Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

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

For centuries, one of the most commonly debated issues in the field of language teaching and learning has been the role of learners’ first language (L1) in second language (L2) learning. The use of L1 has long been discouraged, particularly with the emergence of language teaching methods such as the direct method, audiolingualisim, the natural approach, and the communicative approach (Howatt & Widdowson, 2004). These stressed the importance of L2-only instruction, claiming that such instruction fosters more efficient learning of the L2 since a purely-L2 learning environment mimics learners’ natural L1 acquisition process (Krashen & Terrell, 1983).

Some critics argue that turning to L1 to compensate 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 target language (Littlewood & Yu, 2011; Nation, 2003). More recently, however, views on the role of L1 in the L2 classroom have begun to experience a significant shift toward reintroduction of the use of L1. One explanation for this may be the demonstrated inability of L2-only instruction to meet students’ needs as exemplified by the Algerian L2 classroom.

Our experiences as EFL teachers in Algeria have led us to making recurring observations of a discrepancy between teaching policy and practice. Algeria’s EFL teaching framework requires that English be taught only in the English, without regard to context, circumstances, or any other factors. In practice, teachers’ and students’ needs call for different practices. Even when dealing with advanced students such as those studying English at university, teachers sometimes find themselves stymied by the restrictions of L2-only instruction. The problem is that prioritizing adherence to the framework over effective transmission of the message to students subverts the primary purpose of language instruction. This study aimed to illustrate the inefficiency of elevating dogmatic rules over students’ needs. The responses of teachers across all academic levels and years of experience teaching (up to 24) illustrate that, regardless of context, the current framework seems highly impractical in the Algerian L2 classroom.

Literature Review

The literature on L1 use in the L2 classroom addressed a few common issues. The first issue is reasons for using the L1. Several researchers support the use of L1 in the L2 classroom for a range of purposes (Joyce, 2018; Liu & Zeng, 2015; Tsagari & Diakou, 2015; Wolthuis et al., 2020). In their systematic review of 55 studies on the use of L1 in the L2 classroom, Shin et al. (2020) suggested that L1 provides significant benefits and should be integrated into L2 teaching. They determined a few categories of factors influencing L1 use: student-teacher factors, classroom factors, and institutional factors.

Individual student-teacher factors includes students’ level of proficiency and teachers’ knowledge and skills in the L2. Multiple studies have revealed that more L2 proficient students were more likely to use L1 for various reasons, from reflecting on their own thoughts to making themselves more comprehensible to their less proficient peers (Lin & Yu, 2015; Moore, 2013). Conversely, teachers who were less proficient were more likely to employ L1 (Hlas, 2016; Khresheh, 2012) for reasons such as fear of embarrassment in front of students. Classroom factors include familiarity (of task and environment) and task difficulty. Studies show that students are more likely to use L1 with more familiar and less difficult tasks and environments (Moore, 2013; Shin et al., 2020). Institutional factors include institution type, institutional policy, curriculum, and entrance exam criteria (Shin et al., 2020).

Another issue addressed in the literature is effectiveness of L1 use. From the perspective of students, many reported that L1 use was highly useful for L2 learning (Hlas, 2016; Liu & Zeng, 2015) in general, and many were satisfied with integration of L1 in such activities as translation (Kelly & Bruen, 2015). This preference for the use of L1 echoed across all proficiency levels (Chiou, 2014) ages, and academic levels (Macaro & Lee, 2013), with the lowest proficiency students and younger students expressing the strongest preference (Tsagari & Diakou, 2015), while others revealed the opposite (Rabbidge & Chappell, 2014).

In their review, Hall and Cook (2012) highlighted a shift in views toward the use of L1 in L2 teaching, emphasizing the significant role of L1 in the classroom. Various studies addressed the issue from different perspectives. Some argue that one way in which L1 can be beneficial in learning L2 is by providing a means of language transfer (Cummins, 2007). While transfer has been viewed mostly negatively in L2 learning, according to these researchers, learners may find it easier to remember items or concepts that they can relate to their L1. The L1 also aids instruction and comprehension by helping to explain new or difficult vocabulary or grammar, translating, correcting students’ mistakes, and responding to students’ inquiries or misunderstanding (Kelly & Bruen, 2015; Khan, 2016; Mohebbi & Alavi, 2014; Nakatsukasa & Loewen, 2015). Teachers also use L1 for affective reasons (Bruen & Kelly, 2017; Tsagari & Diakou, 2015), such as reducing anxiety through praise and encouragement, and classroom management, such as providing instructions, classroom rules, or homework assignments (Izquierdo et al., 2016; Nukuto, 2017). Use of L1 in such tasks as translation has even been linked to increased participation and attention of students (Källkvist, 2013).

