Original Research

SAGE Open
July-September 2023: 1–13
Ó The Author(s) 2023
Reconsidering the Use of L1 in the DOI: 10.1177/21582440231193521
journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
Algerian EFL Classroom

Nawal Khelalfa1 and Mountassar-Billah Kellil2

Abstract
There has been a considerable shift in opinion in recent years concerning the use of language learners’ first language (L1) in
the teaching and learning of the second language (L2). Recent research has revealed that L1 use is less problematic than once
believed. That research, however, has yet to consider the multiple contextual factors affecting L1 use, notably in the Algerian
context. The current study explored beliefs held by Algerian teachers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) concerning the
use of learners’ L1 with the aim of comparing these beliefs with expected language teaching practices established by the
country’s teaching policy. A questionnaire was distributed to 219 EFL teachers across three academic levels and six categories
of teaching experience. The results revealed that teachers often felt neutral toward the use of L1 or considered L1 as a vital
element in certain L2 teaching/ learning practices. Additionally, these results remained consistent when analyzed by teachers’
academic level, gender, and years of teaching experience, indicating that learning circumstances hold little to no importance
in determining the role of L1 in the Algerian L2 classroom. These findings stand in stark contrast to the ‘‘strictly-no-L1’’ policy
set by the country’s education system. Based on these findings, it is recommended that perhaps the country’s educational
framework should be reconsidered to meet teachers’ and learners’ needs.

Keywords
Algeria, beliefs, EFL, L1, L2, mother tongue, teachers’ perspectives

Introduction instruction to meet students’ needs as exemplified by the

Algerian L2 classroom.
For centuries, one of the most commonly debated issues Our experiences as EFL teachers in Algeria have led
in the field of language teaching and learning has been us to making recurring observations of a discrepancy
the role of learners’ first language (L1) in second lan- between teaching policy and practice. Algeria’s EFL
guage (L2) learning. The use of L1 has long been dis- teaching framework requires that English be taught only
couraged, particularly with the emergence of language in the English, without regard to context, circumstances,
teaching methods such as the direct method, audiolin- or any other factors. In practice, teachers’ and students’
gualisim, the natural approach, and the communicative needs call for different practices. Even when dealing with
approach (Howatt & Widdowson, 2004). These stressed advanced students such as those studying English at uni-
the importance of L2-only instruction, claiming that such versity, teachers sometimes find themselves stymied by
instruction fosters more efficient learning of the L2 since the restrictions of L2-only instruction. The problem is
a purely-L2 learning environment mimics learners’ natu- that prioritizing adherence to the framework over effec-
ral L1 acquisition process (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). tive transmission of the message to students subverts the
Some critics argue that turning to L1 to compensate primary purpose of language instruction. This study
for any deficiencies in the classroom does more harm
than good for learners. For starters, it hinders learners’
progress by depriving them of maximum exposure to the 1
University of Larbi Tebessi, Algeria
2
target language (Littlewood & Yu, 2011; Nation, 2003). University of Abbes Laghrour, Khenchela, Algeria
More recently, however, views on the role of L1 in the
Corresponding Author:
L2 classroom have begun to experience a significant shift Nawal Khelalfa, University of Larbi Tebessi, Route de Constantine, Tebessa,
toward reintroduction of the use of L1. One explanation 12022, Algeria.
for this may be the demonstrated inability of L2-only Email: Nawalkhelalfa@gmail.com

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open

aimed to illustrate the inefficiency of elevating dogmatic beneficial in learning L2 is by providing a means of lan-
rules over students’ needs. The responses of teachers guage transfer (Cummins, 2007). While transfer has been
across all academic levels and years of experience teach- viewed mostly negatively in L2 learning, according to
ing (up to 24) illustrate that, regardless of context, the these researchers, learners may find it easier to remember
current framework seems highly impractical in the items or concepts that they can relate to their L1. The L1
Algerian L2 classroom. also aids instruction and comprehension by helping to
explain new or difficult vocabulary or grammar, translat-
ing, correcting students’ mistakes, and responding to stu-
Literature Review dents’ inquiries or misunderstanding (Kelly & Bruen,
The literature on L1 use in the L2 classroom addressed a 2015; Khan, 2016; Mohebbi & Alavi, 2014; Nakatsukasa
few common issues. The first issue is reasons for using & Loewen, 2015). Teachers also use L1 for affective rea-
the L1. Several researchers support the use of L1 in the sons (Bruen & Kelly, 2017; Tsagari & Diakou, 2015),
L2 classroom for a range of purposes (Joyce, 2018; Liu such as reducing anxiety through praise and encourage-
& Zeng, 2015; Tsagari & Diakou, 2015; Wolthuis et al., ment, and classroom management, such as providing
2020). In their systematic review of 55 studies on the use instructions, classroom rules, or homework assignments
of L1 in the L2 classroom, Shin et al. (2020) suggested (Izquierdo et al., 2016; Nukuto, 2017). Use of L1 in such
that L1 provides significant benefits and should be inte- tasks as translation has even been linked to increased
grated into L2 teaching. They determined a few cate- participation and attention of students (Källkvist, 2013).
gories of factors influencing L1 use: student-teacher Researchers, however, still warn that the excessive use
factors, classroom factors, and institutional factors. of L1 can restrict learners’ exposure to the target lan-
Individual student-teacher factors includes students’ guage (Izquierdo et al., 2016; Thompson & Harrison,
level of proficiency and teachers’ knowledge and skills in 2014), limiting their learning development. Sawin (2018),
the L2. Multiple studies have revealed that more L2 pro- by contrast, argues that in the current digital age, stu-
ficient students were more likely to use L1 for various dents have instant and unlimited exposure to the L2
reasons, from reflecting on their own thoughts to making through different online sources that provide easy access
themselves more comprehensible to their less proficient to authentic use of the target language, increasing stu-
peers (Lin & Yu, 2015; Moore, 2013). Conversely, teach- dents’ competence in the L2 without reliance on the for-
ers who were less proficient were more likely to employ mal classroom setting. In other words, reference to L1 as
L1 (Hlas, 2016; Khresheh, 2012) for reasons such as fear a distraction or interference is no longer as valid as it
of embarrassment in front of students. Classroom factors once was. Hemaidia (2016) argues that the degree of dif-
include familiarity (of task and environment) and task ferences between the L1 and L2 is what determines effec-
difficulty. Studies show that students are more likely to tiveness of L1 use. The more the two languages are
use L1 with more familiar and less difficult tasks and similar, the more L1 use can be beneficial for learners. In
environments (Moore, 2013; Shin et al., 2020). the case of Algeria, while Arabic and English are dis-
Institutional factors include institution type, institutional tinctly different on several levels, they have similarities
policy, curriculum, and entrance exam criteria (Shin which would enable use of Arabic as an L1 to aid L2
et al., 2020). learning/instruction.
Another issue addressed in the literature is effective- Meanwhile, certain other studies argue that exclusive
ness of L1 use. From the perspective of students, many use of the L2 can be counterproductive, making students
reported that L1 use was highly useful for L2 learning more anxious (being overloaded with the pace and
(Hlas, 2016; Liu & Zeng, 2015) in general, and many amount of unfamiliar language), less willing to communi-
were satisfied with integration of L1 in such activities as cate and less involved cognitively (Liu & Zeng, 2015;
translation (Kelly & Bruen, 2015). This preference for Tian & Hennebry, 2016; Zhao & Macaro, 2016), which
the use of L1 echoed across all proficiency levels (Chiou, can lead to complete disengagement from learning (Tian
2014) ages, and academic levels (Macaro & Lee, 2013), & Hennebry, 2016; Zhao & Macaro, 2016). In this
with the lowest proficiency students and younger stu- respect, some researchers support the use of L1 for affec-
dents expressing the strongest preference (Tsagari & tive purposes such as motivation (Ellis, 2008). According
Diakou, 2015), while others revealed the opposite to this view, learners who hear and use L1 should feel
(Rabbidge & Chappell, 2014). more comfortable and should be more motivated to learn
In their review, Hall and Cook (2012) highlighted a the target language whereas complete absence of L1 may
shift in views toward the use of L1 in L2 teaching, make the classroom and the learning process more inti-
emphasizing the significant role of L1 in the classroom. midating. Brown (2000) claims that this is particularly
Various studies addressed the issue from different per- true for adult learners, who are more prone to feeling
spectives. Some argue that one way in which L1 can be anxious in the L2 classroom. Use of L1 is believed to
Khelalfa and Kellil 3

