Introduction

Teaching the English language in non-English speaking countries has always been a daunting task. It requires a lot of effort to be put in by both teachers and learners. As a result, there have been many research studies done by researchers and educators seeking the best possible teaching methodologies to help English as a foreign language (EFL) and English as a second language (ESL) learners. This has, however, led to a lot of conflict over teaching pedagogies and approaches among the researchers and educators. One of the ongoing debates among the researchers and educators in teaching non-English speaking students is the medium of instruction in the classroom, whether the use of students’ first language (L1) in the foreign/second language (L2) classroom benefits learners to acquire language better or not (De La Campa & Nassaji, 2009; Stapa & Majid, 2006, Wangdi & Shimray, 2022). While some researchers commented that the use of L1 in L2 classrooms should be discouraged as success in L2 achievement is heavily determined by the maximum exposure to the target language, others argue that the use of L1 is beneficial particularly in EFL classrooms (Debreli & Oyman, 2016).

Admittedly, much has been written on L1 use in L2 classrooms, and both the benefits and drawbacks of using L1 in the L2 classroom have been addressed in different contexts (e.g., Almohaimeed & Almurshed, 2018; Bruen & Kelly, 2017; Debreli, & Oyman, 2016; Nilubol & Sitthitikul, 2017; Sevim & Turhanli, 2019; Shabir, 2017; Wongrak, 2017; Zulfikar, 2019), and even in the local EFL contexts (e.g., Nilubol & Sitthitikul, 2017; Wangdi & Shimray, 2022). However, literature, thus far, has revealed inconclusive findings, particularly on teachers’ beliefs related to using L1 in L2 classrooms. Thus, this study was conducted to provide additional insight into this controversy. The belief is also that researchers and educators need an updated analysis of how teachers view the use of the L1 in the L2 classroom to meet the current demands of the education system (Shin et al., 2020). Furthermore, not many studies have attempted to examine the views of multinational EFL teachers on this problem. This was an added reason for undertaking this study.

English language in the context

The English language is one of the most used languages among the four to five thousand other languages around the globe (Akinwamide, 2012). It is the language of business, science, and education of the contemporary age that has undoubtedly cut across all international and national boundaries (Guilherme, 2007). This underlying ideology that sees English as a language of development and globalization has shaped the attitude of many non-native English-speaking countries on the English language. Many East Asian countries, including Thailand, have introduced several changes in their English language education policies and have made English one of the compulsory subjects (Baker & Jarunthawatchai, 2017; Su, 2006).

In the Thailand context, English is learned as a foreign language. Although, worldwide, the number of English language users increases daily, it has always been challenging to master the English language for non-native English speakers (Mohammed, 2018). Thailand, in particular, has been suffering in meeting up the targeted benchmark of language proficiency. Therefore, Thais in general are dissatisfied with the perceived outcome of the education practice concerning English language learning (Baker & Jarunthawatchai, 2017). According to the 2010 TOEFL language proficiency test results, Thailand was ranked 116th out of 163 countries, which is very low (Noom-Ura, 2013). Also, in 2013, Thailand ranked 55th out of 60 by Education First (EF) English Proficiency Index, ranking, ‘a very low proficiency’ (Kaur et al., 2016).

Besides many factors that contribute to the failure of the English language in Thailand, some of the most common issues that exist in teaching and learning English in Thailand are a lack of opportunities for students to use the English language, inadequate skills of teachers in teaching English, and limited opportunities for students to speak English with native-English speakers (Noom-Ura, 2013). Also, Kaur et al. (2016) have pointed out that teaching in Thailand is heavily teacher-centered and exam-oriented where students are given limited hands-on opportunities to use their language knowledge. Another problem, directly related to the present study, is the medium of instruction used in the classroom. Khamkhien (2010) has highlighted that the use of Thai (L1) by Thai English teachers in teaching the English language is one reason why Thai learners could have possibly failed to learn the English language.