Researchers, however, still warn that the excessive use of L1 can restrict learners’ exposure to the target language (Izquierdo et al., 2016; Thompson & Harrison, 2014), limiting their learning development. Sawin (2018), by contrast, argues that in the current digital age, students have instant and unlimited exposure to the L2 through different online sources that provide easy access to authentic use of the target language, increasing students’ competence in the L2 without reliance on the formal classroom setting. In other words, reference to L1 as a distraction or interference is no longer as valid as it once was. Hemaidia (2016) argues that the degree of differences between the L1 and L2 is what determines effectiveness of L1 use. The more the two languages are similar, the more L1 use can be beneficial for learners. In the case of Algeria, while Arabic and English are distinctly different on several levels, they have similarities which would enable use of Arabic as an L1 to aid L2 learning/instruction.

Meanwhile, certain other studies argue that exclusive use of the L2 can be counterproductive, making students more anxious (being overloaded with the pace and amount of unfamiliar language), less willing to communicate and less involved cognitively (Liu & Zeng, 2015; Tian & Hennebry, 2016; Zhao & Macaro, 2016), which can lead to complete disengagement from learning (Tian & Hennebry, 2016; Zhao & Macaro, 2016). In this respect, some researchers support the use of L1 for affective purposes such as motivation (Ellis, 2008). According to this view, learners who hear and use L1 should feel more comfortable and should be more motivated to learn the target language whereas complete absence of L1 may make the classroom and the learning process more intimidating. Brown (2000) claims that this is particularly true for adult learners, who are more prone to feeling anxious in the L2 classroom. Use of L1 is believed to reduce such feelings of apprehension among learners (Meyer, 2008) while imposing strict L2-only instruction may prevent some learners from communicating altogether. This is supported by several studies (Khan, 2016; McManus & Marsden, 2016; Samian et al., 2016; Zhang, 2018; Zhao & Macaro, 2016), which suggest that learners benefit from instruction that integrates L1 in L2 instruction, especially among lower proficiency learners.

Another important issue addressed in the literature is the extent to which L1 is used in L2 classrooms. Many studies examined the extent to which L1 was being used in the L2 classroom, all of which revealed that L1 was being used commonly (Adinolfi & Astruc, 2017; Kelly & Bruen, 2015), ranging from 11% (Nakatsukasa & Loewen, 2015) to 69% (Izquierdo et al., 2016) of the time.

Despite the availability of literature on the use of L1 in the L2 classroom, there is still significant gap. To our knowledge, no previous research has simultaneously examined multiple contextual factors (such as gender, years of teaching experience, and academic level) affecting teachers’ use of L1 in L2 teaching. Also to our knowledge, no prior studies have adopted years of teaching experience as a potential factor in L1 usage. This study aims to address this gap by examining teachers’ beliefs about the use of L1 in L2 teaching and their actual practice across academic levels, years of teaching experience, and gender. In doing so, we aim to inform the overarching aim of the study, which is to illustrate the discrepancy between Algerian policy and actual classroom practice.

The Algerian Context

Due to over a century of French colonization, which stripped Algeria of its Arab and Tamazight (also known as Berber) culture, the French language is indelibly enmeshed in all forms of communication in Algeria (Jacob, 2019, 2020). For decades Algeria has been a predominately Francophone nation, and the Arabic that was once spoken in the nation has become an awkward melding of French, Arabic and, in some areas, Tamazight (Belmihoub, 2018). Although the official languages of the country are technically Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and Tamazight, MSA is rarely used in practice. The only exception is formal classroom teaching and learning procedures such as examinations, which—throughout primary and secondary education—are in MSA. Meanwhile, French, although not an official language, is used nearly everywhere, including on the street, in formal administrative documents, and in various tertiary-level course instruction. Accordingly, for many, pinpointing a single L1 for Algerians may be difficult considering the rich fusion of the three dominant languages. Most Algerians, however, will agree that their L1 is the Algerian dialect of Arabic (or vernacular Arabic), which is an amalgamation of MSA, French, and sometimes even Tamazight (in Berber-speaking regions).

So where does English fit in? For so long, English was relegated to the background of the Algerian linguistic milieu. More recently, however, in the interest in and use of English has surged in Algeria, both in an attempt to fit into the international linguistic setting and as an initiative to shift away from the language of the colonizer and to move beyond a painful colonial history (Belmihoub, 2018; Jacob, 2019, 2020). Today, English in Algeria is considered as an international language, the “language of the future” and the “language of science” and advancement (Jacob, 2019). Where once English use was nearly non-existent, today the vital need for the language is widely acknowledged. For instance, individuals seeking a better job nearly anywhere abroad must learn English (Jacob, 2019). University students—notably postgraduate students in scientific streams—and members of the scientific community sometimes find themselves debilitated without sufficient knowledge of English (Belmihoub, 2018). Similarly, entrepreneurs and business people often realize that English is a vital asset. Learning English in Algeria has become of primary importance not only for individuals seeking work and study abroad opportunities but also on a national scale for the advancement of academics, research, business, and other fields (Jacob, 2019).

In accordance with this proliferating need for English proficiency, Algeria has adopted a range of education reforms to improve the education system and facilitate an efficient shift toward a more Anglophone nation. Along with incorporating English into schools, educational reforms have declared English as the first foreign language instead of French, assigning the former more prominence. This is because English is considered by many as the solution to all problems encountered by the failing education system (Mami, 2013).

