Use or Avoid? The Perceptions of Prospective English Teachers in Turkey about L1 Use in English Classes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper following a mixed-method research design investigates the role of L1 use in L2 teaching from the perspectives of Turkish prospective English teachers. Data were collected from 374 Turkish prospective teachers in ELT department of four state universities in Turkey through a questionnaire. It was aimed to obtain a general view about whether Turkish should be used in teaching English; and if used, to what extent it should be used in the situations specified in the questionnaire, and for what purposes Turkish should be used in these situations. According to the results of the study, some of the participants proposed that L1 use should have no place in language learning/teaching since it exists as a barrier to the process of language learning and hinders the exposure to L2 and the chance to practice it whereas a great majority of them (N=243) considered L1 use as a contributing factor to ease the process of language learning and comprehension of learners.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it