Teachers’ beliefs

Recently, the study on teachers’ beliefs has gained popularity among linguistic researchers (Shah, 2020). There are many studies conducted covering different aspects of teaching and learning through the teachers’ perspective. This is mainly because understanding teachers’ beliefs of any educational practices is believed to influence what teachers say in the classroom, how they understand new pedagogical information of teaching and learning, and finally how they develop their teaching practices in the classroom (Borg & Alshumaimeri, 2019; Johnson, 1994). Although some might argue that the study of teachers’ beliefs is not a new topic to be researched, yet one cannot deny that teachers’ beliefs are one of the key factors that impact teachers’ conduct of classroom practice (Soleimani, 2020), which ultimately influences the students learning outcomes. For this reason, this study has attempted to investigate EFL English teachers’ beliefs about using L1 in English classroom, and reasons behind them.

This study is needed because the use of L1 in L2 classrooms has long remained controversial among researchers and educators (Iswati & Hadimulyono, 2018). Some researchers claim that L1 use in teaching L2 languages has detrimental effects on language acquisition (De La Campa & Nassaji, 2009). For instance, Krashen (1981) and Yphantides (2009) have strongly discouraged L1 use in L2 classrooms claiming that L2 learners should have maximum exposure to the target language to successfully acquire the target language. On the other hand, some experts support the use of L1 in L2 classrooms. Mart (2013), for example, asserted that the use of L1 in L2 classrooms is helpful for learners, as it provides a deeper understanding of the target language, better comprehension, and opportunities for learners to express themselves, and increases classroom interaction. The benefit of L1 use was further supported by Al-Alawi (2008), who claimed that the use of L1 in L2 classrooms saves classroom instructional time and avoids confusion among learners.

Related studies in the EFL context

In response to this growing controversy on the use of L1 in English classrooms, in recent years, there have been several studies conducted on this topic covering teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions to shed more light on this long-existing debate on whether L1 contributes to or hinders L2 acquisition. Recently, Sevim and Turhanli (2019) investigated the university teachers’ attitudes towards the use of L1 in their L2 classes. Eighteen teachers teaching English at the university in Turkey participated and responded to their questionnaire and semi-structured interview. In doing this, although the majority of participants had a slightly negative attitude towards the L1 use, many others suggested that judicious use of L1 in the L2 classroom was helpful, particularly when teaching grammar, new vocabulary, and solving disciplinary issues with the students. Likewise, Shabir (2017) conducted a study with student-teachers, training at the University of Queensland, Australia. A total of twenty-three local and international teachers, eighteen with prior teaching experience and five without participated in this study. The researcher reported that the student-teachers believed that a limited use of the L1 in L2 classrooms had a positive effect on language learning.

A study conducted by Mahmud (2018) in the Bangladeshi EFL context did not differ from the studies discussed thus far. Both Bangladeshi university students and teachers perceived the judicious use of L1 in the English classroom as a useful instructional medium in the classroom. The researchers pointed out that the use of L1 facilitated learners and encouraged them to focus on differences and similarities between their mother tongue and English language, and it provided learners with a deeper understanding of the target language.

Wongrak (2017) conducted a similar study with English language teachers teaching in Northeast Thailand by interviewing six lecturers. Analysis of the data was not so different from the studies discussed above. However, in contrast to what has been discussed so far, the researcher commented that their participants had overwhelming support for the use of L1 in L2 classrooms. They also pointed out that most of the participants knew the theoretical benefits and drawbacks of L1 use in L2 classes; however, their medium of instruction was driven by contextual constraint. Thus, they felt that the use of the L1 in the L2 classroom could benefit their students and help them learn a language better.

