction assumes a significant role. Interaction and communication are
isomorphic, the existence of which implies the existence of the other. If interaction
does not exist, communication does not either. Tamah (2007) argues that “inclassroom interaction, students use language to negotiate meaning. They get the
chance to make use of all they have of the language. This implicitly means that it is
crucial for the teacher to provide more chance for the students to interact for the sakeof real-life exchanges” (p. 6). According to this definition, learners should be
provided with numerous opportunities to engage in interactive activities rather thanpassive learning. Games pave the way towards reaching this objective. In line with thesignificance of task-based teaching in the promotion of language learning and theimportance of games for teaching language to young learners, the present study is
aimed at the comparison of games and traditional approaches in learning. The study
set out to seek answers to the following research questions:1.
2.

Do games have any effect on young language learners’ vocabulary
learning?
Is there any significant difference between male and female young
language learners in terms of vocabulary learning by means of games?

36

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

In spite of the common thought, games are not limited only to beginner levels.
Learners at elementary and upper levels can also take the advantages of playing
language games and learn more vocabulary. Games add interest to what students
might not find very interesting. Sustaining interest can mean sustaining effort(Thiagarajan, 1999; Wright, Betteridge, & Buckby, 2005). Game-based tasks provide
a stress free and joyful environment for learning more vocabulary and a longer
retention. Game-based tasks also help the teacher to create a context in which
vocabulary is useful and meaningful. The variety and intensity that games offer may
lower anxiety (Richard-Amato, 1988) and encourage shyer learners to take part ininteractions (Uberman, 1998). The emotions aroused when playing games add variety
to the sometimes dry, serious process of language instruction (Bransford, Brown, &Coking, 2000). This is especially useful for teaching young learners in the sense thatthey cannot tolerate the strict and less enjoyable tasks and may not learn the target
subject as is expected. Using concrete tasks is in line with the capacities and abilitiesof young learners. The use of game-based activities and tasks presents an effective
way of teaching vocabularies concretely to the young language learners who do nothave the advantage of thinking abstractly. Therefore, teaching can be accomplishedby telling and persuading, by showing and demonstrating, guiding and directing thelearners’ efforts or by a combination of these actions or it might rely on
professionally prepared materials, resource people, or the combination of talents,
skills and information already present in learners (Lefrancois, 1991).
This meaningful communication provides the basis for comprehension input(Krashen, 1989), i.e., what students understand as they listen and read interaction toenhance comprehensibility, e.g., asking for repetition or giving examples (Long,
1981), and comprehensible output, speaking and writing so that others can understand(Swain, 1993). Gardner has suggested the idea of communication as a dynamic
process to stimulate communication in the classroom through task-based activities
and techniques such as role playing and information gap activities and techniques
which can be considered as the core of language games. Larsen-Freeman (1986)
supported the impact of games on error correction in ESL classroom such that games
are important because the speaker receives immediate feedback from listener onwhatever or how he has successfully communicated. In attempt to provide more
information about the efficiency of games in the language learning of young learners,
the present study was carried out.
2. Method
2.1. ParticipantsParticipants of this study consisted of 40 Iranian male and female young learners at
Kish English Language institute. They were all elementary level learners according to
the results of the key English test (KET) which was administered before theconduction of study. Their age varied from 10 to 15 and they had never been in an
English speaking country before the study.
2.2. Instruments
2.2.1. KET
Key English test was used as the test of proficiency for homogenization purposes.
Only the reading section of the test was employed since the major goal of the present

37

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

study was to evaluate the vocabulary knowledge of participants. The test consisted of
35 questions evaluating the participants’ reading and vocabulary competences.
2.2.2. Teacher-made Vocabulary Test
A teacher- made vocabulary test was designed to evaluate the experimental groupstudents’ vocabulary achievement. The test was examined for its psychometricproperty of reliability and it was found to have an acceptable estimate.
2.2.3. Course Book
The book entitled “Happy Earth 1” (by Bowler & Parminter, 2002) was taught at thislevel according to the syllabus of the language school. The book consists of 8 units
and the total units are normally covered in 4 terms (2 units each term). Each unit
works on vocabulary, grammar, speaking, reading, and listening activities. The bookhas an audio CD for listening parts as well as the activity book and a work sheet.
Since this book puts heavy emphasis on the learning of new vocabulary items byyoung learners and because the book is successful in providing the vocabularies invery attractive ways to children, it has been considered as an appropriate course bookto be used in the present study. It should also be mentioned that there has been noother additional sources used alongside this book.
2.2.4. Procedure
For the purpose of the present study, four games for vocabulary instruction wereadopted from “Games for Young Learners” book. New vocabulary items in “Happy
Earth 1” (Bowler & Parminter, 2002) were taught and practiced via four games withthe first group in the last 20 minutes of every session. Since the whole treatment took
20 sessions, every game was practiced for 5 sessions. The games were: hangman,flash card memory game, bingo, and odd man out. The games required the learners tointeract with each other to achieve the end product. When considered necessary,learners were arranged into small groups randomly and were given the planned games
to carry out. In the first 5 sessions, hangman games were played by the students. In
this game the teacher put blanks on the board as many as the number of the new word
students have learned, then in groups they should guess the letters one by one, at theend the first group made a correct guess of the word goes to the board and completes
the blanks then takes another hangman card from the teacher. The group that had themore correct guesses was the winner. In the second 5 sessions, memory flashcards
game was played (again in groups). The teacher brought some photo flashcards fromnewly learnt words. She showed them to all of the students and then covered them.
One person from every group came over to the front and tried to remember the photos(words). The group could help if necessary. At the end, the group with more words
was the winner. The third 5 sessions went on with Bingo game. The teacher had 16
photo cards. She drew a chart with 16 spaces (called Tic Tac Toe). The class formed
two groups from which one participant came over to the front of the class and theteacher showed the photo, if the learner could say what it was, the group got a numberin the chart. A group that first filled a row of numbers was the winner. The last 5
sessions continued with odd man out. Again, the teacher had some cards with 4 words
from newly learnt vocabulary. Each group should guess which word was not related
to the others and circle it. At the end, the group with more cards and logical reasonsfor their choice was the winner. Throughout these games, the instructor monitored theprocess and after the completion of the tasks asked the learners to provide theiranswers and give reason for their answers. This technique helped develop the38

