Chapter 2

Review of Related Literature

According to Foreign Literature, Bernhardt (2016) believes that is important to

recognize that second language reading is a new and different literacy. As such it is a

complex social and psycholinguistic process that cannot be separated into reading

components and language components. Indeed, it can be hypothesized that second

language reading is in part dependent of first language literacy and other language

operations.

Knowles (1996), Alexander (2004), and Swan (2006) also challenge simplistic

notions of learning as the simple transmission of skills and knowledge. Alexander argues

that the learning process can entail challenge and disagreement as well as consensus.

Swan‟s view suggests that challenge and disagreement are in some sense essential to

the most effective learning situations. This works only if classroom culture has moved

beyond the one sided transmission relationship between teacher and learner. If it hasn’t,

then dialogic and challenging teaching may intimidate and inhibit some learners. Knowles’

theory of andragogy implies a shift from teacher assessment of learning to a self-

evaluative process, based on re-diagnosis. The teacher therefore needs to be skilful in

establishing a supportive climate in which hard-to-accept information about one’s

performance can be looked at objectively. This perspective is very similar to that of

Absolum (2006), who in a comprehensive discussion of effective relationships in

classrooms emphasises the importance of developing, learning-focussed relationships

if the teacher focuses primarily on controlling the student, and that classroom

relationships characterized by power and control at best generate passivity and at worst

non-engagement or cynicism. Like Alexander and Ecclestone (2004b), he also

distinguishes between learning focused relationships and caring relationships, and

argues that learning will not flourish if the primary focus of the teacher is caring for the

student.

Impact of English Only on Academic and Social learning (1999) the

opportunity to use their mother tongue affects the educational and cognitive development

of language minority children. Like native English speakers, language minority children

go to school with many well-developed skills in their first language (L1). These children

are also able to use their L1 for culturally appropriate activities in various contexts with

different participants and topics. These skills constitute the bridge which connects L1 with

the learning of English (Ollia & Mayfield, 1992). Edelsky (1986) maintains that once a firm

base has been founded in language minority children's native languages, they are willing

to explore and find out how a new language works. These children can also apply their

background knowledge in their L1 to make sense of the unfamiliar, to create their own

English written text, and to read English materials written by others. Even when the written

form of the L1 and English - such as the Chinese characters and the English alphabet -

are distinctly different, the children are still able to apply the visual, linguistic, and cognitive

strategies used in their L1 to reading and writing in English (Freeman & Freeman, 1992).

These essential resources are made unavailable, however, when children are thrown into

an English-Only situation where they are expected to learn unfamiliar content in an

academic success may be severely reduced.

The enactment of English-Only legislation in many states not only threatens to

inhibit the academic advancement of many language minority children, but also deprives

these children of the many social advantages resulting from using their mother tongue.

Researchers (Wong-Fillmore, 1991b; Gibson, 1998) have maintained that the

consequences of losing a mother tongue for language minority children are often

extensive and severe. Wong-Fillmore explains that in homes where parents do not

communicate with children in the mother tongue, family communication may deteriorate.

Where parents and children do not share a common language, communication is often

limited to the basic necessities, preventing parents from transmitting to their children the

complex set of values, beliefs, wisdom, and understanding which provide the foundation

for their children's learning and development (Wong-Fillmore, 1991a).

Wong-Fillmore also noted a quick shift in language use in home and at school

among language minority children, especially the younger ones, in the United States. She

argues that children lose their mother tongue at a far higher rate than they learn their

second language (Wong-Fillmore, 1998); this phenomenon, she further explains, is one

in which "learning a second language means losing the first one" (Wong-Fillmore, 1991b).

In an immersion program, where English is the only instructional language, the children

are at a greater risk of losing their mother tongue before they have fully mastered their

second language. As education in the United States has traditionally been verbocentric

(Leland & Harste, 1994), with language as the dominant way of learning and teaching,
the limited language skills these children possess, either in their mother tongue or a

second language, are unable to support their learning.

