This case study has confirmed the research of other scholars in relation to the pros and cons of using L1 in the classroom and the need for bilingual EFL teachers to use their first language in the classroom more consciously and more ‘judiciously’. In addition, the research has shown that effective EFL teaching is a much more complex issue than whether or how teachers use L1 in their teaching – in that issues of
methodological repertoire, authentic communication, personal engagement,
motivation, confidence building, meaningfulness and culture also affect how language acquisition and learning take place.
Bilingual and monolingual teachers appear to have typical teaching styles, although of course there are individual exceptions. While monolingual teachers are more at home using communicative approaches and have a wider repertoire of techniques at their disposal, it may well be that in the context of Oman; they have much to learn from their bilingual colleagues, especially in giving error feedback and grammatical explanations. Each typical style carries with it potential advantages and
disadvantages. There may therefore scope for monolingual and bilingual teachers to find ways of learning from and mentoring each other. This I believe is what Medgyes (1992), meant when he wrote that both NESTs and NNESTs (and in this case I would like to add bilinguals) serve equally important purposes. They should complement each other in their strengths and weaknesses. They should also work collaboratively in favor of promoting their language skills. They should work as language
consultants for each other.
It is clear that the use of Arabic in the classroom (as the learners’ L1) has a number of benefits in terms of efficiency, conveying complex meanings that cannot otherwise be conveyed, creating a sense of community, and supporting classroom discipline and management. Monolingual teachers should therefore be encouraged to learn the language of their host or adopted country in order to have an additional resource to draw upon, or at least to deepen their cultural awareness in the host society. Learning and attempting to use the language is a sign of respect and a way of developing relationships and common understandings. This should not be comprehended that
monolingual teachers are mandated to learn the learners’ first language but it is only a suggestion that may help them to adapt into the new culture. Moreover, teachers who are engaged in teaching a language have much to learn by themselves becoming language learners and struggling with the same sorts of problems that their students have to struggle with.
Secondly, research has not established that grammar-translation and audio-lingual methods in and of themselves are to be avoided, in all contexts. It may be that in the Omani context, monolingual teachers put too much emphasis on communication, self- expression and variety, and that they are neglecting some basic techniques in teaching the grammatical and syntactic structure of English. Further classroom based research would be needed to confirm whether or not this is the fact.
Monolingual teachers who may have an instinctive feel for grammar and syntax may themselves often lack an explicit knowledge of grammatical and syntactic rules, and therefore find that communicative teaching is an easier option. In the process of creating interest, implementing a variety of techniques and encouraging a flow of communication in classrooms, monolingual teachers may be letting learners down by neglecting to teach the structure of English adequately. I do not have enough evidence that this is the case from my data, but believe that this might be a useful area of future research in EFL teaching in comparative contexts.
Thirdly, there is the element of the expression of culture in classroom teaching and learning styles. Hofstede, (1986, p. 303), wrote that classroom interaction is an
archetypal human phenomenon that is deeply rooted in the culture of a society, so that interactions between teachers and learners from different cultures are fundamentally problematic and cross-cultural misunderstandings often occur.
Clearly, some of the Omani students felt discomfort in relation to the cultural differences implicit in the teaching styles of monolinguals, while other students seemed to enjoy the cultural exposure to Western ways of thinking and
communicating provided by their monolingual teachers. In either case, expatriate monolingual teachers should try to minimise the potential discomfort of a culture clash in EFL classrooms and be more aware of differing cultural styles and traditions as they plan their teaching and make a conscious effort to include a variety of styles
and cultural traditions. This is in line with Lixin Xiao (2006) who in writing about Confucian teaching styles, called for teachers of EFL to develop cross-cultural awareness and to incorporate cross-cultural skills in their teaching. As
Kumaravadivelu (1991, p. 98) states, “minimizing the perceived mismatch between teacher intention and learner interpretation will facilitate the chances of achieving the desired learning outcomes”.
The bilingual teachers also need to develop cross-cultural awareness and be given opportunities to broaden their pedagogical repertoires and make English learning more engaging and more meaningful. They need to learn to let go of the need to strictly manage everything that takes place in the classroom and instead think about the roles of a language-rich environment in enhancing learning and of affect and motivation. They need to learn about communicative, learner-centered teaching and ways of encouraging learners to become more responsible for their own learning. In order to limit their L1 usage in classrooms, many may need to improve their English, especially English conversation. To this end, in addition to professional development providing access to language learning theories and new techniques, they may need to be encouraged to spend more time in English-speaking countries and to participate culturally and linguistically in those countries.
Teachers need to encourage students to become responsible for their own learning. In particular teachers need to take responsibility for raising students’ awareness of cultures on the other side of the world, and encourage them to think globally as part of learning English not just as a foreign language, but as an international language. They need to consider the available teaching materials in the context of all the different cultures of the world culture and involve students in talking, discussing, comparing and negotiating such content. The students should be encouraged to bring cross- cultural topics to the class as some interviewed teachers have said earlier (Chapter six). There should be no taboos in learning and teaching practices or how students learn about western culture. There is so much to do trying to narrow the gap between the two cultures. So it is the responsibility of all parties, bilingual, monolingual teachers and the learners if we want to improve our appreciation of one another’s language and culture.