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

interactional patterns among them and indirectly led to the development and learningof vocabulary items.
In the control group, the participants were not given any task-based instruction
including games. The teacher initiated the instruction and explained the new words
and grammatical points to the learners. The target language of the learners was usedprimarily but when learners had comprehension problems their native language wasalso utilized. After the 20 sessions of treatment, both control and experimental groups
were given the vocabulary post-test to measure their attainments in vocabulary
learning.
3. Results
3.1. Piloting Vocabulary Test Used for Homogenization
In order to estimate the reliability index of the vocabulary pre-test, the Cronbach’s
alpha was used. The reliability value of the pretest was 0.87 which showed a high andacceptable index (Table 1).
Table 1.
Reliability Estimate of the Vocabulary Pretest Used for Homogenization
Cronbach's
Alpha
.874

N of
Items
30

In order to provide an answer to the first research question, the ANCOVA test was
run. But, since one of the assumptions of ANCOVA (i.e., the homogeneity
assumption) was violated, an independent samples T-test was used to examine thequestion. Prior to the conduction of the independent samples T-tests, the assumptionsof normality of distribution were tested through the histograms, Kolmogorov-Smirnov
tests, and box plots. First, the histograms for each of the experimental and comparisongroups are illustrated in figure 1.

39

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Figure 1. Histogram results for vocabulary post-test performances
Below the results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for post-test vocabulary scores areindicated.
Table 2.
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Post-test Vocabulary Scores

N
Normal Parametersa
Most Extreme
Differences

Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)a. Test distribution is Normal.

Post-testscores40
6.77502.76876
.092
.092
-.082
.581
.888

The results of the table show that the distribution of scores are normal (p > 0.05).
As the last test of normality, the box plot for the post-test scores is shown in graph 2
below.

40

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Figure 2. Box plot results for post-test vocabulary scores
Having ascertained the assumptions of independent samples T-test as a parametrictest, the next step was to conduct the T-tests. Table 2 below demonstrates thedescriptive statistics of the vocabulary performance of the two groups.
Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics Results for Groups’ Differences on Vocabulary Post-test
groupsN Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Vocabulary post-test comparison 20 4.9500 1.93241.43210experimental 20 8.6000 2.23371.49947As the mean and standard deviation scores in table 2 show, there are differences
between experimental (M = 8.60, SD = 2.23) and comparison (M = 4.95, SD = 1.93)
group learners’ performance in the vocabulary post-test. However, in order to get
more accurate and reliable results, an independent samples T-test was run, the resultsof which are displayed in table 3.

41

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Table 3.
T-test Results for Groups’ Differences on Vocabulary Post-test

Vocabulary Equal
post-test
variancesassumedEqual
variancesnotassumedLevene's t-test for Equality of Means
Test for
Equalityof
VariancesF
Sig. tdf
Sig.
Mean
Std. Error 95%(2Difference Difference Confidence
tailed)Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper.13 .71 -5.52 38
.000
-3.65
.66
-4.98 -2.31-5.52 37.22 .000

-3.65

.66

-4.98

The results show that the significance level of Levene's test is p = 0.71, which meansthat the variances for the two groups (experimental and comparison) are the same.
The results of independent samples T-test show statistically significant differences (t(38) = -5.52, p < 0.05) between the experimental and comparison groups in the posttest. The descriptive statistics, too, point to the same finding showing that learners in
the experimental group (M = 8.60, SD = 2.23) outperform those in the comparisongroup (M = 4.95, SD = 1.93).
In order to examine the differences between male and female learners’ performancesin the vocabulary post-test, an independent samples T-test was run. First, the resultsof descriptive statistics are shown.
Table 4.
Descriptive Statistics Results for Vocabulary Achievement Differences across Genderexperimental

gendermale
female

N
10
10

Mean
8.70008.5000Std. Deviation
2.311812.27303

Std. Error Mean
.73106.71880As table 4 shows, the mean differences between the male (M = 8.70, SD = 2.31) andfemale (M = 8.50, SD = 2.27) participants in the experimental condition are not veryhigh. T-test results are shown in table 5 below.

42

-2.31

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Table 5.
T-test Results for Vocabulary Achievement Differences across Genderexperimental Equal
variancesassumedEqual
variancesnotassumedLevene's
Test for
Equality of
VariancesF
Sig.

t-test for Equality of Means

t

df

.13

.19

18

.19

17.9
9

.71

Sig.
(2tailed
)
.84

Mean
Difference.20

Std. Error 95% Confidence
Differenc Interval of theeDifference
Lower
Upper
1.02
-1.95
2.35

.84

.20

1.02

-1.95

The results show that the significance level of Levene's test is p = 0.71, which meansthat the variances for the two groups (male and female) are the same. The results of
independent samples T-test show statistically non-significant differences (t (18) =195, p > 0.05) between male and female participants in the experimental group.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
The findings of the present study showed that the game based experimental groupoutperformed the comparison group in vocabulary achievement. In fact, the results ofthe present study are logical and acceptable given the fact that the participants of thestudy were at the elementary level of proficiency and therefore were more at easewith the game-based approach. In other words, the elementary level learners can haveextreme difficulties in receiving and retaining the abstract and complex facts andissues than more concrete and tangible ones. Game-based approach provides a sort oftask-based approach in which learners cooperate and work together to achieve the end
result. They use the language subconsciously as a means towards the end.
Uberman (1998), for example, observed the enthusiasm of her students in learning
through games. She considers word games a way to help students not only enjoy andentertain with the language they learn, but also practice it incidentally. Whither(1986) states that word play and verbal humor provide excellent opportunities forteaching inferencing as students interpret or intelligently guess at the author's
meaning. Warnock (1989) holds that the appropriate use of pun is a powerful tool that
can help adult educators positively affect changes in people's knowledge, attitudes,
skills, and aspirations and the didactic process.
The findings of the present research are in line with the abovementioned studies,
therefore, encourage an implicit and task-based approach to teaching vocabularies
centering especially on the games.

43

2.35

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

In addition, the results of the statistical analyses for the second research question of
the present study indicated no significant differences between male and female
language learners. In other words, both could benefit from the use of games in theclassroom regardless of their gender.
Further studies can be conducted to examine and compare the advantages associatedwith different types of games. Also, it would be more logical to investigate if theperformance of the participants in the groups differs with regard to their individual
characteristics such as level of proficiency, age, educational background and so forth.