Chan and Wu talk about the three perspectives from which research studies

on anxiety are conducted. These are trait anxiety, state anxiety, and situation-specific

anxiety. Trait anxiety, a motive or acquired behavioral disposition that predisposes an

individual to perceive a wide range of objectively non-dangerous circumstances as

threatening, and to respond to these circumstances with anxiety state reactions

disproportionate in intensity to the magnitude of the objective danger, is relatively

permanent and steady personality feature (Spielberger 10). State anxiety is apprehension

experienced at particular moment in time, for example, prior to taking exams. This anxiety

can be provoked in the confrontation of the perceived threat (MacIntyre & Gardner 157 –

158). However, it is temporary and altered in time. In order to attribute the experience to

a particular source, researchers adopt situation specific perspective to the study of

anxiety. This perspective focuses on the situations in which anxiety is aroused and this

kind of anxiety is therefore termed as situation-specific anxiety. Unlike trait and state

perspective, situation-specific perspective requires the respondents to attribute their

anxiety to particular sources. Specific situations can offer more understanding to

particular anxiety in diverse situations.

According to English-Only Policy for All Case of a University English Class in

Japan by Maiko Berger(2011), in Japan, the language of instruction for English classes

is mostly Japanese, from elementary through to undergraduate levels (Hino, 2009).

However, it is generally agreed in my own teaching context that English should be the

sole medium of instruction except in the lowest level classes, in order to maximize the
intake of students’ English learning. Often the Direct Method is employed as an effective

teaching method, so that students learn to ‘think’ in English (Skela, 1998). Students learn

English communicatively with a focus on integrated skills, and with the aim of preparing

them for content subjects. These Japanese-base students at the university are required

to take content subjects in English even when they do not possess the linguistic ability to

successfully pass the courses, a point criticized by Tollefson (2000). In support of these

needs and the reality, the policy to use “English at all times” in the classroom, both for

instructors and students, is also prescribed in the syllabi.

The idea that English should be taught in English seems to be a national trend,

which is pushing the high school teachers to conduct classes in English, even though the

Grammar and Translation Method is still the mainstream in Japanese high schools. An

English only policy is a “pervasive belief” in ESL instruction (Auerbach, 2001, p.293), and

according to Cutri (2000), teachers’ decisions on classroom language policy are made by

their own unexamined beliefs and assumptions, rather than as formal policy. Cutri (2000,

p.174) asserts, “Teachers’ classroom language policies and practices usually remain

unarticulated, uninformed by current knowledge bases, and devoid of moral

deliberations.” Cases in other Asian nations such as South Korea, Indonesia and Vietnam

are reported widely in recent years (Johnstone, 2010, Kim and Petraki, 2009, Lin and

Morrison, 2010, Ling and Braine, 2007). For instance in South Korea, teaching English in

English (TEE) is thought to be effective and necessary, therefore the government is

promoting TEE and is training teachers (Lee, 2010). However, there are not many studies

conducted on TEE in Japan. A few cases reported recently include Takagaki and Tanabe

(2007) in which researchers conducted questionnaires over three years at a high school
home economics class taught in a non-native variety of English. An exploratory study by

Taguchi and Naganuma (2006) discusses adjustment difficulty for students to learn in

English, but this institution is an English-medium university, and the findings focus on the

participants’ perceived difficulties in language skill areas.

Based from Local Literature Foreign Students, Bordbar and Shariati (2016)

investigated the interrelationship of Foreign Language Reading Anxiety (FLRA), Reading

Proficiency (RP) and Text Feature Awareness (TFA). The study surveyed and analyzed

74 students from Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman. The results indicated that there

is no significant relationship between RP and RA, positive significant relationship between

RP and TFA and negative significant relationship between TFA and RA. Also results

revealed that there is no significant difference between foreign language reading anxiety,

reading proficiency and text feature awareness scores of male and female students, as a

result; there is no relationship between gender and these three constructs.