However, a study conducted in the Iranian EFL context slightly differs from Wongrak’s (2017) findings. A total of twenty-five teachers and three hundred forty-five students from Guilan University, Rasht, Iran, completed a questionnaire and were interviewed. The Iranian students had a positive attitude towards the use of their L1 in English classes and teachers suggested that the use of English as a medium instruction could be beneficial in acquiring the target language. Hashemi and Sabet (2013) pointed out that their research showed that judicious use of L1 in the classroom may help students to lower their language learning anxiety. Al-Amir (2017) investigated Arabian EFL teachers' perspectives on the use of L1 in the English classroom. Thirty-one female teachers teaching English at Jeddah University, Saudi Arabia, responded to their questionnaire. The finding was in line with Shabir (2017) and Hashemi and Sabet (2013), albeit in different EFL contexts. The participants acknowledged that the careful use of L1 in L2 classrooms was a good practice to help learners in language acquisition.

Although the literature has revealed extensive discussions on the use of L1 in L2 classrooms in different EFL contexts, little is known about how EFL teachers, especially foreigners teaching in Thailand feel about the use of L1 (Thai in particular) in English language classrooms. Therefore, this study investigated teachers’ beliefs related to using L1 in the English classroom. The study is important both in the Thai context, and beyond it because the beliefs that teachers have on the relative benefits and drawbacks of using L1 in the English language classroom is still a matter of debate. Also, little is known about the beliefs of foreign teachers teaching in Thailand. Thus, with a hope of shedding more light on this controversy, this study sought to answer the following research questions.

Research questions

1. What do foreign English-speaking teachers teaching in the Thai EFL context believe about using student’s L1 in English classes?

2. What are the perceived benefits of using L1 in the English classroom?

Method

This study used a mixed concurrent equal status design (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009). Both quantitative and qualitative data had equal weight. A mixed-method design was adopted for the present study because it is new and one of the promising research methods developed and used in educational research fields to strengthen the single research designs (quantitative and qualitative) (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Moreover, this kind of method that involves qualitative and qualitative phases is believed to help uncover a deeper understanding of the research conducted, as they expand explanatory power by complimenting each other (Riazi & Candlin, 2014). Accordingly, a modified five-level Likert scale questionnaire for quantitative and a semi-structured interview for qualitative data were used as instruments to collect the data. The details of instruments are given in the instrument and data collection section.

Participants

This study employed convenience and snow-balling sampling techniques to recruit the participants. English teachers from universities, colleges, and schools were invited to participate in this study through different channels (e.g., mailing, messaging, and personal contact), along with the help of the co-researcher and colleagues. Soon after their consent to participate in this study, researchers administered electronic questionnaire (Google Forms) to collect the data. All teachers were given an option not to participate if they were not comfortable. The qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews after getting the consent of the participants. In doing so, of the 47 teachers (22 males and 25 females) who agreed to complete the questionnaire, 14 (nine males and five females) volunteered for the follow-up interview. The interview was conducted by the researchers using Zoom and was recorded for the analysis. The responses were transcribed and summarized in the result section. Each interview lasted for 15-30 minutes, and interviews ended when interviewees/participants had nothing more to add.

This study analyzed the responses from native and non-native English-speaking teachers teaching at schools (70.2%), colleges (12.8%), and universities (17%) in Thailand. A total of 47 teachers (three native and forty-four non-native teachers) aged 23 to 46 years old, teaching in Thailand from different countries (e.g., Bhutan, England,, India, Indonesia, the Philippines and the USA) with varying years of teaching experiences voluntarily participated in this study. The participants spoke English and their respective L1. The demographic information of the participants is illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1 Participants of this study

Instruments and data collection

The instruments used for this study were a five-level Likert scale questionnaire adapted from Wach and Monroy (2020) and a semi-structured interview, which was adopted from Al-Alawi (2008). A few modifications were done to both questionnaire and semi-structured interview questions based on the current research design and context. The reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) of the questionnaire adapted was .720. However, to further confirm its reliability with modified questionnaire items, Cronbach's Alpha was calculated with the final 18 items; four demography questions and fourteen questions ranging from strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5 on L1 use in L2 classroom to investigate teacher’s perspective. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the modified questionnaire tested with 15 random participants was .852, which is good (Gliem & Gliem, 2003).