Since its inception into Algerian education, several English teaching approaches have been employed in response to the changes taking place across the globe (Benadla, 2013; Mami, 2013). The most recent approaches are the communicative approach and the Competency-based Approach (CBA). The latter stressed the significance of communicative competence in learning English. Because of its impracticality in the Algerian context, however, educators adopted CBA, a derivative of the communicative approach. The aim of the latter approach remains communicative competence, but with focus also placed on practicality rather than attaining communicative competence and knowledge of the target culture.

Steering away from merely teaching language forms, the main focus in the Algerian EFL classroom has become trying to get learners to reach a state where they can communicate in the language in the contexts where they most need to do so. This, according to CBA, can be accomplished only with L2 instruction. Mami (2013) posits that successful EFL teaching includes using only English to teach the language in nearly all instances, including with beginners. In practice, many teachers, however find this to be a difficult task, oftentimes because they are bound to specific learning objectives they must meet in a limited period of time (Manel et al., 2019), so focusing on transmitting the message to learners solely in English can be challenging and time-consuming. Moreover, the fact that these teachers are themselves non-native English speakers presents difficulties in explaining certain concepts to learners (Manel et al., 2019). The teacher may therefore face a dilemma: use English only at the expense of efficacy, lost time, and/or failure to meet all objectives, or incorporate L1 at the expense of reducing learners’ exposure to English and perhaps hindering their learning.

How, then, is the use of L1 in Algeria impacting EFL learners?

Manel et al. (2019) found that although the majority of learners found the exclusive use of English to be beneficial for their proficiency, the majority also supported teacher’s use of L1 for a number of reasons. In fact, 75% of students thought that L1 should be used at least sometimes in the classroom to meet their wide range of needs. In exploring English to Arabic code-switching practices among Algerian tertiary-level teachers and students, Adder and Bagui (2020) found that using L1 is a common practice among teachers. When investigating teachers’ attitudes, the authors found that teachers overall held negative attitudes toward use of L1, encouraging the exclusive use of English for lecturing and interacting in the classroom. Concurrently, however, these teachers 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’ and teachers’ code-switching to L1 in the English classroom and found that both parties held positive views toward code-switching to and from L1. An overwhelming 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 learning the foreign language. When asked about their teachers, 92.5% reported that teachers used L1 at least sometimes, most often either to explain grammar rules or new vocabulary items or to check their comprehension.

The reviewed literature has revealed a discrepancy between attitudes of teachers and students at a tertiary level and those at a secondary level. Teachers and students at a tertiary level seem to discourage the use of L1 in the EFL classroom, despite using it themselves for the sake of clarification or comprehension while secondary-level teachers and students viewed L1 as necessary for aiding comprehension and facilitating the L2 learning process. The latter viewpoint stands in contrast to the communicative approach in general and CBA in particular, which encouraged L2-only instruction. What Algerian English education seems to be experiencing is a discrepancy between theory and practice. Despite the clear theoretical disapproval of the use of L1 in EFL teaching, practitioners still rely on this source of interference.

For purpose of the study, we adopted the assumptions that teachers use L1 mainly as a compensation strategy to facilitate communication with learners and that they do so more often in secondary than tertiary education because of the difference in students’ capacities. Yet, based on our personal observations, we adopted the assumption that L1 is used more often than necessary regardless of how its use is broken out, perhaps merely out of habit. The current study was conducted in attempt to unveil teachers’ usage patterns of L1 in Algerian EFL classes by studying teachers’ beliefs about the use of L1 under various conditions. To this end, we aimed to answer the following research questions:

When broken out by teaching experience, to what extent do EFL teachers hold differing views about the use of L1 in the English classroom?

When broken out by academic level taught, to what extent do EFL teachers hold differing views about the use of L1 in the English classroom?

When broken out by gender, to what extent do EFL teachers hold differing views about the use of L1 in the English classroom?

Overall, what are EFL teachers’ beliefs about the use of L1 in the English classroom?

Methodology

The current study implemented a descriptive, quantitative approach. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS v25.

Participants and Sampling Procedures

Teachers across Algeria responded to a closed-ended, Likert-scale questionnaire measuring their attitudes toward the use of L1 in the language teaching classroom. The non-probability sample (a completely random sample was not possible) included 219 teachers (females: n = 159, 72.6% of the sample; males: n = 57, 26% of the sample; prefer not to say: n = 3, 1.4% of the sample) from 41 different Algerian provinces. The predominance of females over males reflects the same predominance in all universities across the country (MERIC-Net, 2019), particularly across most arts and humanities departments. Ages ranged from 20 to 69 (M = 36.07; SD = 9.592). All teacher respondents were learners of EFL themselves, and their native language was the Algerian dialect of Arabic.