Cubukcu researched on the effects of anxiety in the foreign language classroom.

The aim was to focus on the relationship between anxiety and second language learning

and the ways to cope with anxiety among university students. 120 students were asked

to write down the things that led them to feel anxious in the classroom and then the

researcher held interviews with these students as to what caused anxiety in the

department. The main sources of anxiety were identified as: (a) Presenting before the

class, (b) Making mistakes, (c) Losing face, (d) Inability to express oneself, (e) Fear of

failure, (f) Teachers, and (g) Fear of living up to the standards. It is concluded that
teachers should consider the possibility that anxiety is responsible for the student

behaviors before attributing poor student performance to lack of ability, inadequate

background or poor motivation.

Zhao explored the subject on the foreign language reading anxiety among learners

of Chinese in colleges in the United States. A total of 125 learners of Chinese in a large

public research university in the U.S. took part in this survey study. The primary data

source came from the two anxiety instruments, namely, Foreign Language Classroom

Anxiety Scale and Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale and also a background

information questionnaire. The findings suggested that reading was as anxiety-provoking

to learners of a non-cognate non-western language as speaking did. The unfamiliar

scripts were found to be the major source of foreign language reading anxiety, which

confirmed one of the hypothesized sources of Saito in 1999.

Based on Local Studies, Go, Lucas, and Miraflores (2016) conducted a study

to determine the causes of anxiety in English language learning of foreign students in the

Philippines. Findings suggest that these type of learners used vocabulary strategy to

efficiently learn the English language and to cope with their English class anxiety. Two

hundred fifty foreign students were the respondents of this study. The target participants

were foreign college students taking any course in these institutions provided that they

are enrolled in any English course during the time of the administration of the

questionnaires. It has been found that the employment of this strategy enables the
learners to take charge of their own learning as this serves as their basic aid to learn other

macro skills in the target language.

Del Villar identified beginning student’s attributions about their oral communication

anxieties. A total of 250 students were included in the study. Results revealed an eight

factor model explaining 69.11% of the total variance in the data. The factors are

expectation, training and experience, audience, self-worth, rejection, verbal fluency,

preparation and previous unpleasant experience.

Cao compared the two models of foreign language classroom anxiety scale

(FLCAS). FLCAS was constructed where items reflect the characteristics of foreign

language anxiety. There showed two models of FLCAS which are three factor model and

four factor model. The three factor model has three domains which are communication

apprehension, test anxiety, fear of negative evaluation. The four factor model has four

domains which are communication apprehension, test anxiety, fear of negative

evaluation, and fear of English classes. The FLCAS was administered to a sample

(N=300) and the factors were confirmed using Confirmative Factor analysis (CFA). The

results showed that the three factor model of FLCAS has the better fit.

Cequena and Gustillo investigated on the connection between writing anxiety and

writing performance. The respondents of the study composed of 17 freshman college

students, majoring in Computer Studies. Results of the quantitative analysis of writing

and definition essays) and writing anxiety.

Balili studied level of language anxiety and its effect on oral performance in

English of Teachers College freshmen of the University on Mindanao. Employing the

descriptive correlational method, with the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale

and Clark’s Four Scale System, it was found out that there was no significant relationship

between the two variables since Bouchard’s Picture Talk their language anxiety. The

result suggested that a similar study be conducted but using evaluation tools that would

clearly gauge that language anxiety and the oral performance of the students.