Since the data was collected during the pandemic, researchers prepared a questionnaire using Google Forms. Likewise, the semi-structured interviews were done through Zoom.

Data analysis

As this study was interested in examining the teachers’ belief of L1 use in L2 classes using data obtained from quantitative and qualitative methods, the following statistical methods were used.

1. The demographic information of the forty-seven respondents was gathered using descriptive analysis in terms of age, gender, nationalities, and teaching experience to provide a clear picture of the respondents.

2. The descriptive analysis, such as percentage, mean, median, and standard deviation, was caried out to answer the first and second research questions to see the foreign English teachers’ beliefs . To gain further understanding, a comparison was made between male and female teachers’ beliefs.

3. In the qualitative phase, collected using semi-structured interviews, the responses were recorded, and then transcribed and summarized to examine the third research question. Data coding involved a bottom-up approach that included data coding, axial coding, and data labeling (Charmaz, 2014).

Results

Quantitative findings

The questionnaire findings on the teacher respondents' beliefs of L1 use in L2 classrooms were descriptively analyzed using percentage, mean, standard deviation, and tabulated in three categories strongly disagree/disagree, neutral, agree/strongly. The finding is presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Frequencies and descriptive statistics of the questionnaire items

As illustrated in Table 2, the majority (82%) of respondents agreed that the use of L1 would be beneficial. They pointed out that the use of L1 could help reduce language anxiety (Item 6), particularly with lower-level students (Item 7). They agreed that L1 use would be helpful for learners to improve their understanding of the target language (Item 13). Moreover, responses to items 1 and 2 revealed the surprising fact that even teachers who cannot speak L1 of the context felt that pre-learning activities and classroom instruction should be explained in the students’ L1 Teachers also believed that with L1 use in the classroom, students would feel more comfortable leading to a friendlier classroom atmosphere (Items 3 and 4); however, the majority disagreed that the use of L1 would be helpful to solve student’s disciplinary problems (Item 5). In relation to learning, teachers agreed that vocabulary could be learned better if teachers adopted a kind of code-switching between L1 and target language (Item 9). More so, it seemed they strongly believed that alternating L1 and target language could help improve learners’ vocabulary retention (Item 8). Most teachers believed that comparing and contrasting English grammar rules with those of the L1 could be an effective teaching technique to learn English grammar (Items 10, 11, and 12). Furthermore, they also believe that having an L1 explanation incorporated in the target language textbook would be helpful (Item 14).  

Qualitative findings

The qualitative phase of the present study aimed at investigating the underlying rationales behind the participants' beliefs about the use of L1 in the English classroom. Based on the significance and objective of this study, the data were discussed thematically to supplement quantitative findings. The sub-themes include “judicious use of the L1 facilitates language learning,” “the use of L2 as a medium of instruction gives learners a greater exposure,” and “the use of L1 improves classroom environment.”

Judicious use of the L1 facilitates language learning

Most participants stressed that the judicious use of the L1 in the L2 classroom could help learners to enhance their language learning. They pointed out that the use of L1 in teaching L2 languages could promote inclusivity and avoid misunderstanding. Some responses from the participants in the interviews are given below.

L1 is most useful at the beginning and low levels. Using L1 in English classrooms helps students to learn new languages. Teachers can use L1 to elicit students’ previous knowledge in L1 and discuss it in the target language. This may benefit students to learn the language more productively. (T7)

Not all learners can learn in the same approach. A mixed-language learning approach can promote inclusivity and avoid misunderstanding. (T4)

Particular emphasis was given to learning vocabulary and grammar. Although some participants had no clue of students’ L1 (Thai), they still felt that L1 mixture with L2 may help learners ease target language acquisition through better retention of vocabulary and grammar.

L1 Mixture with L2 is great. Once in a while, when they are suffering from understanding a particular thing (e.g., grammar or vocabulary), L1 can be used. But for me, as I don't speak Thai, no matter how painful it is for the students to understand (my) English, I have no choice but to use English all the time. (T13)

The participants also commented that translating words from the target language into students’ L1 could give them a better understanding of the lesson taught.