44

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

References
Allen, V. F. (1983). Techniques in teaching vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bowler, B., & Parminter, S. (2002). Happy earth 1: Activity book. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and school. Commission on Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education.
Coady, J., & Huckin, T. (Eds.). (1997). Second language vocabulary acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gairns, R., & Redman, S. (1986). Working with words. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional
evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 24, 237270.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lefroncois, G. R. (1991). Psychology for teaching. USA: Wordsworth.
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz(Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-78). Annalsof the New York Academy of Sciences.
McCarthy, M., & O'Dell, F. (1994). English vocabulary in use. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Meara, P. (1980). Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning.
Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts, 13, 221-246.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Richard-Amato, P. A. (1988). Making it happen: Interaction in the second language
classroom: From theory to practice. New York: Longman.
Rudzka, B., Channell, J., Putseys, Y., & Ostyn, P. (1981). The words you need.
London: Macmillan.
Seal, B. (1991). Vocabulary learning and teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.),
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 296-311). Boston,
MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). (1997). Vocabulary: Description, acquisitionand pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair-work activity. Language
Teaching Research, 17(1), 31-48.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough.
The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Thiagarajan, S. (1999). Teamwork and team play: Games and activities for building
and training teams. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Uberman, A. (1998). The use of games for vocabulary presentation and revision.
Forum, 36(1), 20-27.
Warnock, P. (1989). Humor as a didactic tool in adult education. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Whiter, J. E. (1986). Newspaper humor: Tool for critical thinking and reading
abilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

45

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Wright, A., Betteridge, D., & Buckby, M. (2005). Games for language learning (3rded.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, C. B. (1994). Self-selected reading and interactive vocabulary
instruction: Knowledge and perceptions of word learning among L2 learners.
Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles.

46

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Strategies and Problems Encountered by Teachers in Implementing MotherTongue - Based Instruction in a Multilingual Classroom
Jane K. Lartec, Anastacia M. Belisario, Jamaica P. Bendanillo,
Hanni K. Binas-o, Novefirst O. Bucang, and Jan Lorie W. Cammagay
School of Teacher Education, Saint Louis University, Baguio City, Philippines,
enaj2911@yahoo.com
Abstract
The use of mother tongue in teaching in a multilingual setting affects the way pupils
learn. A melting pot and the educational center of the North, Baguio City, Philippines
demands teaching strategies that not only adapt to the interplay of the different
cultures and languages but give importance to them, too. Specifically, this paper
analyzed the strategies of teachers in implementing Mother Tongue - Based
Instruction in a Multilingual Classroom and identified some problems that teachers
encounter in implementing them. The study used qualitative analysis with interview
as the main data gathering tool. The respondents were teachers purposively selectedfrom the suggested pilot schools of Mother Tongue - Based Multilingual Education(MTB-MLE) in Baguio City. From the phenomenological analysis of the data, thefindings showed that the teachers used strategies such as translation of target language
to mother tongue, utilization of multilingual teaching, utilization of lingua-franca,
improvization of instructional materials written in mother tongue, remediation of
instruction, and utilization of literary piece written in mother tongue as motivation.
Some problems encountered by the teachers in implementing mother tongue - based
instruction include absence of books written in mother tongue, lack of vocabulary,and lack of teacher-training. Nevertheless, the study indicated that major attention andeffort are still necessary to be given to the approach.
Keywords: practices, mother tongue - based instruction, multilingualism, andmulticulturalism

47

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

1. Introduction
The role of language as a medium of instruction in promoting an effective teaching
and learning is an issue that has occupied many scholars all over the world for many
years (Orr 1987a, 1997 as cited by Deyi, et al., 2007). This role of language as a
medium of instruction has been a concern mostly in countries where immigrantchildren are in the minority such as United States and Canada (Krashen, 1981 as citedby Deyi, et al., 2007). It is in these countries where research has been widely
conducted and a number of legislations have been passed and amended throughout theyears. Despite such developments, debates on the use of language persist.
One of the latest developments in the Philippine educational system is the MotherTongue – Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE). MTB-MLE refers to the use of
students’ mother tongue and two or more additional languages as Languages ofInstruction (LoI) in school. In other contexts, the term is used to describe bilingual
education across multiple language communities—each community using its own
mother tongue aside from the official school language of instruction. In South Asia,
multilingual education usually follows the first definition, learning and using multiple
languages in school. In some countries, MTB-MLE includes four languages—thestudents’ mother tongue or first language, a regional language, the national language
and an international language (Malone, 2007).
According to the official language policy of the 1987 Educational Act (revised in2004), children in Grades 1 – 3 were to be instructed in their first language, while
those in Grade 4 onwards are set to be instructed using a second language (L2), which
is English. This language policy can be identified as a possible model for bilingual
education (Borch & Tombari, 1997 as cited by Ndamba, 2008).
Many studies have already revealed that teaching using the mother tongue in the early
grades enhances children’s ability to learn better compared to the use of a second or
foreign language (UNESCO, 2003; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2003 as cited by Rai, et al.,2011). It has also been reported that if children are taught in languages which are
different from their home language or mother tongue, they drop out from school, have
low academic performance, and repeat classes due to a high failure rate. This state ofaffairs is still persistent in Nepal (Yadava, 2007; Awasthi, 2004 as cited by Rai, et al.,2011). Research on L2 acquisition shows that when a child masters the first language
then learning another language becomes less problematic in the habits of speech,
listening, reading, and writing (Maclaughlin, 1987; Krashen, 195; Ndamba 2008
citing Cummins, 1981; Hawes, 1979; Obanya, 1985; & Dawes, 1988). Research thathas been conducted on language education has also shown that children are quicker tolearn, to read, and to acquire other academic skills when instructed in the languagethat they speak at home rather than taught in an unfamiliar language (Langer, et al.,
1990; Unicef, 1999).
Recently, in the educational reforms in the country, the mother tongue in the regions
plays an important role especially in the educational system. To strengthen this, theDepartment of Education (DepEd) has implemented the use of mother tongue as a
medium of instruction (DepEd order No. 74, series of 2009).