Teachers represented three academic levels: middle school (n = 68; 31.1%), high school (n = 66; 30.1%), and college/university (85; 38.8%). Because English is not taught in Algeria at the level of elementary school, teachers at this level were not polled. Of the entire sample, 88 (40.2%) had less than 6 years of experience teaching; 64 (29.22%) had 6 to 12 years, 35 (16%) had 13 to 18 years of experience, 9 (4.2%) had 19 to 24 years of experience, and 23 (10.5%) had more than 24 years of experience teaching (refer to Table 1).

Table 1.

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

		Gender			Years (experience) teaching					Total
		Female	Male	Prefer 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/university	n = 60, 70%	23, 28%	2, 2%	28, 33%	30, 35%	13, 15%	4, 5%	10, 12%	85
Total		159	57	3	88	64	35	9	23	219

Students begin EFL instruction for the first time in 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 learning English for a minimum of 6 years. Because they were expected to have reached a certain level of mastery of the language, we expected their teachers to be least supportive of the use of L1 when compared to teachers of other levels.

Years of experience teaching was adopted as a factor in this study for similar reasons: teachers with more experience were expected to use L1 less and discourage its use more when compared to teachers with less experience. We also chose to compare responses by gender to see whether there are any trends in beliefs in that respect.

Data Gathering Tools

Data for this study were collected using a closed-ended questionnaire measuring attitudes or beliefs about the use of L1 in teaching EFL. The questionnaire was comprised of two main sections: 1) demographic/ background information, and 2) beliefs about the use of L1 in the classroom. The latter section was initially made up of 34 Likert-scale items ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

Data Analysis

All responses were recorded and analyzed using IBM SPSS (v.25). First, descriptive statistics for all relevant data were calculated then factor analysis was carried out based on principal axis factoring extraction methods with oblique rotation using the direct oblimin algorithm. Questionnaire items were grouped together appropriately, attaining a satisfactory level of construct validity. Internal consistency was then measured using Cronbach’s Alpha for the second portion of the questionnaire and for each factor independently. Then normality was tested for each factor independently and for the entire second portion of the questionnaire using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test of normality. Once data was found to be normally distributed, one-way ANOVA was used to test for differences in group means for each of the factors.

Procedures

We developed some items in the questionnaire using our experience in EFL teaching. Other items were adapted from previous studies (Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008; Wach & Monroy, 2019).

We contacted potential respondents through e-mail and social media platforms such as Facebook, and the questionnaire was subsequently administered online. A smaller than expected sample was available because the response rate on over 1,000 attempted contacts was approximately 20%. We ran factor analysis to measure for construct validity, which reduced items to two main factors: linguistic and affective/behavioral. Linguistic factors measure language aspects of teaching, from grammar and vocabulary to reading comprehension and overall retention. Affective/behavioral factors include statements related to the use of L1 for affective or behavioral reasons such as classroom management. Item reduction and factor extraction reduced items to 27, 14 in the first factor (language development), and 13 in the second factor (affect and behavior).

After item reduction, we tested for internal consistency through Cronbach’s alpha. Reliability analysis yielded a coefficient of .89 for all the items combined, indicating strong internal consistency. The analysis also yielded a coefficient of .80 for factor 1 (linguistic) and a coefficient of .80 for factor 2 (affect and behavior), indicating relatively strong internal consistency.

Analysis and Discussion

Analysis

To test for statistically significant differences in teachers’ beliefs about the use of L1 in teaching EFL, the researcher compared their answers by gender, years of experience teaching, and different academic levels by running separate ANOVA tests for each factor as well as for the entire questionnaire. Prior to running the test, Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances and 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 normality revealed that the data was normally distributed, D (219) = .045, p = .200, and Levene’s homogeneity of variances revealed that there was equality of variances across all groups when broken out by experience, F (4, 214) = 0.874, p = .481, level taught, F (2, 216) = 1.760, p = .175, and gender, F (2, 216) = 1.098, p = .335.

Beliefs Based on Teachers’ Experience

Results from the ANOVA analysis revealed that, when comparing responses by teachers’ experience (Table 2), there are no statistically significant differences in beliefs about the use of L1 in teaching EFL. Table 2 shows that no differences exist between groups when analyzing the first factor (linguistic variables), F (4, 214) = 0.579, p = .679, or the second factor (affective variables), F (4, 214) = 1.201, p = .312. The analysis also indicates that no differences exist between groups in overall beliefs about the use of L1 in teaching EFL, regardless of the reason for use, F (4, 214) = 0.940, p = .442.

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

Beliefs Based on Academic Level

We also ran ANOVA to compare teachers’ responses based on academic level taught. Table 3 shows results from the analysis, which reveal that when responses were compared by academic level, there were no significant difference in beliefs across levels in regards to the first factor, F (2, 216) = 2.159, p = .118, as well as the second factor, F (2, 216) = 2.289, p = .104. Similarly, there were no differences in responses overall, F (4, 216) = 2.064, p = .129.