Mixture with L2 dominance. Most of the time, the students that are slow learners need the translation of the vocabulary words in L1 to comprehend the lesson. However, if you are teaching a group of students who are advanced in English, teaching them with L2 only is advisable. (T5)

However, most of the participants suggested that the L2 should be the medium of instruction in the classroom. They stated that the learners should be given more exposure to the target language for better language acquisition but that the use of only the L2 could be stressful for students and result in misunderstandings about the concepts being taught.

English teachers should use a mixture with L2 dominance because, if you only focus L1 as a channel of instruction, the learners tend to just rely on their teachers, they will not try to explore by themselves because they know that they will be spoon-fed. Furthermore, exposing them to English as a medium of instruction will help them improve their language skills. (T9)

The use of L2 as medium of instruction gives learners a greater exposure

A few of the teachers expressed their reluctance to recognize the benefits of L1 use in L2 classrooms. They believed that teachers should be discouraged from using the L1, as this might limit the opportunity for them to immerse themselves into the target language.

L2 only, if the students are taught using L1, immersion learning cannot take place. And we believe that learning takes place better with immersion, meaning if learners get better or more exposure to the target language. I feel like language acquisition can take place faster. For the Thai context, this may be the core reason why Thai students still lag in terms of English language proficiency. (T11)

Moreover, they commented that only the use of L2 in the classroom can motivate the students to speak and help them become familiarized with the words and sounds of the target language. However, they suggested that when teachers use only L2 as a medium of instruction, they should use simple language to make the lesson understandable.

If L1 is given importance the students will not try to communicate in English during the class. The teacher can use only limited L1, so that the students feel that they have to speak in English to make the teacher understand. (T10)

Teaching L2 only inside the classroom could help the student's listening skills, and they would be familiarized with English sounds. It would help the students to adjust their cognitive learning to learn new information. (T14)

The use of L1 improves the classroom environment

Although in response to the classroom environment, many of them in the quantitative data expressed the belief that the classroom environment could be made friendlier through the use of the L1, some teachers expressed their reservations about this belief. They argued that the L1 would not necessarily be needed in the English classroom to make the classroom environment more friendly, rather that would be more dependent on the teacher’s ability to teach and their teaching methods.

Obviously. teachers who speak Thai (L1) would be more approachable to the students. Not only Thai students but students, in general, will also be comfortable with the teacher who speaks their language. With that said, I think it has less to do with the classroom atmosphere. To me classroom atmosphere can be improved by implementing proper teaching methods, or if it's more student-centered based. (T6)

Being able to speak in the L1 does not make classes easier or teachers more approachable. Oftentimes, it matters much more about the teacher and teaching methods rather than what language they can speak. (T8)

Discussion

This study investigated the belief of foreign teachers (both native and non-native English speakers) with different cultural backgrounds, ages and experiences teaching in Thai EFL context on the use of student’s L1 (Thai) in English classrooms. Accordingly, the reasons behind their belief were also examined.

The responses to most of the items were consistent and the general pattern of responses remained predictable, as many of the participants had common and fixed beliefs. They believed that judicious use of the L1 in EFL classrooms was beneficial to a certain extent (Al-Amir, 2017; Wangdi & Shimray, 2022). One of the primary driving forces behind their beliefs was avoiding misunderstanding and promoting a deeper understanding of the lesson with L1 usage (Al-Alawi, 2008; Mart, 2013). Another was being able to sustain conducive learning, justifying it with a statement that students are more comfortable with teachers who speak their L1 (Shabir, 2017). In other words, they felt that teachers who speak L1 could be more approachable to the students. As noted by Lucha and Berhanu (2015), when teachers are approachable and hospitable, it improves the classroom learning environment because students actively participate in classroom activities, discussions, and other communicative activities. However, some of the participants in the present study expressed their reservations in improving the learning environment with the L1 in the L2 classroom; rather they argued that one needs to use effective and appropriate teaching methods to create a conducive classroom environment.

