Saudi Female Teachers’ Perceptions of the Use of L1 in EFL Classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the literature of second language teaching and learning, the use of students’ first language (L1) has been an issue of debate for many years. Despite the changing state of teaching and learning aspects over the years, the belief that L1 should not be used in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms has stood the test of time. Nevertheless, many studies have recently started to put this belief under question and to give the effectiveness of L1 use, the benefit of doubt. This paper investigates EFL teachers’ perceptions of the use of students’ first language at one of the universities in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, given the fact that those teachers speak students’ native language and have different English language proficiency levels. The data gathered through a questionnaire were analyzed using the IBM Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS)® to find frequencies, percentages and mean scores. The overall results of the study show that the majority of teachers agree to the use of students’ first language in their EFL classrooms. Moreover, when investigating the relationship between teachers’ English language proficiency level and their perceptions of L1 use, the results suggest that there is no correlation between the two. Furthermore, the results of the study conclude that EFL teachers are selective when it comes to the areas of language teaching where L1 is used.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".