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

Beliefs Based on Gender

Responses were also compared for each factor by gender. The ANOVA table (Table 4) suggests no significant differences in beliefs regarding linguistic reasons for L1 use, F (2, 216) = 0.120, p = .887, or affective reasons, F (2, 216) = 0.097, p = .908, when compared by gender. Results from the analysis also revealed no significant differences in beliefs overall, F (2, 216) = 0.005, p = .995, when broken out by gender.

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

Use of L1 for Various Reasons

The analysis of descriptive statistics indicates that respondents held relatively neutral beliefs in terms of linguistic features (factor 1) (M = 2.77, SD = 0.58), affective and behavioral features (factor 2) (M = 2.83, SD = 0.68), and overall (M = 2.80, SD = 0.58). Table 5 shows sample statements from the first factor, linguistic features, broken out by years of experience teaching and academic level. The table outlines frequency of response and descriptive statistics for each statement; for example, in the statement “In a lower-level classroom, it is best if organizational issues are explained in L1,” overall, respondents held a rather neutral view (M = 2.68, SD = 1.13), although at a first glance, it appears that considerably more respondents disagreed (n = 90, 41% of the sample). When broken out by years of experience teaching, responses were similar across all categories except 19 to 24 years of experience (M = 3.65, SD = 1.32), indicating that all respondents held relatively neutral views about the use of L1 for organizational issues with the exception of respondents with 19 to 24 years of experience teaching. The latter category of respondents held slightly more positive views since the majority of them either agreed (n = 5, 55.6%) or strongly agreed (n = 2, 22.2%). When broken out 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 (M = 2.54, SD = 1.09).

Table 5.

Linguistic Features, Broken Out by Experience and Level.

									Years (experience) teaching					Level
									<6 years	6–12 years	13–18 years	19–24 years	>24 years	Middle school	High school	College/university	Total
1. In a lower-level classroom, it is best if organizational issues (like checking attendance and preparing materials) are explained in the L1.		M							2.60	2.69	2.66	3.65	2.57	2.76	2.76	2.54	2.68
		SD							1.067	1.125	1.162	1.323	1.121	1.053	1.241	1.086	1.125
	SD	n							12	8	4	1	4	5	12	12	29
	SD	%							13.6%	12.5%	11.4%	11.1%	17.4%	7.4%	18.2%	14.1%	13.2%
	D	n							36	27	17	1	9	30	21	39	90
	D	%							40.9%	42.2%	48.6%	11.1%	39.1%	44.1%	31.8%	45.9%	41.1%
	N	N							17	8	3	0	3	11	7	13	31
	N	%							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
	A	%							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
	SA	%							2.3%	3.1%	5.7%	22.2%	0.0%	2.9%	4.5%	3.5%	3.7%
2. Using L1 in the classroom makes the classroom atmosphere friendlier.		M							3.01	2.98	2.97	3.44	2.66	2.87	2.97	2.99	2.95
		SD							1.109	1.134	1.043	1.236	.982	1.183	1.095	1.075	1.112
	SD	N							7	5	2	1	3	8	4	6	18
		%							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
	SA	%	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%

Similarly, no striking differences in responses for the second statement appeared when compared by categories of experience and level taught. Nearly all categories of respondents held a relatively neutral view, indicating that, overall, respondents neither encouraged nor discouraged the use of L1 for making the classroom atmosphere slightly friendlier (M = 2.95, SD = 1.11).

Table 6 shows sample statements from the second factor, affective and behavioral features. In the first example, statement 11, respondents held a relatively neutral view overall (M = 3.05, SD = 1.174). When broken out by years of experience, responses were relatively similar across all categories except the category of 19 to 24 years of experience (M = 3.44, SD = 1.13). All respondents held relatively neutral views about learners’ use of L1 for translating vocabulary items to remember them better with the exception of respondents with 19 to 24 years of experience teaching. The latter category of respondents held slightly more positive views since the majority of them agreed (n = 7, 77.8%). When broken out by level, responses were nearly the same for those from middle school (M = 2.93, SD = 1.21), high school (M = 3.15, SD = 1.24), and college/university (M = 3.07, SD = 1.09).

Table 6.

Affective and Behavioral Features, Broken Out by Experience and Level.

									Years (experience) teaching					Level
									< 6 years	6-12 years	13–18 years	19–24 years	>24 years	Middle school	High school	College/university	Total
11. Translating vocabulary items from English to the L1 helps learners remember the vocabulary items.	SD	M							3.11	3.05	3.09	3.44	2.61	2.93	3.15	3.07	3.05
		SD							1.226	1.161	1.121	1.130	1.076	1.213	1.243	1.089	1.174
		n							10	8	3	1	3	10	8	7	25
		%							11.4%	12.5%	8.6%	11.1%	13.0%	14.7%	12.1%	8.2%	11.4%
	D	n							23	15	9	1	10	19	16	23	58
	D	%							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
	N	%							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
	A	%							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
	SA	%							9.1%	3.1%	5.7%	0.0%	0.0%	4.4%	9.1%	3.5%	5.5%
13. It is easier for learners to understand English grammar when explained in the L1.		M							2.45	2.41	2.60	3.00	2.22	2.40	2.64	2.38	2.46
		SD							1.103	1.123	1.117	1.225	.951	1.081	1.172	1.058	1.101
	SD	N							17	13	7	1	4	13	10	19	42
		%							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
	SA	%	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%