This study revealed the opinion of many of the participants that the use of L1 in English classrooms was a helpful approach to teach vocabulary and grammar (Sevim & Turhanli, 2019; Wangdi & Shimray, 2022), the most crucial aspects of language acquisition (Wangdi, 2020). In the interview, most participants expressed that translating English words into L1 and explaining English grammar rules in L1 might result in a better outcome. However, others in the interview expressed the opinion that the use of the L1 should be discouraged because learners need maximum opportunity to immerse themselves in the target language (Mohebbi & Alavi, 2014). Participants commented that L2 only is good for language learners because it helps them become familiarized with pronunciation, improve listening skills, and more importantly give learners a need to speak L2 while conversing with teachers. They felt that the medium of instruction should be only in the target language to produce a greater impact on language learners. This argument is, in fact, supported by Murray and Wigglesworth (2005), who claimed that L2 only in the classroom, especially in the EFL context, is the most effective form of language learning. Likewise, Krashen (1981) and Ellis and Wells (1980) clearly stated that language learners should be given maximum exposure to the target language for better acquisition.

The current study provided findings that were consistent with previous research studies conducted in EFL context (e.g., Al-Amir, 2017; Hashemi & Sabet, 2013; Mahmud, 2018; Sevim & Turhanli, 2019; Shabir, 2017; Wongrak, 2017). Most importantly, this study has managed to shed more light on the use of L1 in L2 classes with a clear justification from unique participants-- multinational EFL teachers with little or no knowledge of the L1 of their teaching context. Thus, this study has helped bridge the gap and provided updated information about the belief of foreign language teachers about using L1 in the English classroom. The findings are particularly important for the contexts where foreign teachers (native and non-native English speakers) are being hired to teach English. Although it is apparent that foreign teachers are being hired with an expectation to give greater exposure to the target language for better and speedier language acquisition, as pointed earlier, educational stakeholders and policymakers should understand that L2 only in the classroom may not work unless learners possess high language proficiency, and more so, many research studies, as well as the present study, have suggested that judicious use of L1 or L1 mixed with L2 dominance as a better option of a medium of instruction for the language development, especially with students with low language proficiency level. Therefore, educational stakeholders and policymakers of similar contexts are suggested to consider careful and extensive literature reading before implementing policy on the medium of instruction in classrooms. This study argues that there is no harm in using L1 in the English classroom if used appropriately and when needed.

Conclusion

Several lessons can be learned from the present study. Firstly, be it local or foreign language teachers, earlier literature, as well as this study, revealed that there is no definitive opinion on whether L1 should be used in English classrooms. Many of the participants perceived that a judicious use of L1 is always beneficial. However, it was suggested not to overuse it since language could be acquired more effectively if learners are given more exposure to it. Secondly, although it seems possible that the classroom environment could be improved through the use of L1, some participants suggested a teachers’ pedagogical techniques could also make the same difference . A further study on this aspect might shed more light on the above argument. Thirdly, in line with Sevim and Turhanli (2019), teachers felt that L1 in EFL classrooms might be helpful to teach vocabulary and grammar to the students. They felt that translating and comparing L1 with L2 may have a positive transfer of knowledge of the target language (Mahmud, 2018; Shuchi & Islam, 2016). Also, although this study revealed that there seems to be no harm in using L1 in the English classroom, teachers are suggested to use it only to explain something complex, when and where they feel that the lesson is beyond students’ comprehensibility. Furthermore, although the study found that learning anxiety can be reduced to a certain extent with L1, most of the present teachers disagreed that the L1 in L2 classrooms could be helpful for class control and discipline. They pointed out that it depends on the teacher’s teaching abilities, techniques, and methods. This was also confirmed by a study conducted Wangdi and Namgyel (2022), where they found that teachers play a critical role in controlling students’ disruptive behaviors in the classroom.