Fuller and Unwin focus on how people learn from and teach others about work

tasks. They argue that the act of learning to do one’s job in the workplace is worthy of

close attention, and that much of this learning takes place through explicit pockets of

activity which make use of a range of pedagogical methods. It also argues that

pedagogical skills can be found in all types of workplaces, at all levels in an organization,

and that they are not restricted by age. The paper thus challenges the traditional

conceptions of, novice and expert generally associated with models of skills formation,

and in particular, apprenticeship. The paper focuses deliberately on the term pedagogies

to counter both the experiential learning tradition which sees workplace learning as almost

entirely informal, and the HRD tradition which is concerned mostly with improving the

effectiveness of off the job training, often through the use of new technology. Both these

traditions play down the role of pedagogy, which, research drawn on in this paper shows,
continues to be a salient part of working life. This study too, therefore, highlights the

significance for effective formal and informal learning, of the way training, development,

and transfer of skills is seen by managers in organizations, whatever the intentions of

teachers or trainers. Both factors make a difference to the degree to which social

interactions can benefit learning.

Ideology Underlying the English-Only Movement (1999), the advisability of

legislation mandating an official language policy is hardly a new issue, but one that has

been debated throughout the history of this country. Crawford (1992) in his book,

Language Loyalties, summarizes the opposing views on this topic, as follows: "For

supporters, the case is obvious: English has always been our common language, a

means of resolving conflicts in a nation of diverse racial, ethnic, and religious groups.

Reaffirming the preeminence of English means reaffirming a unifying force in American

life. Moreover, English is an essential tool of social mobility and economic advancement.

The English Language Amendment would "send a message" to immigrants, encouraging

them to join in rather than remain apart, and to government, cautioning against policies

which could retard English acquisition.

"For opponents, Official English is synonymous with English only: a mean-spirited

attempt to coerce Anglo-conformity by terminating essential services in other languages.

The amendment poses a threat to civil rights, educational opportunities and free speech,

even in the private sector. It is an insult to the heritage of cultural minorities, including

groups whose roots in this country go deeper than English speakers--Mexican Americans,

Puerto Ricans, and American Indians. Worst of all, the English-Only movement serves to
justify racist and nativist biases under the cover of American patriotism (Crawford, 1992,

p. 2-3).

Impact of English Only on Academic and Social learning (1999) the

opportunity to use their mother tongue affects the educational and cognitive development

of language minority children. Like native English speakers, language minority children

go to school with many well-developed skills in their first language (L1). These children

are also able to use their L1 for culturally appropriate activities in various contexts with

different participants and topics. These skills constitute the bridge which connects L1 with

the learning of English (Ollia & Mayfield, 1992). Edelsky (1986) maintains that once a firm

base has been founded in language minority children's native languages, they are willing

to explore and find out how a new language works. These children can also apply their

background knowledge in their L1 to make sense of the unfamiliar, to create their own

English written text, and to read English materials written by others. Even when the written

form of the L1 and English - such as the Chinese characters and the English alphabet -

are distinctly different, the children are still able to apply the visual, linguistic, and cognitive

strategies used in their L1 to reading and writing in English (Freeman & Freeman, 1992).

These essential resources are made unavailable, however, when children are thrown into

an English-Only situation where they are expected to learn unfamiliar content in an

unfamiliar language. Without the bridge provided by their L1, their chances of achieving

academic success may be severely reduced.

The enactment of English-Only legislation in many states not only threatens to

inhibit the academic advancement of many language minority children, but also deprives
these children of the many social advantages resulting from using their mother tongue.

Researchers (Wong-Fillmore, 1991b; Gibson, 1998) have maintained that the

consequences of losing a mother tongue for language minority children are often

extensive and severe. Wong-Fillmore explains that in homes where parents do not

communicate with children in the mother tongue, family communication may deteriorate.

Where parents and children do not share a common language, communication is often

limited to the basic necessities, preventing parents from transmitting to their children the

complex set of values, beliefs, wisdom, and understanding which provide the foundation

for their children's learning and development (Wong-Fillmore, 1991a).

Wong-Fillmore also noted a quick shift in language use in home and at school

among language minority children, especially the younger ones, in the United States. She

argues that children lose their mother tongue at a far higher rate than they learn their

second language (Wong-Fillmore, 1998); this phenomenon, she further explains, is one

in which "learning a second language means losing the first one" (Wong-Fillmore, 1991b).