Overall, results presented in Tables 5 and 6 and those for the rest of the statements indicate that teachers held rather neutral beliefs about the use of L1 in the English classroom. Only a few statements indicated otherwise. Table 7 presents descriptive data for the few statements to which responses were more skewed. For statement 5, participants mostly disagreed that the use of English alone helps learners learn the language more efficiently (M = 2.27, SD = 1.19). For statement 6, on the other hand, respondents generally agreed that at least some L1 is required in teaching English to lower level students (M = 3.74, SD = 1.04). Respondents also discouraged the use of L1 for translating texts (M = 2.33, SD = 1.11) and for checking reading or listening comprehension (M = 2.20, SD = 0.90).

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 comprehension), translating them into L1 is a good solution.	219	2.33	1.109	D
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 its translation in the L1.	219	2.42	1.104	D
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).

Each of the individual statements was also analyzed using ANOVA for differences in responses based on each category of respondents. When broken out by gender, responses did not vary for any statement. Responses varied for only one statement each when broken out by teaching experience and academic level. Differences are essentially non-existent across all questionnaire responses, reinforcing results from the previous analyses.

Discussion

The first, second, and third research questions were answered using ANOVA. Table 2 indicates that teachers’ attitudes toward the use of L1 in the L2 classroom are relatively the same across different categories of teaching experiences. Those who have the least experience teaching, for instance, hold relatively the same attitudes as those who have been teaching longest. This lack of difference holds true even after grouping reasons for use of L1 into two factors, neither of which showed significant differences in beliefs based on teaching experience. Similarly, Table 3 indicates no significant differences between teachers’ beliefs based on the academic level. Teachers in middle school, for instance, held relatively the same views as those in high school or college. Beliefs as per academic level also did not vary across the two factors. Finally, Table 4 indicates that beliefs were relatively the same when broken out by respondents’ gender, which was the case across the two factors as well as overall.

These findings contribute to the existing literature on the use of L1 in the Algerian L2 classroom. We did not expect the current study to reveal no significant differences between teachers’ attitudes based on academic level taught. Based on both the existing literature (Adder & Bagui, 2020; Henni, 2017) and personal observations, we expected teachers of higher levels to be less accepting of the use of L1 when teaching L2, and they were expected to use it less compared to those of lower levels simply because students in higher levels were expected to have become more proficient in the L2, requiring less usage of L1. For similar reasons, teachers with more experience were also expected to be less tolerant of the use of L1, and they were expected to use it less themselves because of the extensive experience in using and teaching the L2. Teachers with less experience were expected to favor L1 use, notably for such functions as classroom management and explanation of difficult concepts and vocabulary items. The results, however, indicate that even across decades of experience, views toward the use of L1 in the L2 classroom remain relatively the same in the Algerian context. We did not anticipate any particular patterns of belief compared by respondent gender; instead, the study sought to unveil any available patterns in responses based on this factor. As explained, however, responses were relatively consistent across all groups of gender in linguistic variables, affective variables, and overall.

When analyzing responses for individual questionnaire items, a number of key findings emerged. First, respondents held overall neutral beliefs toward the use of L1 in the L2 classroom. Second, respondents also held neutral beliefs when responses were broken out by L1 usage factor; in other words, their beliefs were relatively consistent across the linguistic and affective/behavioral categories. Third, since the first set of analyses revealed that responses were relatively the same across groups of experience, level, and gender, this second set of analyses indicates that responses across the two factors as well as overall were neutral for all of the aforementioned categories of respondents. In other words, respondents across all five categories of teaching experience (from −6 years to +24 years of teaching experience), all three categories of academic level, and all three categories of gender held neutral beliefs about the use of L1 in the L2 classroom. Finally, after analyzing individual statements, only 6 of the 27 statements did not yield mutual responses, and of the 27 statements, differences in responses based on any of the categories were nearly non-existent.

Unlike Adder and Bagui (2020) and Henni (2017), whose studies suggested that tertiary and secondary English language teachers in Algeria had slightly different views toward the use of L1, the current findings suggest that teachers of different levels, years of experience, and gender share the same beliefs about and tendency to use L1 in the classroom. Respondents also promote L1 use much more than Algeria’s language learning framework considers feasible. The only mutual and obvious opposition to the use of L1 respondents seemed to express was in directly translating words or texts for the sake of learners’ comprehension.