48

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

No research has been conducted on the effective strategies of teachers in
implementing the MTB-MLE in a multilingual education. The city of Baguio(Philippines) is considered to be a home to many immigrants from other parts of thecountry and other countries. A significant population of foreigners and local people
contributed to the diversity of the city’s culture. The languages that are commonly
spoken are Kankanaey, Ibaloi, Ilocano, Kapampangan, Pangasinense, Tagalog,
English, Chinese, and recently Korean. Having different languages in the city has
been a concern. The problems include what strategies can be employed by theteachers in successfully implementing MTB-MLE.
This study explored the strategies employed by the teachers in implementing MTB –MLE and the problems that they have encountered. It specifically dwelt on answering
the following research questions: What are the strategies employed by the teachers inusing MTB-MLE in the multilingual classrooms? And, what the problems
encountered by the teachers in employing the MTB-MLE?
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Twelve teachers from Kindergarten to Grade 1 from the three pilot schools in the cityof Baguio were chosen by the researchers as respondents based on the inclusion
criteria set for the study (teachers who are teaching in the pilot schools and teaching
Kinder to Grade 1). These teachers had their rich experiences in employing andimplementing the MTB-MLE in the pilot schools and they have tried different
strategies in teaching in the early grades in a multilingual classroom. These pilot
schools were chosen because they implemented the MTB-MLE for the city
considering the nature of the learners in these schools. Baguio City is known to be a
melting pot of different language and culture in the Northern Philippines, so the pupils
have diverse background in terms of language and culture.
Having 12 interview subjects for the study was arrived at based on phenomenologicalinquiry and data saturation criterions. According to Creswell (1998), phenomenology
requires in-depth interviews from 3 to 13 subjects.
2.2. Data Collection Tools
A semi-structured in-depth interview (Patton, 1990) was used as data gathering tool.
An aide memoire which probed the dynamics of the teachers’ experiences in
employing MTB-MLE in teaching the Kinder and Grade 1 in the pilot schools wasdeveloped by the researchers based on a priori code. Their sharing revolved aroundthe questions, “What were your experiences with teaching the Kinder/ Grade 1 using
MTB-MLE? What are the strategies that you used in using MTB-MLE? What do you
think were the best strategies that you have employed helped facilitate the learning of
the pupils? What were the problems that you have encountered in using MTB-MLE?
Why do you consider these as your problems?”
If the interviewer is skilful, Best and Kahn (1993) believe that the interview can be
regarded as data gathering device which is often superior to others as people are more
willing to talk than to write, and confidential information may be obtained from
respondents who might be reluctant to put it in writing. The interview was considered
suitable in this study in order to determine respondents’ opinions, attitudes or trends

49

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014of beliefs (Sharma, 1994 as cited by Ndamba, 2008). Also, classroom observations
were conducted to further witness the actual setting, especially how the teachers
applied the strategies and how effective their practices were with their pupils. Videoand tape recordings were used during the interview and observation.
2.3. Data Collection Procedure
To capture the essence of the phenomenon under investigation, a letter of request wasaddressed the principals of the pilot schools and to the respondents informing them of
the nature of the research, the topic to be discussed and extent of their participation.
After seeking their permission and willingness to participate, an appointment wasscheduled for a one-on-one interview based on their availability. To elicit natural
responses for questions, all the respondents were interviewed in locations of their own
choice and lasted for at least 45 minutes to one hour per respondent.
The in-depth and semi-structured interview was conducted in English language since
the respondents are proficient in English but they were given the freedom to answer
the questions in other languages like Filipino, the national language or in their native
language that they are comfortable with to ensure the richness of data. The interview
sessions for teachers have closed and open-ended questions to allow the researchers tofollow up points which needed elaboration and to clarify questions that were
misunderstood by the respondents (Mouly, 1978 as cited by Ndamba, 2008). Theinterview focused /centered on the best strategies employed by the teachers and the
problems they encountered in using MTB-MLE. Best and Kahn (1993) stated thatinterviews are particularly appropriate in getting responses from respondents.
For the classroom observation, one teacher for every level and pilot school waschosen. The respondents were oriented about the observation done in their classes.
Dates for trial and final observations and video recordings were scheduled. The
recorded classroom proceedings were transcribed to produce the field text which wasutilized for the analysis. Two observations and video recordings for each subjectteacher were undertaken. These excluded the trial observation and recording for eachteacher before the final collection of data. The trial observations and recordings wereconducted for the teachers and their students to get used to the process, thus reducing
any “halo effect” during the final data collection. The data gathered during the trial
observations and recordings were not included in the analysis of the data.
2.4 Data Analysis
The video and tape recorded interviews and classroom observations were transcribed
into field texts (Clandinin & Connely, 2000) where both anchors and phenomenal
themes were extracted. The text was subjected to phenomenological reduction bymeans of repertory grid. The grid presented the significant statements made by the
respondents which were classified using themes and were interpreted carefully.
Simultaneous re-reading of the significant statements of each respondent facilitatedthe surfacing of the important ideas and experiences of the respondents. For the warm
analysis, highlighted words or phrases were proof-read and analyzed to formulate
categories and themes. The validity, truthfulness and trustworthiness of the emerging
patterns and themes were done through correspondence with the participants where
the consistency of the transcription and interpretation made by the researchers on the
respondents’ statements were verified individually with the study participants.
Member-checking procedure (Graneheim & Lundan, 2004 cited in Valdez, De