Finally, as in any other studies, we acknowledge that this study has some limitations. The sample size was small and data was collected only from the teachers we could reach personally through our acquaintances. Conducting the same study with a larger sample size could strengthen the interpretation of the perceived similarities and differences among the language teachers. Also, since the present study was conducted in the Thai EFL context where students’ English proficiency is relatively low, further study in different EFL contexts with different English proficiencies could also be useful. It would be of interest to investigate whether EFL teachers dealing with high English proficiency students have a similar perspective about using L1 in the English classrooms.

References

Akinwamide, T. K. (2012). The influence of process approach on English as second language students' performances in essay writing. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 16-29. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n3p16

Al-Alawi, T. M. (2008). Teachers’ beliefs and practices about the use of L1. Investigating English language teaching and learning in Oman, 1-9. https://www.academia.edu/download/30493429/1.pdf

Al-Amir, B. (2017). Saudi female teachers' perceptions of the use of L1 in EFL classrooms. English Language Teaching, 10(6), 12-20. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n6p12

Almohaimeed, M. S., & Almurshed, H. M. (2018). Foreign language learners’ attitudes and perceptions of L1 use in L2 classroom. Arab World English Journal, 9(4), 433-446. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no4.32

Baker, W., & Jarunthawatchai, W. (2017). English language policy in Thailand. European Journal of Language Policy, 9(1), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.3828/ejlp.2017.3

Borg, S., & Alshumaimeri, Y. (2019). Language learner autonomy in a tertiary context: Teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research, 23(1), 9-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817725759

Bruen, J., & Kelly, N. (2017). Using a shared L1 to reduce cognitive overload and anxiety levels in the L2 classroom. The Language Learning Journal, 45(3), 368-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.908405

Debreli, E., & Oyman, N. (2016). Students' preferences on the use of mother tongue in English as a foreign language classroom: Is it the time to re-examine English-only policies? English Language Teaching, 9(1), 148-162. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n1p148

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2^nd ed.). Sage.

De La Campa, J. C., & Nassaji, H. (2009). The amount, purpose, and reasons for using L1 in L2 classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 42(4), 742-759. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01052.x

Ellis, R., & Wells, G. (1980). Enabling factors in adult-child discourse. First Language, 1(1), 46-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/014272378000100104

Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. https://hdl.handle.net/1805/344

Guilherme, M. (2007). English as a global language and education for cosmopolitan citizenship. Language and Intercultural Communication, 7(1), 72-90. https://doi.org/10.2167/laic184.0

Hashemi, S. M., & Sabet, M. K. (2013). The Iranian EFL students’ and teachers’ perception of using Persian in general English classes. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(2), 142-152. http://www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/IJALEL/article/view/916

Inal, S., & Turhanli, I. (2019). Teachers' opinions on the use of L1 in EFL classes. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies,15(3), 861-875. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.631526

Iswati, L., & Hadimulyono, A. O. (2018). The role of L1 in L2 classes. EduLite: Journal of English Education, Literature and Culture, 3(2), 125-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/e.3.2.125-134

Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice English as a second language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 439-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(94)90024-8

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014

Kaur, A., Young, D., & Kirkpatrick, R. (2016). English education policy in Thailand: Why the poor results? In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English language education policy in Asia (pp. 345-361). Springer

Khamkhien, A. (2010). Teaching English speaking and English speaking tests in the Thai context: A reflection from Thai perspective. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 184-190. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n1p184

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. University of Southern California.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43(2), 265-275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3

Lucha, Z. T., & Berhanu, A. (2015). A study on the implementation of students’ classroom oral interaction in sire secondary school EFL class: Grade 10 in focus. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal, 4(2), 294-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/star.v4i2.41

Mahmud, S. (2018). Should teachers use L1 in EFL classroom? Journal of NELTA, 23(1-2), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.3126/nelta.v23i1-2.23346

Mart, Ç. T. (2013). The facilitating role of L1 in ESL classes. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(1), 9.