reduce such feelings of apprehension among learners L1 is the Algerian dialect of Arabic (or vernacular
(Meyer, 2008) while imposing strict L2-only instruction Arabic), which is an amalgamation of MSA, French,
may prevent some learners from communicating alto- and sometimes even Tamazight (in Berber-speaking
gether. This is supported by several studies (Khan, 2016; regions).
McManus & Marsden, 2016; Samian et al., 2016; Zhang, So where does English fit in? For so long, English was
2018; Zhao & Macaro, 2016), which suggest that learners relegated to the background of the Algerian linguistic
benefit from instruction that integrates L1 in L2 instruc- milieu. More recently, however, in the interest in and use
tion, especially among lower proficiency learners. of English has surged in Algeria, both in an attempt to
Another important issue addressed in the literature is fit into the international linguistic setting and as an ini-
the extent to which L1 is used in L2 classrooms. Many tiative to shift away from the language of the colonizer
studies examined the extent to which L1 was being used and to move beyond a painful colonial history
in the L2 classroom, all of which revealed that L1 was (Belmihoub, 2018; Jacob, 2019, 2020). Today, English in
being used commonly (Adinolfi & Astruc, 2017; Kelly & Algeria is considered as an international language, the
Bruen, 2015), ranging from 11% (Nakatsukasa & ‘‘language of the future’’ and the ‘‘language of science’’
Loewen, 2015) to 69% (Izquierdo et al., 2016) of the and advancement (Jacob, 2019). Where once English use
time. was nearly non-existent, today the vital need for the lan-
Despite the availability of literature on the use of L1 guage is widely acknowledged. For instance, individuals
in the L2 classroom, there is still significant gap. To our seeking a better job nearly anywhere abroad must learn
knowledge, no previous research has simultaneously English (Jacob, 2019). University students—notably
examined multiple contextual factors (such as gender, postgraduate students in scientific streams—and mem-
years of teaching experience, and academic level) affect- bers of the scientific community sometimes find them-
ing teachers’ use of L1 in L2 teaching. Also to our knowl- selves debilitated without sufficient knowledge of
edge, no prior studies have adopted years of teaching English (Belmihoub, 2018). Similarly, entrepreneurs and
experience as a potential factor in L1 usage. This study business people often realize that English is a vital asset.
aims to address this gap by examining teachers’ beliefs Learning English in Algeria has become of primary
about the use of L1 in L2 teaching and their actual prac- importance not only for individuals seeking work and
tice across academic levels, years of teaching experience, study abroad opportunities but also on a national scale
and gender. In doing so, we aim to inform the overarch- for the advancement of academics, research, business,
ing aim of the study, which is to illustrate the discrepancy and other fields (Jacob, 2019).
between Algerian policy and actual classroom practice. In accordance with this proliferating need for English
proficiency, Algeria has adopted a range of education
reforms to improve the education system and facilitate
The Algerian Context an efficient shift toward a more Anglophone nation.
Due to over a century of French colonization, which Along with incorporating English into schools, educa-
stripped Algeria of its Arab and Tamazight (also known tional reforms have declared English as the first foreign
as Berber) culture, the French language is indelibly language instead of French, assigning the former more
enmeshed in all forms of communication in Algeria prominence. This is because English is considered by
(Jacob, 2019, 2020). For decades Algeria has been a pre- many as the solution to all problems encountered by the
dominately Francophone nation, and the Arabic that failing education system (Mami, 2013).
was once spoken in the nation has become an awkward Since its inception into Algerian education, several
melding of French, Arabic and, in some areas, English teaching approaches have been employed in
Tamazight (Belmihoub, 2018). Although the official lan- response to the changes taking place across the globe
guages of the country are technically Modern Standard (Benadla, 2013; Mami, 2013). The most recent approaches
Arabic (MSA) and Tamazight, MSA is rarely used in are the communicative approach and the Competency-
practice. The only exception is formal classroom teach- based Approach (CBA). The latter stressed the signifi-
ing and learning procedures such as examinations, cance of communicative competence in learning English.
which—throughout primary and secondary education— Because of its impracticality in the Algerian context, how-
are in MSA. Meanwhile, French, although not an offi- ever, educators adopted CBA, a derivative of the commu-
cial language, is used nearly everywhere, including on nicative approach. The aim of the latter approach remains
the street, in formal administrative documents, and in communicative competence, but with focus also placed on
various tertiary-level course instruction. Accordingly, for practicality rather than attaining communicative compe-
many, pinpointing a single L1 for Algerians may be diffi- tence and knowledge of the target culture.
cult considering the rich fusion of the three dominant Steering away from merely teaching language forms,
languages. Most Algerians, however, will agree that their the main focus in the Algerian EFL classroom has
4 SAGE Open