50

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Guzman & Escolar-Chua, 2012) and a critical friend technique involving expert werealso employed.
3. Results and Discussions
Findings in this paper described the strategies and problems of teachers in employing
MTB-MLE in their classrooms as pilot schools. The thickness and richness of the
field text gathered afforded the identification and emerging of the six interesting
themes relative to the strategies employed by the teachers and three interesting themes
relative to the problems they encountered.
3.1. Strategies Employed by Teachers in Implementing Mother Tongue - Based
Instruction in a Multilingual Setting
Based on the answers given by the respondents and the observation conducted on thestrategies employed by teachers in the implementation of mother tongue - based
instruction in a multilingual setting, several themes emerged. These themes are (a)translation from target language to mother tongue, (b) utilization of multilingual
teaching, (c) utilization of lingua-franca, (d) improvization of instructional materials
written in mother tongue, (e) remediation of instruction, and (f) utilization of literarypiece written in mother tongue as motivation.
3.1.1. Translation of target language to mother tongue.
Translation is very beneficial to learning when it comes to learning through the use of
the students' mother tongue because it serves as a bridge to connect students to thelesson. Translation is sometimes referred to as the fifth language skill alongside theother four basic skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. “Translation holds
a special importance at an intermediate and advanced level: in the advanced or final
stage of language teaching, translation from first language (L1) to second language(L2) and from L2 to L1 is recognized as the fifth skill and the most important social
skill, since it promotes communication and understanding between strangers” (Ross,
2000 as cited by Kavaliauskiene, 2009). It is commonly believed that translators are
better at translating into their native language than into a second language.
For the respondents, translation is important for the reason that it helps them address
the needs of the pupils who have different languages. Moreover, teachers need totranslate the lesson using all the pupils’ mother tongue for better understanding. Thisis evident from the following statements of the respondents: “So for some pupils I use
Ilocano as a medium of instruction but for those pupils who can’t understand Ilocano,
I go to the extent of using Kankanaey for a better understanding of the lesson.” And,
“So I will translate it all in Ilocano to Tagalog to English.”
The statements indicate that the respondents are using translation in their lesson. The
first statement shows that the teacher is using Ilocano as a medium of instruction but
if there are pupils who do not understand Ilocano, she translates the discussion intoanother language that the said pupils understand. The second statement signifies thatthe teacher translates in one native language to another native language used by the
pupils. It implies that pupils learn more if the lesson is translated to their mothertongue. The respondents mentioned: “Teacher-made IM’s and big books written in
English language but I translated in mother tongue.”; “As a teacher, you will do the51

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014translation, that is what we use as instructional materials. All the alphabets should betranslated into mother tongue.”
As seen from the responses above, translation can be applied in every aspect oflearning. The respondents use books written in English and translate the content to thepupils’ mother tongue. The teachers have no option but to use English books because
there are no available books written in the mother tongue. Through translation, it
helped the students understand more the materials that they are using. Furthermore,
the second statement points out that alphabets should also be based on the pupils’
mother tongue. This means that translation plays a vital role in teaching and inlearning.
The above statements support the claim of Dickins (2005) as cited by Jabak (2013)that translator training normally focuses on translation into the mother tongue,
because higher quality is achieved in that direction than in translating into a foreign
language.
Moreover, teachers translate for the learners to have a better understanding of thelesson. The effectiveness of this strategy is confirmed by the following statements of
the respondents: “It’s effective because my pupils respond positively. They alsointeract during discussions, games, and the like.”; “It’s effective because half of theclass are participating during class discussion. So they will understand; actually if
English is used, only 2 or 3 pupils recite unlike in Ilocano.”“Through add evaluation, tests, and checklist.”; “Formative and summative test are
given to my pupils.”
Thus, this means that majority of the learners understand the lesson better when beingtranslated in mother tongue and its effectiveness is being tested through the use of theassessment tools. As mentioned above, the teachers use assessment tools such asformative and summative tests, add evaluation, and checklists to evaluate the students
work or performance.
Also, the pupils respond actively to the discussion and many of them participate when
their mother tongue is used as a medium of instruction, unlike when the teacher use
English where only two or three take part in the discussion as revealed from theobservation conducted.
3.1.2. Utilization of multilingual teaching
Multilingual teaching is when teachers use varied languages in the whole duration ofteaching for the reason of accommodating students who do not speak a particularlanguage and including them in the discussion. This is defined as speaking two or
more languages in a growing worldwide phenomenon (Milambiling, 2011).
Since the people who live in Baguio City are speakers of different languages, theteachers need to explore and use all possible languages in order to cater to the needsof the learners having different mother tongues. A teacher uses each mother tongue
for the pupils to understand the lesson. “I use Ilocano aah…Kankanaey and for
those…who cannot speak or still understand Kankanaey and Ilocano I use the Ibaloi
language.”

52

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

The above statement denotes that the teacher uses varied language such as
Kankanaey, Ilocano, and Ibaloi in delivering her lesson. It is clearly stated that she has
the capability to use different mother tongues which makes a good point of what amother tongue teachers should be since they are multilingual themselves. Throughthis, the teacher can say that this strategy is effective because the pupils are seen
motivated. This was also observed in the video of the classes where the pupils tend tobe very active in recitation and other activities when the teachers use varied languages
in giving instruction and explaining the lessons. One respondent stated: “So for some
pupils I use Ilocano as a medium of instruction but for those pupils who can’t still
understand Ilocano I go to the extent of using Kankanaey for better understanding of
the lesson.”This means that the teacher is versatile in making ways to cater to the needs of thestudents. Therefore, being a multilingual teacher is an advantage in teaching pupils
with different languages. The teacher’s flexibility in using other languages means that
there are fewer problems in translation. In line with translation of the different mothertongues, being a multilingual teacher is needed to match the skill of translating. If theteacher knows every language of his/her pupils then the demands of every learner touse his/her own language will be met. The teacher can cater to the individual needs ofthe learners by translating the lessons he/she is teaching in the different mothertongues of the learners in the classroom.
The above response of the respondent provide support to the concept of Garcia(2008) as cited by Milambiling (2011), that multilingual language awareness is anecessity for teachers of multilingual students. Besides knowing about languages,
subject matter, and teaching methodology, teachers should have an understanding of
the political struggles and social circumstances of pupils. This strategy also allows thestudents to explore and learn the language of others.
Milambiling (2011) further states that those who speak more than one language arealso generally more aware of sociolinguistic variables and functions than those who
speak one language, and they are adept at switching between different regionalvarieties, registers, and formal and informal language styles. This same author statedthat the advantage of being a multilingual is that it creates different kinds ofconnections in the brain, which gives multilingual individuals an advantage in somerespects compared with monolingual individuals.
3.1.3. Utilization of lingua-franca
Lingua-franca is a language that is widely used as a means of intercommunication
among speakers of different languages. Seeing that the dominant language that isbeing used in Baguio City is Ilocano, the respondents prefer it as their medium of
instruction since it is the language that is widely used by the learners in the school andat the same time at home. The respondents shared, “In English subject, I use Ilocano
then bridge to English."; “Here in Baguio, Ilocano is really the language they use.”;“So for some pupils I use Ilocano as a medium of instruction but for those pupils who
can’t still understand Ilocano I go to the extent of using Kankanaey for better
understanding of the lesson."
The respondents use Ilocano as a medium of instruction because majority of the classunderstand Ilocano. If the teacher uses Ilocano in delivering the lesson then majority

