Kendra Williamson and Professor Norman Evans, Department of Linguistics and English Language
Introduction
The purpose of the English-mainly project is to explore how an English-mainly (EM) language policy, as opposed to an English-only (EO) policy encourages self-regulated learning and fosters improved language proficiency among English as a Second Language students at BYU’s English Language Center (ELC).
This project is an important part of the ELC administrators’ and teachers’ efforts to improve the learning environment at the ELC. An EO language policy had been in place for years. Under this policy, all students were required to use English at all times—regardless of their proficiency level—while in the ELC. Although traditional Communicative Language Teaching practices have adopted the EO policy, Rivers’s (2011) research has shown that EO policies hinder students’ progress because using 100% English is unrealistic and because the students’ native language (L1) is often useful for understanding new concepts. The EM project builds upon Rivers’s research and seeks to answer the following questions: How do students receive the EM policy? How will students respond to required self-regulated learning techniques? How does required self-regulation affect students’ learning, motivation, and perceptions of language policy? What is an effective way to self-regulate language use?
Methods
In September 2012 the ELC abandoned the EO policy and adopted the EM policy. The EM research project data collection began on October 1, 2012, and concluded on November 29, 2012. Participants were divided by class: four classes (66 students) in the control group and four classes (65 students) in the experimental groups. The control group and the experimental group each included two “Academic A” level classes and two “Foundations C” level classes. Within these parameters, the classes were randomly selected.
Students in the control and experimental groups took a motivation survey and set goals for the percentage of English they would like to speak during their daily break for the rest of the semester. The experimental group was also introduced to a log on which they measured their daily progress: Each day before their 100-minute lunch break, they were asked to identify and write down what percentage of their communication they would like to be in English and why they selected that particular goal. Immediately after the break, they were asked to record how many minutes of the break were spent communicating and, of those minutes, how many minutes they felt they were communicating in English. They also identified and recorded the circumstances that led them to speak a language other than English, what they were doing when they were not communicating, and how they felt about their performance. After about one month of treatment, 38 of the 66 students in the experimental group were interviewed. The questions asked were about what the students thought about the EM policy and about whether or not they felt the daily goals were helping improve their English. In addition to the interviews, at the end of the semester all ELC students took a survey about the ELC learning environment.
Results
Thus far, the data analysis has been focused on the results from the interview questions and the ELC learning environment survey. Most students liked the EM policy (see Figure 1). Reasons for liking
it include: it’s nice to speak L1 with friends, it’s useful to use L1 when students don’t know how to say something, and it forces students to practice English. Reasons for disliking it include: it’s too easy to speak L1 with other students with the same L1, people are abusing the “mainly” rule, and it’s confusing and rude when people speak their L1. When asked how they felt about the daily goals, most students disliked goal setting (see Figure 1). Reasons for liking the goals include: It helps me stay motivated, it reminds me to use English, it helps me be more patient and diligent in practicing English. Reasons for disliking the goals include: It’s stressful—I don’t have anything to report because I eat with my L1 roommates, it takes too much time, I don’t need the goals because I use English anyway, and I need a break from English. Overall, the interviews revealed that most of the treatment group likes the idea behind the EM policy, and most of the group does not like setting daily goals. Reasons behind the opinions, however, are varied.
The learning environment survey that was administered to all the ELC students was open-ended, but of those students that specifically mentioned EO or EM, significantly more were pro-EO than were pro-EM. This was also true of the students in the experimental group.
Discussion
Implementing the EM language policy and requiring students to set goals seems to have made students more aware of their personal responsibility in language learning. Some students enjoyed the freedom because they felt more control over their language use, while others prefer a language policy where they are told exactly what to do. The experimental method of goal-setting, however, was not satisfactory to the students and created some backlash against the EM policy. Thus, the principles behind the EM policy may be effective, but new and more effective ways to encourage self-regulated learning should be tested. Nearly every intensive English Program struggles with the question of language policy (Shvidko, 2012, p. 7). This research has identified EM as a potentially positive alternative to an EO policy, and it has also identified one method that unsuccessfully implemented EM policy.
References
- Rivers, D. J. (2011). Strategies and struggles in the ELT classroom: Language policy, learner autonomy, and innovative practice. Language Awareness, 20(1), 31–43.
- Shvidko, E. (2012). Students’ Perspectives on Language Use Outside the Classroom in an Intensive English Program (Unpublished master’s thesis). Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.