become trying to get learners to reach a state where they sake of clarification or comprehension while secondary-
can communicate in the language in the contexts where level teachers and students viewed L1 as necessary for
they most need to do so. This, according to CBA, can be aiding comprehension and facilitating the L2 learning
accomplished only with L2 instruction. Mami (2013) process. The latter viewpoint stands in contrast to the
posits that successful EFL teaching includes using only communicative approach in general and CBA in particu-
English to teach the language in nearly all instances, lar, which encouraged L2-only instruction. What
including with beginners. In practice, many teachers, Algerian English education seems to be experiencing is a
however find this to be a difficult task, oftentimes discrepancy between theory and practice. Despite the
because they are bound to specific learning objectives clear theoretical disapproval of the use of L1 in EFL
they must meet in a limited period of time (Manel et al., teaching, practitioners still rely on this source of
2019), so focusing on transmitting the message to lear- interference.
ners solely in English can be challenging and time-con- For purpose of the study, we adopted the assumptions
suming. Moreover, the fact that these teachers are that teachers use L1 mainly as a compensation strategy
themselves non-native English speakers presents difficul- to facilitate communication with learners and that they
ties in explaining certain concepts to learners (Manel do so more often in secondary than tertiary education
et al., 2019). The teacher may therefore face a dilemma: because of the difference in students’ capacities. Yet,
use English only at the expense of efficacy, lost time, based on our personal observations, we adopted the
and/or failure to meet all objectives, or incorporate L1 at assumption that L1 is used more often than necessary
the expense of reducing learners’ exposure to English regardless of how its use is broken out, perhaps merely
and perhaps hindering their learning. out of habit. The current study was conducted in attempt
How, then, is the use of L1 in Algeria impacting EFL to unveil teachers’ usage patterns of L1 in Algerian EFL
learners? classes by studying teachers’ beliefs about the use of L1
Manel et al. (2019) found that although the majority under various conditions. To this end, we aimed to
of learners found the exclusive use of English to be bene- answer the following research questions:
ficial for their proficiency, the majority also supported
teacher’s use of L1 for a number of reasons. In fact, 75% 1) When broken out by teaching experience, to what
of students thought that L1 should be used at least some- extent do EFL teachers hold differing views
times in the classroom to meet their wide range of needs. about the use of L1 in the English classroom?
In exploring English to Arabic code-switching practices 2) When broken out by academic level taught, to
among Algerian tertiary-level teachers and students, what extent do EFL teachers hold differing views
Adder and Bagui (2020) found that using L1 is a com- about the use of L1 in the English classroom?
mon practice among teachers. When investigating teach- 3) When broken out by gender, to what extent do
ers’ attitudes, the authors found that teachers overall EFL teachers hold differing views about the use
held negative attitudes toward use of L1, encouraging of L1 in the English classroom?
the exclusive use of English for lecturing and interacting 4) Overall, what are EFL teachers’ beliefs about the
in the classroom. Concurrently, however, these teachers use of L1 in the English classroom?
consider the use of L1 to be a necessity, particularly
when trying to transmit a message effectively to students.
At the secondary level, Henni (2017) explored students’
Methodology
and teachers’ code-switching to L1 in the English class- The current study implemented a descriptive, quantita-
room and found that both parties held positive views tive approach. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS
toward code-switching to and from L1. An overwhelm- v25.
ing majority of the students (87.5%) used L1 at least
sometimes, and the same rate believed that such code-
switching is either beneficial or extremely beneficial for Participants and Sampling Procedures
learning the foreign language. When asked about their Teachers across Algeria responded to a closed-ended,
teachers, 92.5% reported that teachers used L1 at least Likert-scale questionnaire measuring their attitudes
sometimes, most often either to explain grammar rules or toward the use of L1 in the language teaching classroom.
new vocabulary items or to check their comprehension. The non-probability sample (a completely random sam-
The reviewed literature has revealed a discrepancy ple was not possible) included 219 teachers (females:
between attitudes of teachers and students at a tertiary n = 159, 72.6% of the sample; males: n = 57, 26% of the
level and those at a secondary level. Teachers and stu- sample; prefer not to say: n = 3, 1.4% of the sample)
dents at a tertiary level seem to discourage the use of L1 from 41 different Algerian provinces. The predominance
in the EFL classroom, despite using it themselves for the of females over males reflects the same predominance in
Khelalfa and Kellil 5

Table 1. Sample, Broken Out by Level, Gender, and Years of Experience.

Gender Years (experience) teaching

Prefer
Female Male not to say 6 years 6–12 years 13–18 years 19–24 years + 24 years Total

Level Middle n = 54, 79% 14, 20% 0 31, 46% 18, 26% 13, 19% 1, 1% 5, 7% 68
High n = 45, 68% 20, 30% 1, 2% 29, 44% 16, 24% 9, 14% 4, 6% 8, 12% 66
College/ n = 60, 70% 23, 28% 2, 2% 28, 33% 30, 35% 13, 15% 4, 5% 10, 12% 85
university
Total 159 57 3 88 64 35 9 23 219