The study emphasized inquiry about differences in beliefs based on teachers’ characteristics in order to examine how teachers’ experiences shape and are shaped by the need to employ L1 in teaching English as an L2. The complete absence of any type of fluctuation in responses along the scales of the studied characteristics indicates that L1 is a vital tool in every L2 classroom, a view that was almost unanimously expressed among all respondents. These findings are in line with claims made by many researchers (Hlas, 2016; Joyce, 2018; Liu & Zeng, 2015; Manel et al., 2019; Tsagari & Diakou, 2015; Wolthuis et al., 2020), who opposed the exclusive use of L2 on the ground that it presents significant challenges for both teachers and learners. The findings are contrary to Mami (2013), who opined that teaching EFL in Algeria successfully means doing so only in English.

These findings are significant for a few reasons. First, they provide significant support for the proposition that perhaps Algerian L-2-only policies, which strictly confine EFL instruction to English regardless of level or any other teaching or learning circumstances, should be reconsidered. A review of the more recent literature suggests that the L-2 only framework is not as effective as it was once believed to be, and in practice, many Algerian teachers, regardless of their personal and professional characteristics, and students agree that the use of L1 is vital for multiple reasons. The findings also suggest that, globally, use of the L1 to assist in L2 learning and teaching should not be discouraged as it once was. Based on these findings, factors such as teachers’ gender, teaching experience and academic level hold little to no importance when it comes to deciding whether teaching should be supplemented with L1 or not. Accordingly, the findings contribute to the broader literature on the topic and to a more thorough understanding of L1 use in L2 teaching.

Conclusion

The current study aimed to reconsider a significant aspect in the current foreign language teaching framework in Algeria. It presents an in-depth analysis of Algerian EFL teachers’ beliefs about the use of L1 in the classroom, including comparing those beliefs with the expected practices dictated by the country’s language learning policy.

A few limitations were encountered throughout the study. First, the low response rate from participants affected the sample size considerably. Second, lack of random sample selection makes it difficult to generalize the results to the entire population. Finally, for practical reasons including respondent retention, the substance of the questionnaire limited the scope of the results because it did not cover every potential area related to L1 use in the L2 classroom. Additionally, the questionnaire was purely quantitative (closed-ended). The inclusion of qualitative data could have generated additional valuable information to strengthen our suggestion that Algeria reconsider its L2 teaching framework.

Despite these limitations, the study shows at a statistically significant level that L1 is viewed by teachers not as a source of interference or hindrance but as an asset for both learners and teachers. Most importantly, these views were expressed across three academic levels, five levels of teaching experience, and all genders.

Hundreds of teachers in different settings and circumstances agree that incorporation of L1 is beneficial in the L2 classroom, suggesting that real-life needs, and the practical experiences of language learners and teachers, should take precedence over any pre-set learning framework that cannot adequately consider all aspects of the learning process. Accordingly, the current framework (CBA) seems to fall short in completely meeting learners’ needs through its strictly-no-L1 policy. It presents an idealized image of what the language learning process should be but fails to consider what actually takes place in language classrooms across the country. This study proposes that the L2-only restriction in Algeria’s language teaching policy should be reconsidered, especially because English will be introduced as a second language in elementary schools for the first time in the upcoming academic year. Reconsidering the current policies can help set such early learners for a path of success in their language learning journey.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

All participants in this study agreed to participate in this study by giving verbal and written consent. Furthermore, all ethical guidelines were kept.

ORCID iD

Nawal Khelalfa

References

Adder

F. Z.

Bagui

(2020). English-Algerian Arabic code-Switching in EFL classroom: Case of EFL teachers and students in the department of English at Tlemcen University, Algeria. Arab World English Journal, 11(4), 144–162. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no4.10

Adinolfi

Astruc

(2017). An exploratory study of translanguaging practices in an online beginner-level foreign language classroom. Language Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2017-0008

Belmihoub

(2018). English in a multilingual Algeria. World Englishes, 37(2), 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12294

Benadla

(2013). The competency based language teaching in the Algerian middle school: From EFL acquisition planning to its practical teaching/learning. Arab World English Journal, 4(1), 158–165.

Brown

H. D.

(2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Bruen

Kelly

(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

Chiou

(2014). Rethinking the role of L1 in the EFL classroom. English Teaching & Learning, 38(4), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.6330ETL.2014

Cummins

(2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240.

Ellis

N. C.

(2008). Implicit and explicit knowledge about language. In Hornberger

N. H.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1878–1890). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_143

10.

Hall

Cook

(2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language teaching, 45(3), 271-308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000067

11.

Hemaidia

(2016). Algerian Arabic varieties speakers’ errors in English writings: A contrastive error analysis study [Unpublished PhD thesis]. University of Oran, 2.

12.

Henni

(2017). Students’ attitudes towards the use of code-switching in Algerian EFL classrooms. Revue Expression, 4, 138–148.

13.

Hlas

A. C.

(2016). Secondary teachers’ language usage: Beliefs and practices. Hispania, 99(2), 305–319.

14.

Howatt

A. P. R.

Widdowson

H. G.

(2004). A history of English language teaching. Oxford University Press.

15.

Izquierdo

Martínez

V. G.

Pulido

M. G. G.

Zúñiga

S. P. A.

(2016). First and target language use in public language education for young learners: Longitudinal evidence from Mexican secondary-school classrooms. System, 61, 20–30.