53

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

would understand and take part, and with those who do not understand Ilocano, it iswhere translation is used. The statements revealed that the first choice of the teachers
when it comes to using mother tongue is Ilocano due to the fact that Ilocano is themost dominant language in class.
This is also confirmed from the observation conducted by the researchers, that is, it
was evident that all the learners were very participative in the discussion because
majority of them are using Ilocano when communicating in school and at home.
According to Swadesh (1951), lingua-franca is a folk language; it can be used with all
the advantages of any other mother tongue as an effective instrument of instruction in
the areas where it is the folk language. The fact that the language may be pidginized
will not detract from this value on the lower level of instruction; a pidginized mothertongue is nonetheless a mother tongue. For more complex purposes than elementary
instruction, there may be problems of adapting the medium to the subject
matter.Finally, using common language in a multilingual setting allows the learners to
become active participants during class discussion and activities since they understandeach other.
3.1.4. Improvization of instructional materials written in mother tongue
Instructional materials are the basic channel of communication in the classroom forthe purpose of bringing about effective teaching and learning.
Instructional resources in teaching and learning make students learn more and retain
better what they have been taught and that these instructional resources also promoteand sustain students’ interest. These resources also allow the learners to discoverthemselves and their abilities. The respondents mentioned, “…I use improvizedmaterials like stories, songs, poems, and charts written in Kakana-ey and Ilocano.”;“To motivate the pupils, I use songs and poems written in Kankanaey and Ilocano." ;and “Teacher-made IMs and big books written in English language but I translated inmother tongue.” From the given responses of the respondents, the materials are
written in the learners’ native languages to motivate students and for the learners toparticipate.
These instructional materials are entertaining at the same time educational and cancater to the different senses. This is one way of motivating the class to participate
during the discussion. Instructional materials are vital to teaching-learning process(Sunday & Joshua, 2010). Teaching can only be effective when adequate and relevant
instructional materials are used (Afolabi, Adeyanju, Adedapo & Falade, 2006 as citedby Sunday & Joshua, 2010).
With the use of mother tongue as a medium of instruction, instructional materials
should also be written in mother tongue to achieve consistency. These instructional
materials are prepared based on the interests and needs of learners. The poems, songs,
and stories were translated by the teacher because there are no books written in themother tongue. Thus, the use of instructional materials written in mother tongue
enhances students’ awareness of their own language which can lead to theirproficiencies of the said language. This is also a way of appreciating their own
language, using it in the class and making materials with it.

54

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

The effectiveness of this strategy can be seen in the following statements: “It’seffective because my pupils respond positively. They also interact during discussions,games, and the like.” And “It’s effective because half of the class are participating
during class discussion. So they will understand; actually if English is used, only 2 or
3 pupils recite unlike in Ilocano.”
The respondents also explained that their learners interact well if the materials thatthey are using use are written in their mother tongue. The result also revealed that thepupils are actively participating when their mother tongue is used as a medium of
instruction to further the discussion of the lesson. This means that pupils prefermaterials which are written in their mother tongue because they can comprehend.
Another respondent added, “Our signages are also in written in mother tongue”.
It was seen during the observation that there are signages everywhere written in thelearners’ mother tongue. There are also headings and letterings written in mothertongue and English equivalent beside them. This means that learners can better
understand and follow the signs posted in the classrooms and school surroundings ifthey are written in mother tongue. Instructional resources in teaching and learning
make students learn more and retain better what they have been taught and that theyalso promote and sustain students’ interest (Abimbade, 1997 as cited by Sunday &Joshua, 2010). These instructional resources also allow the learners to discoverthemselves and their abilities.
3.1.5. Remediation of instruction
This requires pupils to stay after class hours for an extra learning especially for those
pupils who have difficulty with the lessons and for those who are behind in theirlesson. This means that the teacher will tutor to accommodate all the learners despiteof their levels of intelligence. In conducting remedial classes, the teacher uses mothertongue as the medium of instruction. This is a strategy that was suggested by one of
the respondents saying, “We use remedial class. I see to it that in the afternoon I haveone or two pupils to have remedial classes. So I have 40 minutes remedial, but not all
students.”
The school thought of this as best for they know that it will help their pupils who are
failing to excel or follow in the class. Having their proof that most of the class arealways participating by the help of the mentioned strategy and that the discussion ismore interactive, the teachers concluded that this strategy is an effective one for boththe teachers and students.
Also, a remedial class is a learner’s opportunity to ask the teacher about his/herdifficulties in understanding the lesson especially when the problem has something to
do with the mother tongue the teacher is using during the class discussion. In thiscase, it will also help the pupils learn most, from utilizing their mother tongue.
3.1.6. Utilization of literary piece written in mother tongue as motivation
Literary pieces are used by teachers as a springboard to teach other concepts or ideasthat are beneficial to the pupils. Teachers integrate literature within the discussion andthese literary pieces are already translated in preferred mother tongue.

55

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

There are four main reasons that lead a language teacher to use literature in theclassroom namely: valuable authentic material, cultural enrichment, language
enrichment, and personal involvement (Hişmanoğlu, 2005 citing Collie & Slater,
1990). One respondent cited, “To motivate the pupils, I use songs and poems written
in Kankanaey and Ilocano”.
The respondent shared that in order to get the interest of the learners, she used songs
and poems that were written in mother tongue because if she uses native songs, thelearners will develop love and appreciation of their own language and culture. In
addition, using songs written in mother tongue allow the students to understand themeaning of the song or poem because they are mother tongue users inside and outside
the school.
Literature of any kind can be important for children of other cultures and is a powerfultool to weaken and dissolve racism. Multicultural literature can also play a very
important role for teachers. This serves as an instrument for the teachers to see first inthemselves the importance of being a multicultural person in order to appreciate thedifferent cultures found or emanating from the literature that they are reading or they
are teaching. Through this, they can impart to their students the importance of having
a multicultural literature so that in turn the students will also understand andappreciate different cultures. The teachers must be very keen in selecting the different
literatures that can show the diversities of cultures of the pupils especially those thatare found in the classroom. Multicultural literature can be used as a tool to open
pupil’s minds. It helps to stimulate an understanding of diversity in the classroom andhelps to build an understanding of and respect for people from other cultures (Boles,
2006). Also, multicultural literature can be used to eliminate racism (Colby & Lyon,
2004 as cited by Boles, 2006).
Finally, in the case of Baguio City having different languages, the mentioned
strategies are beneficial for the pupils to have a meaningful learning since the learners
are exposed to different languages and cultures.
3.2. Problems Encountered by Teachers in Implementing Mother Tongue - Based
Instruction in a Multilingual Setting
Aside from the best strategies mentioned by the respondents, there are also themesthat were developed regarding the problems they encountered in the implementationof mother tongue - based instruction in a multilingual setting. These are (a) absence ofbooks written in mother tongue, (b) lack of vocabulary, and (c) lack of teachertraining.
3.2.1. Absence of books written in mother tongue
This is the condition of having no textbooks or dictionaries in the mother tongue thatare needed to accommodate the needs of the learners having different mother tongues.
Although one of the strategies in implementing MTB-MLE is the improvization of
instructional materials written in mother tongue, still teachers need books that are
accurate and reliable.
The respondents’ emphasized that they really need books written in mother tongue sothat they will be able to implement MTB-MLE successfully. The absence of books