all universities across the country (MERIC-Net, 2019), Data Analysis

particularly across most arts and humanities depart- All responses were recorded and analyzed using IBM
ments. Ages ranged from 20 to 69 (M = 36.07; SPSS (v.25). First, descriptive statistics for all relevant
SD = 9.592). All teacher respondents were learners of data were calculated then factor analysis was carried out
EFL themselves, and their native language was the
based on principal axis factoring extraction methods
Algerian dialect of Arabic. with oblique rotation using the direct oblimin algorithm.
Teachers represented three academic levels: middle
Questionnaire items were grouped together appropri-
school (n = 68; 31.1%), high school (n = 66; 30.1%),
ately, attaining a satisfactory level of construct validity.
and college/university (85; 38.8%). Because English is
Internal consistency was then measured using
not taught in Algeria at the level of elementary school,
Cronbach’s Alpha for the second portion of the ques-
teachers at this level were not polled. Of the entire sam-
tionnaire and for each factor independently. Then nor-
ple, 88 (40.2%) had less than 6 years of experience teach-
mality was tested for each factor independently and for
ing; 64 (29.22%) had 6 to 12 years, 35 (16%) had 13 to
the entire second portion of the questionnaire using the
18 years of experience, 9 (4.2%) had 19 to 24 years of
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test of normality. Once data was
experience, and 23 (10.5%) had more than 24 years of
found to be normally distributed, one-way ANOVA was
experience teaching (refer to Table 1).
used to test for differences in group means for each of
Students begin EFL instruction for the first time in
the factors.
sixth grade, so we expected middle school teachers to be
most supportive of the use of L1 for their beginner-level
students. University students, conversely, had been learn- Procedures
ing English for a minimum of 6 years. Because they were We developed some items in the questionnaire using our
expected to have reached a certain level of mastery of the experience in EFL teaching. Other items were adapted
language, we expected their teachers to be least suppor- from previous studies (Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008;
tive of the use of L1 when compared to teachers of other Wach & Monroy, 2019).
levels. We contacted potential respondents through e-mail
Years of experience teaching was adopted as a factor and social media platforms such as Facebook, and the
in this study for similar reasons: teachers with more expe- questionnaire was subsequently administered online. A
rience were expected to use L1 less and discourage its use smaller than expected sample was available because the
more when compared to teachers with less experience. response rate on over 1,000 attempted contacts was
We also chose to compare responses by gender to see approximately 20%. We ran factor analysis to measure
whether there are any trends in beliefs in that respect. for construct validity, which reduced items to two main
factors: linguistic and affective/behavioral. Linguistic fac-
tors measure language aspects of teaching, from gram-
Data Gathering Tools mar and vocabulary to reading comprehension and
Data for this study were collected using a closed-ended overall retention. Affective/behavioral factors include
questionnaire measuring attitudes or beliefs about the statements related to the use of L1 for affective or beha-
use of L1 in teaching EFL. The questionnaire was com- vioral reasons such as classroom management. Item
prised of two main sections: 1) demographic/ back- reduction and factor extraction reduced items to 27, 14 in
ground information, and 2) beliefs about the use of L1 the first factor (language development), and 13 in the sec-
in the classroom. The latter section was initially made up ond factor (affect and behavior).
of 34 Likert-scale items ranging from strongly disagree After item reduction, we tested for internal consis-
(1) to strongly agree (5). tency through Cronbach’s alpha. Reliability analysis
6 SAGE Open

Table 2. Beliefs, Broken out by Teaching Experience.

ANOVA
Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Linguistic Between groups 133.040 4 33.260 0.579 .679

Within groups 12303.407 214 57.493
Total 12,436.447 218
Affective/behavioral Between groups 371.188 4 92.797 1.201 .312
Within groups 16,541.397 214 77.296
Total 16,912.584 218
Overall Between groups 869.902 4 217.476 0.940 .442
Within groups 49,530.107 214 231.449
Total 50,400.009 218

Table 3. Beliefs, Broken Out by Academic Level.

ANOVA
Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Linguistic factor Between groups 243.779 2 121.890 2.159 .118

Within groups 12,192.668 216 56.448
Total 12,436.447 218
Affective/behavioral factor Between groups 350.999 2 175.499 2.289 .104
Within groups 16,561.586 216 76.674
Total 16,912.584 218
Overall Between groups 945.185 2 472.592 2.064 .129
Within groups 49,454.824 216 228.958
Total 50,400.009 218

yielded a coefficient of .89 for all the items combined, F (4, 214) = 0.874, p = .481, level taught, F (2,
indicating strong internal consistency. The analysis also 216) = 1.760, p = .175, and gender, F (2, 216) = 1.098,
yielded a coefficient of .80 for factor 1 (linguistic) and a p = .335.
coefficient of .80 for factor 2 (affect and behavior), indi-
cating relatively strong internal consistency.
Beliefs Based on Teachers’ Experience
Results from the ANOVA analysis revealed that, when
Analysis and Discussion comparing responses by teachers’ experience (Table 2),
there are no statistically significant differences in beliefs
Analysis about the use of L1 in teaching EFL. Table 2 shows that
To test for statistically significant differences in teachers’ no differences exist between groups when analyzing the
beliefs about the use of L1 in teaching EFL, the first factor (linguistic variables), F (4, 214) = 0.579,
researcher compared their answers by gender, years of p = .679, or the second factor (affective variables),
experience teaching, and different academic levels by F (4, 214) = 1.201, p = .312. The analysis also indicates
running separate ANOVA tests for each factor as well as that no differences exist between groups in overall beliefs
for the entire questionnaire. Prior to running the test, about the use of L1 in teaching EFL, regardless of the
Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances and reason for use, F (4, 214) = 0.940, p = .442.
Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s test of normality were used to
check whether the data were suitable for the parametric
test statistic ANOVA. Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s test of Beliefs Based on Academic Level
normality revealed that the data was normally distribu- We also ran ANOVA to compare teachers’ responses
ted, D (219) = .045, p = .200, and Levene’s homogeneity based on academic level taught. Table 3 shows results
of variances revealed that there was equality of variances from the analysis, which reveal that when responses were
across all groups when broken out by experience, compared by academic level, there were no significant
Khelalfa and Kellil 7

Table 4. Beliefs, Broken Out by Gender.