16.

Jacob

(2019). ‘Back to the “futur”’: Mobility and immobility through English in Algeria. Language & Communication, 68, 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.11.004

17.

Jacob

(2020). English as a decolonial language: Academic frames, popular discourses & language practices in Algeria. The journal of North African studies, 25(6), 1013–1032. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629387.2020.1732627

18.

Joyce

(2018). L2 vocabulary learning and testing: The use of L1 translation versus L2 definition. The Language Learning Journal, 46(3), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1028088

19.

Källkvist

(2013). Languaging in translation tasks used in a university setting: Particular potential for student agency? The Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01430.x

20.

Kelly

Bruen

(2015). Translation as a pedagogical tool in the foreign language classroom: A qualitative study of attitudes and behaviours. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 150–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541720

21.

Khan

M. S.

(2016). The impact of native language use on second language vocabulary learning by Saudi EFL students. English Language Teaching, 9, 134–140. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n5p134

22.

Khresheh

(2012). Exploring when and why to use Arabic in the Saudi Arabian EFL classroom: Viewing L1 use as eclectic technique. English Language Teaching, 5(6), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n6p78

23.

Krashen

Terrell

(1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Prentice Hall.

24.

Lin

L. C.

W. Y.

(2015). A think-aloud study of strategy use by EFL college readers reading Chinese and English texts. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(3), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12012

25.

Littlewood

(2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44(1), 64–77. https://doi:10.1017/S0261444809990310

26.

Liu

Zeng

(2015). Loss and gain: Revisiting the roles of the first language in novice adult second language learning classrooms. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5, 2433–2440. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0512.01

27.

Macaro

Lee

J. H.

(2013). Teacher language background, codeswitching, and English-only instruction: Does age make a difference to learners’ attitudes? Tesol Quarterly, 47(4), 717–742. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.74

28.

Mami

N. A.

(2013). Creative classrooms in Algeria, applying flexibility and innovation in learning. ICERI 2013 Proceeding, pp. 3155–3160.

29.

Manel

Hassan

Buriro

H. A.

(2019). Learners’ attitudes towards teachers’ switching to the mother tongue (The case of secondary school learners in Algeria). Indonesian TESOL Journal, 1(1), 9–26.

30.

McManus

Marsden

(2016). L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and offline performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 459-492. https://doi:10.1017/S027226311600022X

31.

MERIC-Net. (2019). The higher education system in Algeria: National report. http://www.meric-net.eu/files/fileusers/National_Report_template_MERIC-NET_Algeria_English.pdf

32.

Meyer

(2008). The pedagogical implications of L1 use in the L2 classroom. Maebashi Kyoai Gakuen College Ronsyu, 8, 147–159.

33.

Mohebbi

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

34.

Moore

P. J.

(2013). An emergent perspective on the use of the first language in the English-as-a-foreign-language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01429.x

35.

Nakatsukasa

Loewen

(2015). A teacher’s first language use in form-focused episodes in Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541737

36.

Nation

(2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 5(2), 1–8.

37.

Nukuto

(2017). Code choice between L1 and the target language in English learning and teaching: A case study of Japanese EFL classrooms. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 49(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2017.1316631

38.

Rabbidge

Chappell

(2014). Exploring non-native English speaker teachers’ classroom language use in South Korean elementary schools. TESL-EJ, 17(4), 1–18.

39.

Rolin-Ianziti

Varshney

(2008). Students’ views regarding the use of the first language: An exploratory study in a tertiary context maximizing target language use. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(2), 249–273. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.65.2.249

40.

Samian

H. V.

Foo

T. C. V.

Mohebbi

(2016). The Effects of giving and receiving marginal L1 glosses on L2 vocabulary learning by upper secondary learners. English Language Teaching, 9(2), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n2p66

41.

Sawin

(2018). Media and English. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–15). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0721

42.

Shin

J. Y.

Dixon

L. Q.

Choi

(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

43.

Thompson

G. L.

Harrison

(2014). Language use in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 47(2), 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12079

44.

Tian

Hennebry

(2016). Chinese learners’ perceptions towards teachers’ language use in lexical explanations: A comparison between Chinese-only and English-only instructions. System, 63, 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.08.005

45.

Tsagari

Diakou

(2015). Students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards the use of the first language in the EFL state school classrooms. Research Papers in Language Teaching & Learning, 6(1), 86–108.

46.

Wach

Monroy

(2019). Beliefs about L1 use in teaching English: A comparative study of Polish and Spanish teacher-trainees. Language Teaching Research, 24, 855–873. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819830422

47.

Wolthuis

Bloemert

Tammenga-Helmantel

Paran

(2020). A curriculum in transition: TL/L1 use in Dutch EFL literature lessons. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(4), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2019.1697279

48.

Zhang

(2018). Collaborative writing in the EFL classroom: The effects of L1 and L2 use. System, 76, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.04.009

49.

Zhao