56

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

written in mother tongue affects the teaching specifically when translating since theirpupils are speakers of different languages. The respondents said, “There are no big or
small books in Ilocano that you can buy, so as a teacher will just translate it” and“The problem is that, there are no books written in mother tongue.” The responses
paralleled the statement of Hall, (2010) as cited by Dekker, et al., (2008), that is, noteacher can teach effectively without appropriate materials that are based on two
components: established government curriculum goals and pupil’s prior knowledge,
culture, and value systems. With few books available for most of the 170 languages of
the Philippines, materials development appears a daunting task (Dekker, et al., 2008).
Books are one of the most needed materials in the learning process of the pupils.
Teaching and learning cannot be effective without adequate and relevant use of
instructional materials (Grant, 1978 as cited by Sunday & Joshua, 2010). One of the
respondents emphasized that in order to effectively implement MTB-MLE,
curriculum should be updated and textbooks and teaching materials should be madeavailable in advance.
In implementing MTB-MLE, goals are not being attained if there is deficiency ofmaterials needed; hence, there is a need for the provision of the books andinstructional materials that are helpful to the learning of pupils which will increase
their understanding. Malone (2007) stated that literacy can only be maintained if there
is an adequate supply of reading materials.
This problem can be a hindrance in the success of the implementation of mothertongue - based instruction since the teachers are not that literate in all the different
languages of their learners; thus, the production of mother tongue textbooks anddictionaries is a must in the city of Baguio.
3.2.2. Lack of vocabularyThis is considered to be the dearth of words to use when delivering a message orinformation. There is no wide range of the words or phrases used in discussing thelesson using mother tongue; therefore, it is considered as one of the problems being
encountered by the teachers. Two of the respondents said, “The vocabulary of theteacher is not enough because we are not really used to Baguio Ilocano. And not all
pupils really understand Ilocano, although there are some who can but have low levelof understanding of the language.” and “We lack vocabulary to be used in translating
an English and Filipino word.”
The above statements explain that though teachers are residents of Baguio City, theirknowledge on the different languages of the city is not enough to deliver the lesson.
They cannot say that they have enough vocabulary especially that their pupils are notfluent in the lingua franca and not all words from the target language have equivalentterms in the first language.
In addition, the respondents are experiencing difficulties in teaching their pupils
because they cannot think of the right word that is exactly the equivalent of the source
language, putting them in a situation that will bring confusion to the pupils.
Moreover, since Baguio City is considered as the melting pot of cultures andlanguages, all of the respondents revealed that they are pressured to use mothertongue as their medium of instruction because they are teaching pupils with different

57

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

languages. This problem was very evident from the given statements of the
respondents, “The pupils are a mixture of Ilocanos, Kankanaey, Kalanguya, and even
Ibaloi aah. So that they will be able to understand our lesson, I use Ilocano aah
Kankanaey. I use Ilocano as a medium of instruction but for those pupils who can’t
still understand Ilocano, I go to the extent of using Kakana-ey for better
understanding of the lesson.” ; “ First, they should all be speakers of their mothertongue, should they? So it cannot be that half of them speak Tagalog. Well, here in
Baguio City we cannot avoid that some are mixed speakers of different languages.”And, “ Of course many of them understand Ilocano; they just cannot speak straight
Ilocano.”Although the teachers are trying their best to explain the lesson using mother tongue;
still, the learners cannot interact well during the discussion because the pupils are notthat fluent in using the same mother tongues. This adds to the teachers’ problem on
how to address their needs.
This scenario implies that the teachers need to be a linguist and/ or polyglot in orderto address the needs of the pupils. This makes their learning interactive andmeaningful. This means that the task of educating children becomes much moredifficult when teachers have to face a heterogeneous group with multilingual andmulticultural background (Pai, 2005).
3.2.3. Lack of teacher-training
Lack of teacher-training includes unpreparedness of the teachers to teach theirlearners with the use of mother tongue as their medium of instruction considering that
their pupils have different mother tongues.
The respondents felt that training and seminars for teachers should be provided
regularly and academic support from the specialist on various issues of mother tongue
teaching is also required. One of the respondents stated that “ All of a sudden you willteach using mother tongue. I never expected to teach using it. All of a sudden theycalled me to teach. What? Mother tongue?! I told them I don’t really know Ilocano.
Even the pupils are having a hard time.” From the statement, it is very evident thatthe teacher is not prepared because she has not undergone any training regarding
MTB-MLE. Having limited background in using mother tongue as a medium of
instruction can hinder in becoming an effective teacher.
Training and seminars are important for teachers who are teaching multilingual
learners because they need to be oriented and guided on how to handle learners withdifferent languages. Also, through training and seminars, the teacher’s knowledge isenriched because they are being involved in the different workshops during seminars.
Seminars and training also served as an opportunity for the teachers to learn from andinteract with the different participants.
The sharing of the respondents lends support to Dutcher (2004) who stated theteachers need training in using first language in the classroom and that the materials
have to be appropriate, available, and interesting to the pupils, as well used. If they are
not being used (the case in Guatemala from the recent study of the Grade 6 graduates)
learning is not progressive. Most teachers need training in methodology so that theycan exploit the advantages of teaching in the language that children can understand58