ANOVA
Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Linguistic factor Between groups 13.797 2 6.898 0.120 .887

Within groups 12,422.651 216 57.512
Total 12,436.447 218
Affective factor Between groups 15.117 2 7.559 0.097 .908
Within groups 16,897.467 216 78.229
Total 16,912.584 218
Overall Between groups 2.125 2 1.062 0.005 .995
Within groups 50,397.884 216 233.324
Total 50,400.009 218

difference in beliefs across levels in regards to the first 24 years of experience teaching. The latter category of
factor, F (2, 216) = 2.159, p = .118, as well as the second respondents held slightly more positive views since the
factor, F (2, 216) = 2.289, p = .104. Similarly, there were majority of them either agreed (n = 5, 55.6%)
no differences in responses overall, F (4, 216) = 2.064, or strongly agreed (n = 2, 22.2%). When broken out
p = .129. by level, responses were nearly the same for respondents
from middle school (M = 2.76, SD = 1.05), high school
(M = 2.76, SD = 1.24), and college/university
Beliefs Based on Gender (M = 2.54, SD = 1.09).
Responses were also compared for each factor by gen- Similarly, no striking differences in responses for the
der. The ANOVA table (Table 4) suggests no significant second statement appeared when compared by categories
differences in beliefs regarding linguistic reasons for L1 of experience and level taught. Nearly all categories of
use, F (2, 216) = 0.120, p = .887, or affective reasons, F respondents held a relatively neutral view, indicating
(2, 216) = 0.097, p = .908, when compared by gender. that, overall, respondents neither encouraged nor dis-
Results from the analysis also revealed no significant dif- couraged the use of L1 for making the classroom atmo-
ferences in beliefs overall, F (2, 216) = 0.005, p = .995, sphere slightly friendlier (M = 2.95, SD = 1.11).
when broken out by gender. Table 6 shows sample statements from the second fac-
tor, affective and behavioral features. In the first example,
statement 11, respondents held a relatively neutral view
Use of L1 for Various Reasons overall (M = 3.05, SD = 1.174). When broken out by
The analysis of descriptive statistics indicates that years of experience, responses were relatively similar across
respondents held relatively neutral beliefs in terms of lin- all categories except the category of 19 to 24 years of expe-
guistic features (factor 1) (M = 2.77, SD = 0.58), affec- rience (M = 3.44, SD = 1.13). All respondents held rela-
tive and behavioral features (factor 2) (M = 2.83, tively neutral views about learners’ use of L1 for
SD = 0.68), and overall (M = 2.80, SD = 0.58). Table 5 translating vocabulary items to remember them better with
shows sample statements from the first factor, linguistic the exception of respondents with 19 to 24 years of experi-
features, broken out by years of experience teaching and ence teaching. The latter category of respondents held
academic level. The table outlines frequency of response slightly more positive views since the majority of them
and descriptive statistics for each statement; for example, agreed (n = 7, 77.8%). When broken out by level,
in the statement ‘‘In a lower-level classroom, it is best if responses were nearly the same for those from middle
organizational issues are explained in L1,’’ overall, school (M = 2.93, SD = 1.21), high school (M = 3.15,
respondents held a rather neutral view (M = 2.68, SD = 1.24), and college/university (M = 3.07, SD = 1.09).
SD = 1.13), although at a first glance, it appears that Overall, results presented in Tables 5 and 6 and those
considerably more respondents disagreed (n = 90, 41% for the rest of the statements indicate that teachers held
of the sample). When broken out by years of experience rather neutral beliefs about the use of L1 in the English
teaching, responses were similar across all categories classroom. Only a few statements indicated otherwise.
except 19 to 24 years of experience (M = 3.65, Table 7 presents descriptive data for the few statements
SD = 1.32), indicating that all respondents held rela- to which responses were more skewed. For statement 5,
tively neutral views about the use of L1 for organiza- participants mostly disagreed that the use of English
tional issues with the exception of respondents with 19 to alone helps learners learn the language more efficiently
8
Table 5. Linguistic Features, Broken Out by Experience and Level.

Years (experience) teaching Level

\6 6–12 13–18 19–24 .24 Middle High College
years years years years years school school /university Total

1. In a lower-level M 2.60 2.69 2.66 3.65 2.57 2.76 2.76 2.54 2.68
classroom, it is best if SD 1.067 1.125 1.162 1.323 1.121 1.053 1.241 1.086 1.125
organizational issues SD n 12 8 4 1 4 5 12 12 29
(like checking % 13.6% 12.5% 11.4% 11.1% 17.4% 7.4% 18.2% 14.1% 13.2%
attendance and D n 36 27 17 1 9 30 21 39 90
preparing materials) are % 40.9% 42.2% 48.6% 11.1% 39.1% 44.1% 31.8% 45.9% 41.1%
explained in the L1. N N 17 8 3 0 3 11 7 13 31
% 19.3% 12.5% 8.6% 0.0% 13.0% 16.2% 10.6% 15.3% 14.2%
A N 21 19 9 5 7 20 23 18 61
% 23.9% 29.7% 25.7% 55.6% 30.4% 29.4% 34.8% 21.2% 27.9%
SA N 2 2 2 2 0 2 3 3 8
% 2.3% 3.1% 5.7% 22.2% 0.0% 2.9% 4.5% 3.5% 3.7%
2. Using L1 in the M 3.01 2.98 2.97 3.44 2.66 2.87 2.97 2.99 2.95
classroom makes the SD 1.109 1.134 1.043 1.236 .982 1.183 1.095 1.075 1.112
classroom atmosphere SD N 7 5 2 1 3 8 4 6 18
friendlier. % 8.0% 7.8% 5.7% 11.1% 13.0% 11.8% 6.1% 7.1% 8.2%
D N 27 23 12 1 14 25 25 27 77
% 30.7% 35.9% 34.3% 11.1% 60.9% 36.8% 37.9% 31.8% 35.2%
N N 17 7 7 1 1 6 9 18 33
% 19.3% 10.9% 20.0% 11.1% 4.3% 8.8% 13.6% 21.2% 15.1%
A N 32 26 13 5 5 26 25 30 81
% 36.4% 40.6% 37.1% 55.6% 21.7% 38.2% 37.9% 35.3% 37.0%
SA N 5 3 1 1 0 10 5 3 1 1 0 3 3 4 10
% 5.7% 4.7% 2.9% 11.1% 0.0% 4.6% 5.7% 4.7% 2.9% 11.1% 0.0% 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% 4.6%
 Table 6. Affective and Behavioral Features, Broken Out by Experience and Level.