In an immersion program, where English is the only instructional language, the children

are at a greater risk of losing their mother tongue before they have fully mastered their

second language. As education in the United States has traditionally been verbocentric

(Leland & Harste, 1994), with language as the dominant way of learning and teaching,

the limited language skills these children possess, either in their mother tongue or a

second language, are unable to support their learning.

Impact of English Only on Equality in Education (1999) recent political debates,

such as that over Proposition 227 in California, have highlighted the issue of equality in
education. Equal education, which pertains to the provision of the same educational

opportunities for all children regardless of their backgrounds, would make English the sole

instructional language for every child. Proponents of an equal education agenda,

however, often overlook its ramifications on language minority children. While the federal

government has never imposed legislation mandating an official language, many states

have adopted various forms of Official English legislation

(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jwcrawford/langleg.htm#Stat e) and have

mandated that English be the only instructional language used in public schools.

Ironically, this type of instruction not only makes it difficult for language minority children

to receive meaningful education, but may also be detrimental to their familial and social

integration. Consequently, in the 1974 case of Lau v. Nichols, the Supreme Court ruled

that: "there is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same

facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English

are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education" (U.S. Supreme Court, 414 U.S.

563). Although state-imposed standards have never been declared unconstitutional,

since the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling, public school systems have had a legal

responsibility to provide appropriate instructional programs - either bilingual or English-

as-a-Second-Language (ESL) - to meet the needs of language minority children.

However, the effectiveness of such efforts remains to be seen.

According to Learners’ Attitudes toward “English-Only” Institutional Policies:

Language Use outside the Classroom by Elena Shvidko, students’ language use in

educational contexts—both inside and outside the classroom—has been a topic of much

interest in English language teaching. Although there is strong support in the literature for
limited, strategic L1 use as a valuable resource for second language learning (e.g.,

Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009; Macaro, 2005; Rivers, 2011a; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003;

Turnbull & Daily-O’Cain, 2009), students’ language use still appears to be the subject of

debate in foreign language pedagogy. It seems to be particularly controversial in the case

of intensive English programs (IEP), whose purpose is to help learners develop their

language skills through extensive exposure to the target language. It is no secret that in

many IEPs, teachers and administrators enforce policies, rules, and guidelines in regard

to student language use, both in class and outside the classroom. While some IEPs

simply encourage students to maximize their L2 use, others enforce policies that restrict

the use of students’ L1, including English-only policies that prohibit the use of the learners’

L1 at any time within the confines of the language school (McMillan & Rivers, 2011;

Rivers, 2011a). In programs supporting such English-only policies, administrators and

teachers implement a variety of strategies and invent “elaborative games, signals, and

penalty systems to ensure that students do not use their L1” (Auerbach, 1993, p. 16; also

see Rivers, 2014). Unfortunately, in many cases, such restrictive policies seem to be

rather ineffective and even harmful (e.g., Grant, 1999; McMillan & Rivers, 2011; Rivers,

2011a; Rivers, 2014; Shvidko, Evans, & Hartshorn, 2015). For example, Rivers (2014)

suggested such English-only policies are often guided toward a dark emotional pathway

of shame (in not being good enough to participate), guilt (in breaking the contract of

obligation to their classmates, the teacher and the institution) and ultimately fear (of the

impending consequences and exclusion).

Students in Maximo L. Gatlabayan Memorial National High School

This research is presented to the faculty

of Grade 10 English Teachers in

Maximo L. Gatlabayan MNHS

Princess Mary Grace Paracale

Princess Joyce Garbino

Ma. Fatima Magtibay

Joyce Ann Estuaria

Lexier Obapial

Leo Moncawe

Yuri Palajoren

Micah Bejo

March 21, 2019