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

(Dutcher, 2004). This means less emphasis on rote learning, repetition and copying,and more on peer-to-peer interaction and on encouraging students to think forthemselves, read, and come to their own conclusions (Dutcher, 2004).
Also, the respondents were just prompted to use mother tongue in teaching regardlessof their background knowledge about the languages of their learners. One of the
respondents mentioned, “The vocabulary of the teacher is not enough because we are
not really used to Baguio Ilocano. And not all pupils really understand Ilocano,although there are some who can but have low level of understanding of thelanguage.”
Finally, this suggests training programs for teachers to enhance their skills and toenrich their knowledge regarding the implementation of mother tongue - based
instruction and to improve their vocabulary with the use of mother tongue they areusing.
With pupils who are not all speakers of the same mother tongue, teachers havedifficulty when they are not expert of the different mother tongues. In this situation,
the teacher would rather use the language that is understandable to the pupils. This
weakens the implementation of mother tongue.
4. Conclusions
The study successfully surfaced the teachers’ experiences from the three pilot schools
in implementing the MTB-MLE in a multilingual setting reflected in the use of thestrategies like translating of target language to mother tongue, utilizing multilingual
teaching, utilizing lingua-franca, improvising instructional materials written in mothertongue, remediating instruction and utilizing literary piece written in mother tongue;
and the problems they encountered like absence of books written in the mothertongue, lack of vocabulary, and lack of teacher training. Through these strategies
employed by the teachers, they are able to effectively implement the use of MTBMLE in helping their pupils acquire the necessary information and learning in theclassroom. These innovative strategies help the students attain the maximum learningand helps build firm foundations, valuing and developing the oral and written skills
that young children bring to school without rushing literacy. The problems indicatedthe major attention and effort necessary to be considered so that it will not hinder themeaningful learning and will not affect the way the teachers deliver their lessons.
The study advances the current literature by illuminating areas on the strategies andproblems of MTB-MLE instruction previously not cited as well as concurring with theprevious investigations. Clearly, findings generated in this study affirm the vital roleof teachers in supporting pupil’s learning relative to the implementation of the MTBMLE through their innovative strategies and overcoming the barriers. Hence, theDepartment of Education are challenged to initiate a mechanism by which theteachers’ innovative strategies and problems are assessed, monitored and evaluated at
the same time design an effective program or model of MTB-MLE that is geared
towards supporting these teachers’ role in its effective implementation. This study
however, has a certain limitation. Given the study site, the findings may not reflect
the experiences of all teachers locally and internationally. Nonetheless, this study
surfaced trends worthy of further investigation. We end this study with a view to59

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

increasing administrators and teachers’ awareness and improving MTB-MLE policy
in a multicultural and multilingual setting.

60

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

References
Best, J & Kahn, J. (1993). Educational research. Retrieved onJune 23, 2013
from http://www.getcited.org/pub/102991379
Boles, M. 2006. The effects of multicultural Literature in the classroom. EasternMichigan University.
Boylan, H., Saxon, P. (2002). What works in remediation: Lesson from 30 Years of
Research. National Center for Developmental Education
Clandinin, D., & Connelly, F. (2000). Narrative inquiry: experience and story inqualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Constitution. (1996). The constitution of the republic of South Africa, 1996: As
adopted on 8 May 1996 and amended on 11 October 1996 by theConstitutional Assembly. Act 108 of 1996.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Okas, CA: SAGE
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting
educational success for language minority students.
Dekker, D. et al. (2008). Initial results of the Lubuagan project. Paper presented to
the First MLE Conference on February 18 – 20, 2001 at Cagayan de Oro,
Minadanao.
Deyi, S.; Simon, E.; Ngcobo, S.; & Thole, A. (2007). Promoting the multilingualclassroom: Why the significance of multilingualism in HE?. Paper presented at
the National Foundation Conference, Conversations about Foundation,
Granger Bay, 2-3 October 2007.
Dutcher, N. (2004). Promise and perils of mother tongue education. Center for
Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC. USA.
Hişmanoğlu, M.( 2005). Teaching English through literature. Journal of Language
and Linguistic Studies, (1)1.
Jabak, O. 2013.Why is translation into the mother tongue more successful than asecond language? Retrieved on May 2013 fromhttp://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article1508.php
Kavaliauskiene, G. (2009). Role of mother-tongue in learning English for specificpurposes. ESP World, Issue 1 (22).
Lambert, W. E. (1977). The effects of bilingualism on the individual: Cognitive andsociocultural consequences. In Homby, P. A. Bilingualism.Psychological,
Social and Educational Implications. New York, Academic Press.
Malone, S. (2007). Mother tongue-based multilingual education: Implications foreducation policy. SIL International.
Malone, S. (2007). Mother tongue-based multilingual education: Implications foreducation policy. SIL International. Unpublished. University of Zimbabwe.
Malone, S. (2007). Advocacy kit for promoting multilingual education: Including theexcluded.Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for
Education.
Mclaughin, B. (1987). Theories of the second language learning. New York,
Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc.
Milambiling, J. (2011). Bringing one language to another:Multilingualism as aresource in the language classroom.
Ndamba, G. T. (1999). Discrepancy between the official language policy andimplementation at infant level. M. Ed dissertation.

61

The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning

Volume I - Issue I - Winter 2014

Ndamba, G. T. (2008) Mother tongue usage in learning: An examination of language
preferences in Zimbabwe. Great Zimbabwe University.
Pai, P. (2005). Multilingualism, multiculturalism and education: Case study of
Mumbai City. SNDT Women’s University.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: SAGE
Rai, V., Rai, M., Phyak, P., Rai, N. (2011). Multilingual education in Nepal: Hearsay
and reality? Kathmandu: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization Office.
Sunday, A., & Joshua, A., (2010). Assessment of resources and instructional
materials status in the teaching of mathematics in South Western Nigeria.
Nigeria: Euro Journals Publishing, Inc.
Swadesh, M. (1951). The Problem of the lingua franca and its value in education.
Paris: UNESCO/EDCH/Meeting./6.
Valdez, L., De Guzman, A. & Escolar-Chua, R. (2012). Every move counts inlearning: Filipino clinical instructor’s scaffolding behaviours in teaching
medication administration. Nurse Education Today.
Doi:10.1016/j.nett.2012.06.-011

62

t
h
ei
a
f
or

j
ou
r
n
a
l
ofl
a
n
g
u
a
g
el
e
a
r
n
i
n
g

I
S
S
N:
2
1
8
8
9
5
5
4