Years (experience) teaching Level

\6 6-12 13–18 19–24 .24 Middle High College/
years years years years years school school university Total

11. Translating vocabulary SD M 3.11 3.05 3.09 3.44 2.61 2.93 3.15 3.07 3.05
items from English to SD 1.226 1.161 1.121 1.130 1.076 1.213 1.243 1.089 1.174
the L1 helps learners n 10 8 3 1 3 10 8 7 25
remember the % 11.4% 12.5% 8.6% 11.1% 13.0% 14.7% 12.1% 8.2% 11.4%
vocabulary items. D n 23 15 9 1 10 19 16 23 58
% 26.1% 23.4% 25.7% 11.1% 43.5% 27.9% 24.2% 27.1% 26.5%
N N 10 9 7 0 3 8 6 15 29
% 11.4% 14.1% 20.0% 0.0% 13.0% 11.8% 9.1% 17.6% 13.2%
A N 37 30 14 7 7 28 30 37 95
% 42.0% 46.9% 40.0% 77.8% 30.4% 41.2% 45.5% 43.5% 43.4%
SA N 8 2 2 0 0 3 6 3 12
% 9.1% 3.1% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 9.1% 3.5% 5.5%
13. It is easier for M 2.45 2.41 2.60 3.00 2.22 2.40 2.64 2.38 2.46
learners to understand SD 1.103 1.123 1.117 1.225 .951 1.081 1.172 1.058 1.101
English grammar when SD N 17 13 7 1 4 13 10 19 42
explained in the L1. % 19.3% 20.3% 20.0% 11.1% 17.4% 19.1% 15.2% 22.4% 19.2%
D N 36 29 10 3 14 32 28 32 92
% 40.9% 45.3% 28.6% 33.3% 60.9% 47.1% 42.4% 37.6% 42.0%
N N 16 7 8 0 1 7 7 18 32
% 18.2% 10.9% 22.9% 0.0% 4.3% 10.3% 10.6% 21.2% 14.6%
A N 16 13 10 5 4 15 18 15 48
% 18.2% 20.3% 28.6% 55.6% 17.4% 22.1% 27.3% 17.6% 21.9%
SA N 5 3 1 1 0 10 3 2 0 0 0 1 3 1 5
% 5.7% 4.7% 2.9% 11.1% 0.0% 4.6% 3.4% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 4.5% 1.2% 2.3%

9
10 SAGE Open

Table 7. Statements With Skewed Responses.

N Mean SD Value

5. Using only English to teach helps learners learn the language more efficiently. 219 2.27 1.188 D
6. At least some L1 is necessary in teaching English to lower level students. 219 3.74 1.044 A
9. If learners have problems understanding texts in English (like those of reading and listening 219 2.33 1.109 D
comprehension), translating them into L1 is a good solution.
16. The L1 should be used to check listening comprehension of students. 219 2.20 0.901 D
18. The only way for learners to fully understand the meaning of an English word is when they know 219 2.42 1.104 D
its translation in the L1.
20. Details about assessment/ evaluation and class outlines should be given in the L1. 219 2.32 0.922 D

Note. Responses to statement 20 indicate that, overall, respondents discouraged the use of L1 for providing class outlines and details about assessment
(M = 2.32, SD = 0.922).

(M = 2.27, SD = 1.19). For statement 6, on the other expect the current study to reveal no significant differ-
hand, respondents generally agreed that at least some L1 ences between teachers’ attitudes based on academic level
is required in teaching English to lower level students taught. Based on both the existing literature (Adder &
(M = 3.74, SD = 1.04). Respondents also discouraged Bagui, 2020; Henni, 2017) and personal observations, we
the use of L1 for translating texts (M = 2.33, SD = 1.11) expected teachers of higher levels to be less accepting of
and for checking reading or listening comprehension the use of L1 when teaching L2, and they were expected
(M = 2.20, SD = 0.90). to use it less compared to those of lower levels simply
Each of the individual statements was also analyzed because students in higher levels were expected to have
using ANOVA for differences in responses based on become more proficient in the L2, requiring less usage of
each category of respondents. When broken out by gen- L1. For similar reasons, teachers with more experience
der, responses did not vary for any statement. Responses were also expected to be less tolerant of the use of L1,
varied for only one statement each when broken out by and they were expected to use it less themselves because
teaching experience and academic level. Differences are of the extensive experience in using and teaching the L2.
essentially non-existent across all questionnaire Teachers with less experience were expected to favor L1
responses, reinforcing results from the previous analyses. use, notably for such functions as classroom manage-
ment and explanation of difficult concepts and vocabu-
lary items. The results, however, indicate that even across
Discussion decades of experience, views toward the use of L1 in the
L2 classroom remain relatively the same in the Algerian
The first, second, and third research questions were context. We did not anticipate any particular patterns of
answered using ANOVA. Table 2 indicates that teachers’ belief compared by respondent gender; instead, the study
attitudes toward the use of L1 in the L2 classroom are sought to unveil any available patterns in responses
relatively the same across different categories of teaching based on this factor. As explained, however, responses
experiences. Those who have the least experience teach- were relatively consistent across all groups of gender in
ing, for instance, hold relatively the same attitudes as linguistic variables, affective variables, and overall.
those who have been teaching longest. This lack of dif- When analyzing responses for individual question-
ference holds true even after grouping reasons for use of naire items, a number of key findings emerged. First,
L1 into two factors, neither of which showed significant respondents held overall neutral beliefs toward the use of
differences in beliefs based on teaching experience. L1 in the L2 classroom. Second, respondents also held
Similarly, Table 3 indicates no significant differences neutral beliefs when responses were broken out by L1
between teachers’ beliefs based on the academic level. usage factor; in other words, their beliefs were relatively
Teachers in middle school, for instance, held relatively consistent across the linguistic and affective/behavioral
the same views as those in high school or college. Beliefs categories. Third, since the first set of analyses revealed
as per academic level also did not vary across the two that responses were relatively the same across groups of
factors. Finally, Table 4 indicates that beliefs were rela- experience, level, and gender, this second set of analyses
tively the same when broken out by respondents’ gender, indicates that responses across the two factors as well as
which was the case across the two factors as well as overall were neutral for all of the aforementioned cate-
overall. gories of respondents. In other words, respondents across
These findings contribute to the existing literature on all five categories of teaching experience (from 26 years
the use of L1 in the Algerian L2 classroom. We did not to + 24 years of teaching experience), all three categories
Khelalfa and Kellil 11

