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.

Chan and Wu (5) 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 (133) 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 (x) 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 (159) 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 (73) 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 (280) 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 anxiety revealed that there is a positive correlation between essay

scores (argumentative and definition essays) and writing anxiety.

Balili (1) 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 (2002) 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.

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 between learners and between the teacher and the learners, that

learning will not flourish if the teacher focuses primarily on controlling the student, and

that classroom relationships characterised 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 focussed relationships and caring

relationships, and argues that learning will not flourish if the primary focus of the teacher

is caring for the student.

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).

 Chapter 3

Research Methodology

This chapter presents the research method and procedure that was used in the

study. This includes research design, setting and subject of the study, sources of data,

procedure of the study and statistical treatment.

Research Design

The researchers used the descriptive method of research to describe the present

condition of the students in terms of the Effects of English Only Policy to the Academic

Performance. According to Marshall and Rossman (2010) a researcher can adopt three

different kinds of research methods namely exploratory, descriptive and causal

research. The researchers in this case should adopt the descriptive research method.

Ritchie et al (2013) opined that by using the descriptive method the researcher

will be able to observe a large mass of target of population and make required

conclusions about the variables. The researcher by using descriptive research can

effectively design a pre-structured questionnaire with both open ended and close ended

question. The use of descriptive design enables the researcher to measure the results

rather than exploring the results.

Information collected from the responses are can be statistically presented in this

type of research method for the easy interpretation of the report users. Since the

researcher is trying to analyze the customer opinion, attitude, behavior and satisfaction
level in relation to services and products hence the researcher should effectively use

the descriptive method in order to statistically analyze the data.

This study utilized descriptive method for the reason that the study aimed to

determine the Effects of English Only Policy to the Academic Performance of Grade 7

Learners in Maximo L. Gatlabayan M.N.H.S.

The result was tabulated in a table to aid the readers in understanding the data

distribution with corresponding interpretation. The design served as guide for the

researchers in gathering the data through the development of questionnaire checklist

and test.
 (QUESTIONNAIRE CHECKLIST)

EFFECTS OF ENGLISH ONLY POLICY TO THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF

GRADE 7 LEARNERS IN MAXIMO L. GATLABAYAN M.N.H.S.

I. Profile of the respondents

Name:

Direction: Please answer the following by putting check (√) which best describes you.

Age: ( ) 12 years old ( ) 14 years old

( ) 13 years old Above (please specify): _______

Gender: ( ) Female ( ) Male

Language spoken at Home: ( ) English ( ) Filipino Other (please specify): _______

Socio Economic Status: ( ) Upper Class ( ) Middle Class

( ) Upper Middle Class ( ) Lower Middle Class

( ) Lower Class

II. Checklist

Direction: Please answer the following by putting check (√) which best describes the

items presented in the table below using the 5 point scale.

5 - Strongly Agree

4 – Agree
 3 – Moderately Agree

2 – Disagree

1 – Strongly Disagree

A. Self 5 4 3 2 1

1 Practices speaking in English outside the room

2 Speaks English language fluently

3 Speaks English language fluently but afraid to

speak in public

4 Constructs good sentences

5 Speaks English language inside the lecture

room only

B Teacher 5 4 3 2 1

1 encourages students to answer in English

language

2 uses English language to express ideas

3 uses English language to communicate inside

the class

4 uses English language to communicate outside

the campus

5 gives students speaking and listening activities