Mohammed, M. H. (2018). Challenges of learning English as a foreign language (EFL) by non-native learners. International Journal of Social Science and Economic Research, 3(4), 1381-1400. https://hrmars.com/papers_submitted/9445/the-facilitating-role-of-l1-in-esl-classes.pdf

Mohebbi, H., & Alavi, S. M. (2014). Teachers’ first language use in second language learning classroom context: A questionnaire-based study. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 7(4), 57-73. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.539

Murray, D. E., & Wigglesworth, G. (2005). First language support in adult ESL in Australia. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research for the AMEP Research Centre.

Nilubol, K., & Sitthitikul, P. (2017). The L1-based integration towards the in-class support in an international classroom of Thailand. Turkish Online Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(1), 53-69. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tojelt/issue/75245/1234677

Noom-ura, S. (2013). English-teaching problems in Thailand and Thai teachers' professional development needs. English Language Teaching, 6(11), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n11p139

Riazi, A. M., & Candlin, C. N. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues, and challenges. Language Teaching, 47(2), 135-173. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000505

Shabir, M. (2017). Student-teachers' beliefs on the use of L1 in EFL classroom: A global perspective. English Language Teaching, 10(4), 45-52. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n4p45

Shah, R. K. (2020). The role of reachers’ belief in changing pedagogical practices. International Journal of All Research Education and Scientific Methods (IJARESM), 8(8). http://www.ijaresm.com/uploaded_files/document_file/The_Role_of_Teachers’_Belief_in_Changing_Pedagogical_Practices_(1)fOom.pdf

Shin, J. Y., Dixon, L. Q., & Choi, Y. (2020). An updated review on use of L1 in foreign language classrooms. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(5), 406-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1684928

Shuchi, I. J., & Islam, A. B. M. (2016). Teachers' and students' attitudes towards L1 use in EFL classrooms in the contexts of Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia. English Language Teaching, 9(12), 62-73. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n12p62

Soleimani, N. (2020). ELT teachers’ epistemological beliefs and dominant teaching style: A mixed method research. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 5(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00094-y

Stapa, S. H., & Majid, A. H. A. (2006). The use of first language in limited English proficiency classes: Good, bad or ugly? e-Bangi, 3(1). http://ejournals.ukm.my/ebangi/article/download/22069/6876

Su, Y.-C. (2006). EFL teachers’ perceptions of English language policy at the elementary level in Taiwan. Educational Studies, 32(3), 265-283. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690600631218

Wach, A., & Monroy, F. (2020). Beliefs about L1 use in teaching English: A comparative study of Polish and Spanish teacher-trainees. Language Teaching Research, 24(6), 855-873. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819830422

Wangdi, T. (2020). Examining the evidence that testing benefits subsequent information retrieval. 3L, Language, Linguistics, Literature, 26(3), 30-40. http://journalarticle.ukm.my/15800/1/38126-138283-1-PB.pdf

Wangdi, T., & Namgyel, S. (2022). Classroom to reduce student disruptive behavior: An action research. MEXTESOL Journal, 46(1), 1-11. https://www.mextesol.net/journal/index.php?page=journal&id_article=46323

Wangdi, T., & Shimray, R. (2022). Thai EFL school students’ perceptions of using L1 in English Language Classrooms. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 19(1), 257-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2022.19.1.17.257

Wongrak, C. (2017, 26-29 March). The role of L1 in the instruction of L2: Perspectives of Thai EFL teachers [Conference presentation]. The Asian Conference on Education & International Development, Kobe, Japan. http://papers.iafor.org/wpcontent/uploads/papers/aceid2017/ACEID2017_35753.pdf

Yphantides, J. (2009). Student use of Japanese in the EFL classroom. Accents Asia, 3(2), 1-26. http://www.accentsasia.org/3-2/yphantides.pdf

Zulfikar, Z. (2019). Rethinking the use of L1 in L2 classroom. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, 6(1), 42-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.22373/ej.v6i1.2514