of academic level, and all three categories of gender held Conclusion

neutral beliefs about the use of L1 in the L2 classroom.
The current study aimed to reconsider a significant
Finally, after analyzing individual statements, only 6 of
aspect in the current foreign language teaching frame-
the 27 statements did not yield mutual responses, and of
work in Algeria. It presents an in-depth analysis of
the 27 statements, differences in responses based on any
Algerian EFL teachers’ beliefs about the use of L1 in the
of the categories were nearly non-existent.
classroom, including comparing those beliefs with the
Unlike Adder and Bagui (2020) and Henni (2017),
expected practices dictated by the country’s language
whose studies suggested that tertiary and secondary
learning policy.
English language teachers in Algeria had slightly differ-
A few limitations were encountered throughout the
ent views toward the use of L1, the current findings sug-
study. First, the low response rate from participants
gest that teachers of different levels, years of experience,
affected the sample size considerably. Second, lack of
and gender share the same beliefs about and tendency to
random sample selection makes it difficult to generalize
use L1 in the classroom. Respondents also promote L1
the results to the entire population. Finally, for practi-
use much more than Algeria’s language learning frame-
cal reasons including respondent retention, the sub-
work considers feasible. The only mutual and obvious
stance of the questionnaire limited the scope of the
opposition to the use of L1 respondents seemed to
results because it did not cover every potential area
express was in directly translating words or texts for the
related to L1 use in the L2 classroom. Additionally, the
sake of learners’ comprehension.
questionnaire was purely quantitative (closed-ended).
The study emphasized inquiry about differences in
The inclusion of qualitative data could have generated
beliefs based on teachers’ characteristics in order to
additional valuable information to strengthen our sug-
examine how teachers’ experiences shape and are shaped
gestion that Algeria reconsider its L2 teaching
by the need to employ L1 in teaching English as an L2.
framework.
The complete absence of any type of fluctuation in
Despite these limitations, the study shows at a statisti-
responses along the scales of the studied characteristics
cally significant level that L1 is viewed by teachers not as
indicates that L1 is a vital tool in every L2 classroom, a
a source of interference or hindrance but as an asset for
view that was almost unanimously expressed among all
both learners and teachers. Most importantly, these
respondents. These findings are in line with claims made
views were expressed across three academic levels, five
by many researchers (Hlas, 2016; Joyce, 2018; Liu &
levels of teaching experience, and all genders.
Zeng, 2015; Manel et al., 2019; Tsagari & Diakou, 2015;
Hundreds of teachers in different settings and cir-
Wolthuis et al., 2020), who opposed the exclusive use of
cumstances agree that incorporation of L1 is beneficial
L2 on the ground that it presents significant challenges
in the L2 classroom, suggesting that real-life needs, and
for both teachers and learners. The findings are contrary
the practical experiences of language learners and
to Mami (2013), who opined that teaching EFL in
teachers, should take precedence over any pre-set
Algeria successfully means doing so only in English.
learning framework that cannot adequately consider all
These findings are significant for a few reasons. First,
aspects of the learning process. Accordingly, the cur-
they provide significant support for the proposition that
rent framework (CBA) seems to fall short in completely
perhaps Algerian L-2-only policies, which strictly confine
meeting learners’ needs through its strictly-no-L1 pol-
EFL instruction to English regardless of level or any
icy. It presents an idealized image of what the language
other teaching or learning circumstances, should be
learning process should be but fails to consider what
reconsidered. A review of the more recent literature sug-
actually takes place in language classrooms across the
gests that the L-2 only framework is not as effective as it
country. This study proposes that the L2-only restric-
was once believed to be, and in practice, many Algerian
tion in Algeria’s language teaching policy should be
teachers, regardless of their personal and professional
reconsidered, especially because English will be intro-
characteristics, and students agree that the use of L1 is
duced as a second language in elementary schools for
vital for multiple reasons. The findings also suggest that,
the first time in the upcoming academic year.
globally, use of the L1 to assist in L2 learning and teach-
Reconsidering the current policies can help set such
ing should not be discouraged as it once was. Based on
early learners for a path of success in their language
these findings, factors such as teachers’ gender, teaching
learning journey.
experience and academic level hold little to no impor-
tance when it comes to deciding whether teaching should
be supplemented with L1 or not. Accordingly, the find- Declaration of Conflicting Interests
ings contribute to the broader literature on the topic and The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
to a more thorough understanding of L1 use in L2 respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
teaching. article.
12 SAGE Open

