English Teachers' Use of Learners' L1 (Arabic) in College Classrooms in Kuwait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This study investigated English teachers' use of learners' L1 (Arabic) in college classrooms in Kuwait. The purpose of the study was three-fold: (1) to describe the functions for which L1 was employed by the teachers, (2) to explore the affective, sociolinguistic, and psycholinguistic factors that may have led teachers to use L1 in L2 teaching, and (3) to measure the teachers’ attitudes toward using L1 in teaching English as a foreign language (EFL). 60 EFL teachers at the Language Center in a college in Kuwait agreed to participate in the study. Data collection methods included recorded interviews and a grounded survey that was derived from the data of the interviews. Data analysis methods utilized Ethnograph 6.0, a software program, in order to search for common patterns of L1 use in the teachers’ interviews. Analysis of the survey utilized the Microsoft Excel Software Program to generate the means, percentages, and standard deviations for each of the survey items. The survey results indicated that the teachers used L1 in L2 classrooms as a teaching tool and for classroom management. The participating teachers also indicated that affective, sociolinguistic, and psycholinguistic factors have contributed to their L1 use in L2 teaching. However, the results also showed that the participating teachers exhibited mostly negative attitudes toward L1 use in L2 teaching. This contradiction between classroom practice and attitudes entailed implications for language teacher education programs to better equip EFL bound graduates with appropriate teaching strategies and classroom techniques to use L1 in appropriate ways in the EFL classroom.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".