Funding Hlas, A. C. (2016). Secondary teachers’ language usage: Beliefs

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, and practices. Hispania, 99(2), 305–319.
authorship, and/or publication of this article. Howatt, A. P. R., & Widdowson, H. G. (2004). A history of
English language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Izquierdo, J., Martı́nez, V. G., Pulido, M. G. G., & Zúñiga, S.
Ethical Approval P. A. (2016). First and target language use in public lan-
All participants in this study agreed to participate in this study guage education for young learners: Longitudinal evidence
by giving verbal and written consent. Furthermore, all ethical from Mexican secondary-school classrooms. System, 61,
guidelines were kept. 20–30.
Jacob, C. (2019). ‘Back to the ‘‘futur’’’: Mobility and immobi-
lity through English in Algeria. Language & Communication,
ORCID iD 68, 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.11.004
Nawal Khelalfa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9467-9912 Jacob, C. (2020). English as a decolonial language: Academic
frames, popular discourses & language practices in Algeria.
The journal of North African studies, 25(6), 1013–1032.
References https://doi.org/10.1080/13629387.2020.1732627
Adder, F. Z., & Bagui, H. (2020). English-Algerian Arabic Joyce, P. (2018). L2 vocabulary learning and testing: The use of
code-Switching in EFL classroom: Case of EFL teachers L1 translation versus L2 definition. The Language Learning
and students in the department of English at Tlemcen Uni- Journal, 46(3), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.
versity, Algeria. Arab World English Journal, 11(4), 144–162. 2015.1028088
https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no4.10 Källkvist, M. (2013). Languaging in translation tasks used in a
Adinolfi, L., & Astruc, L. (2017). An exploratory study of university setting: Particular potential for student agency?
translanguaging practices in an online beginner-level foreign The Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 217–238. https://doi.
language classroom. Language Learning in Higher Educa- org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01430.x
tion, 7(1), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2017- Kelly, N., & Bruen, J. (2015). Translation as a pedagogical tool
0008 in the foreign language classroom: A qualitative study of
Belmihoub, K. (2018). English in a multilingual Algeria. World attitudes and behaviours. Language Teaching Research,
Englishes, 37(2), 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng. 19(2), 150–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541720
12294 Khan, M. S. (2016). The impact of native language use on sec-
Benadla, L. (2013). The competency based language teaching in ond language vocabulary learning by Saudi EFL students.
the Algerian middle school: From EFL acquisition planning English Language Teaching, 9, 134–140. https://doi.org/10.
to its practical teaching/learning. Arab World English Jour- 5539/elt.v9n5p134
nal, 4(1), 158–165. Khresheh, A. (2012). Exploring when and why to use Arabic in
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teach- the Saudi Arabian EFL classroom: Viewing L1 use as eclec-
ing (4th ed.). Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. tic technique. English Language Teaching, 5(6), 78–88.
Bruen, J., & Kelly, N. (2017). Using a shared L1 to reduce cog- https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n6p78
nitive overload and anxiety levels in the L2 classroom. The Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Lan-
Language Learning Journal, 45(3), 368–381. https://doi.org/ guage acquisition in the classroom. Prentice Hall.
10.1080/09571736.2014.908405 Lin, L. C., & Yu, W. Y. (2015). A think-aloud study of strategy
Chiou, B. (2014). Rethinking the role of L1 in the EFL class- use by EFL college readers reading Chinese and English
room. English Teaching & Learning, 38(4), 53–78. https:// texts. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(3), 286–306.
doi.org/10.6330ETL.2014 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12012
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional stra- Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target lan-
tegies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of guage in the foreign language classroom. Language Teach-
Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240. ing, 44(1), 64–77. https://doi:10.1017/S0261444809990310
Ellis, N. C. (2008). Implicit and explicit knowledge about lan- Liu, Y., & Zeng, A. (2015). Loss and gain: Revisiting the roles
guage. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language of the first language in novice adult second language learn-
and education (pp. 1878–1890). Springer. https://doi.org/10. ing classrooms. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5,
1007/978-0-387-30424-3_143 2433–2440. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0512.01
Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language Macaro, E., & Lee, J. H. (2013). Teacher language background,
teaching and learning. Language teaching, 45(3), 271-308. codeswitching, and English-only instruction: Does age make
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000067 a difference to learners’ attitudes? Tesol Quarterly, 47(4),
Hemaidia, M. (2016). Algerian Arabic varieties speakers’ errors 717–742. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.74
in English writings: A contrastive error analysis study Mami, N. A. (2013). Creative classrooms in Algeria, applying
[Unpublished PhD thesis]. University of Oran, 2. flexibility and innovation in learning. ICERI 2013 Proceed-
Henni, A. (2017). Students’ attitudes towards the use of code- ing, pp. 3155–3160.
switching in Algerian EFL classrooms. Revue Expression, 4, Manel, M., Hassan, A., & Buriro, H. A. (2019). Learners’ atti-
138–148. tudes towards teachers’ switching to the mother tongue (The
Khelalfa and Kellil 13

case of secondary school learners in Algeria). Indonesian Samian, H. V., Foo, T. C. V., & Mohebbi, H. (2016). The
TESOL Journal, 1(1), 9–26. Effects of giving and receiving marginal L1 glosses on L2
McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2016). L1 explicit instruction vocabulary learning by upper secondary learners. English
can improve L2 online and offline performance. Studies in Language Teaching, 9(2), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.
Second Language Acquisition, 39, 459-492. https://doi:10. v9n2p66
1017/S027226311600022X Sawin, T. (2018). Media and English. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The
MERIC-Net. (2019). The higher education system in Algeria: TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–
National report. http://www.meric-net.eu/files/fileusers/ 15). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0721
National_Report_template_MERIC-NET_Algeria_English. Shin, J. Y., Dixon, L. Q., & Choi, Y. (2020). An updated review
pdf on use of L1 in foreign language classrooms. Journal of Mul-
Meyer, H. (2008). The pedagogical implications of L1 use in the tilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(5), 406–419.
L2 classroom. Maebashi Kyoai Gakuen College Ronsyu, 8, https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1684928
147–159. Thompson, G. L., & Harrison, K. (2014). Language use in the
Mohebbi, H., & Alavi, S. M. (2014). Teachers’ first language foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 47(2),
use in second language learning classroom context: A Ques- 321–337. https:// doi.org/10.1111/flan.12079
tionnaire-based study. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Tian, L., & Hennebry, M. (2016). Chinese learners’ perceptions
Learning Language & Literature, 7(4), 57–73. https://doi. towards teachers’ language use in lexical explanations: A
org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.539 comparison between Chinese-only and English-only instruc-
Moore, P. J. (2013). An emergent perspective on the use of the tions. System, 63, 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.
first language in the English-as-a-foreign-language class- 2016.08.005
room. The Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 239–253. Tsagari, D., & Diakou, D. (2015). Students’ and teachers’ atti-
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01429.x tudes towards the use of the first language in the EFL state
Nakatsukasa, K., & Loewen, S. (2015). A teacher’s first lan- school classrooms. Research Papers in Language Teaching &
guage use in form-focused episodes in Spanish as a foreign Learning, 6(1), 86–108.
language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), Wach, A., & Monroy, F. (2019). Beliefs about L1 use in teach-
133–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541737 ing English: A comparative study of Polish and Spanish
Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign lan- teacher-trainees. Language Teaching Research, 24, 855–873.
guage learning. Asian EFL Journal, 5(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819830422
Nukuto, H. (2017). Code choice between L1 and the target lan- Wolthuis, F., Bloemert, J., Tammenga-Helmantel, M., &
guage in English learning and teaching: A case study of Paran, A. (2020). A curriculum in transition: TL/L1 use in
Japanese EFL classrooms. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, Dutch EFL literature lessons. Language, Culture and Curri-
49(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2017. culum, 33(4), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.
1316631 2019.1697279
Rabbidge, M., & Chappell, P. (2014). Exploring non-native Zhang, M. (2018). Collaborative writing in the EFL classroom:
English speaker teachers’ classroom language use in South The effects of L1 and L2 use. System, 76, 1–12. https://doi.
Korean elementary schools. TESL-EJ, 17(4), 1–18. org/10.1016/j.system.2018.04.009
Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Varshney, R. (2008). Students’ views regard- Zhao, T., & Macaro, E. (2016). What works better for the
ing the use of the first language: An exploratory study in a learning of concrete and abstract words: Teachers’ L1 use
tertiary context maximizing target language use. Canadian or L2-only explanations? International Journal of Applied
Modern Language Review, 65(2), 249–273. https://doi.org/ Linguistics, 26(1), 75–98. https://doi:10.1111/ijal.12080
10.3138/cmlr.65.2.249