Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Volume 13 (2022) Issue 1
The Role of Learners’ Native Language in EFL Self-Efficacy Beliefs:
an Exploratory Study
Blake Turnbull (Kyoto, Japan)
Abstract
Many scholars agree that judicious use of learners’ native language (L1) can be advantageous in the language (L2) classroom; however, the role of the L1 in students’ beliefs about self-efficacy has received little attention in the literature thus far. Through the use of a questionnaire, this paper examines the beliefs of university-level Japanese EFL students regarding the use of the L1 (Japanese) and its role in self-efficacy in L2 (English) learning. The major findings show that Japanese university-level EFL students believed the use of Japanese may help to improve their English reading and writing skills more than their speaking and listening skills, as well as for the learning of grammar and vocabulary in particular. Suggestions about what university EFL educators can do are also provided.
Keywords: L1 use, native language, self-efficacy, EFL education, Japanese EFL, learner beliefs
1 Introduction
The debate regarding whether students’ first language (L1) should be employed in the education of English as a foreign language (EFL) has been an ongoing issue for a number of years (Brown 2006). Distrust of the L1 surfaced following recognition that the Grammar-Translation Method, which relied heavily on the L1 for translation into the target language (TL) (Harmer 2007), did not result in the development of communicative competence in the second language (L2). This led to the emergence of new pedagogies based on the idea of L2-immersion, such as the Direct Method and the Natural Approach. These monolingual approaches strictly upheld the notion that classroom instruction should be conducted “exclusively in the target language” (Richards & Rodgers 2014: 12), actively avoiding the use of the L1 altogether. More recent approaches, such as Communicative Language Teaching, which focus on acquiring the TL through meaningful interaction in the L2, tend to largely ignore the existence of the L1 altogether (Cook 2001).
The concept of exclusively using the TL has been picked up not only by L2 teachers in classrooms throughout the world, but also by government-level curriculum and policy makers in various language education contexts. In Hong Kong, for example, the Curriculum Development Council (2004) stated in their English Language Curriculum Guide that “teachers should teach English through English and encourage learners to interact with one another in English” (Primary 1–6): 109). Similarly, in mainland China, the Ministry of Education states in their experimental English syllabus for full-time senior high schools that teachers should use English “as much as possible” (Chinese Ministry of Education 2000). The Korean Ministry of Education began introducing communicative language teaching (CLT) into their 6th National Curriculum (effective from 1995/1996), and eventually adopted the Teaching English through English (TETE) policy, in which they encourage English teachers at the elementary- and secondary-school levels to use only English in the classroom (Kim 2008).
In Japan, the idea of teaching English through English was first taken up by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) in their 2003 Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities, and then further refined in their subsequent revisions to the course of study, in which they stipulate that “English classes should be conducted principally in English in high school” (MEXT 2011: 8). Furthermore, MEXT’s (2014: 1) English Education Reform Plan corresponding to Globalisation specifies that English classes at the junior high school level be conducted ‘basically’ in English. It also includes the introduction of new English Language Activities at the lower elementary level, and English Language as a compulsory subject at the upper elementary level from 2020. Even university level policies, such as MEXT’s (n.d.) Top Global University Project, have advocated for English-medium courses in the promotion of internationalisation at selected university institutions.
However, while the teaching of English through English has been emphasised throughout the different educational levels in Japan, the reality is that Japanese continues to be the dominant language of instruction in EFL classrooms (Iijima et. al 2019, Terauchi 2017). Even at the university level, where native-speaker teachers are widely found amongst a drive to internationalise the country’s major universities, the use of Japanese in EFL courses is still reported to be high (Bradford & Brown, 2018). This is perhaps because, as Turnbull (2018a) suggests, Japanese EFL learners tend to desire the use of the L1, viewing it as a constituent element of their national identity. Removing Japanese from the EFL classroom may therefore have negative effects on learners’ self-identity, and subsequently on their learning (Auerbach 1993). In other words, Japanese EFL students may in fact need Japanese to effectively learn EFL. An individual’s judgment such as this regarding his or her ability to achieve a certain task in a particular domain is what Bandura (1997) referred to in the title of his book as ‘self-efficacy’.
2 Literature Review
2.1 The Monolingual vs L1-Use Argument
The dominant discourse in EFL education in the past was the Monolingual Approach, which follows the premise that instruction and learning must be conducted exclusively in the TL for successful acquisition to take place. It also upheld the idea that learners’ languages must be kept separate, and translation avoided (Cummins 2007). This notion was based on what Howatt (1984) referred to as the monolingual principle: a set of monolingual ideologies of language separation (i.e., double monolingualism), and the native speakerdom, personifying the monolingual native speaker as the goal of target language competence. Under this assumption, the simultaneous use of two or more languages is thought to confuse learners and hinder their language development (Jessner, 2008), and languages are thus kept separate through banning the use of (or ignoring) the L1 altogether.
The basic premise of the monolingual approach to language education is that learners must be subjected to an adequate amount of TL input (Larsen-Freeman 1985, Lightbown & Spada, 2013), defined as “language which a learner hears or receives and from which he or she can learn” (Richards et al. 1989: 143). This concept is based on Krashen's (1981) influential Input Hypothesis, which states that learners develop their abilities in the TL when they receive comprehensible language input that is slightly above their current level. As Turnbull (2001: 532) puts it, in the majority of FL contexts, “the teacher is most often the sole linguistic model for the students and is therefore their main source of TL input”. As such, monolingual approaches to language education greatly rely on teachers’ levels of TL output to influence students’ development (Crichto 2009).
However, certain scholars (e.g. Auerbach 1993, Cummins 2007) have argued that such TL-only policies are, in fact, more politically-driven than they are based on pedagogical and empirical evidence. This has led others to acknowledge that the use of student 's L1 actually works to aid L2 learning, and does not prevent it (e.g. Brooks-Lewis 2009, Macaro 2014, Mahboob & Li 2016, Scott & de la Fuente 2008, Storch & Aldosari 2010, Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain 2009), as will be detailed below.
One of the main ways in which the L1 can be of benefit to L2 learning is by attending to learners’ basic psychological needs (Burden 2001). Meiring & Norman (2002: 32) refer to this as the “comforting effect”; a form of “psychological reassurance” that supports learners’ affective states. Studies have indeed shown that TL-only classrooms could potentially have negative effects on students’ emotional relationships with the language learning process, as well as on their identity (e.g., Cook 2001, Hall & Cook 2012, Inbar-Lourie 2010). Littlewood & Yu point out that
depriving students completely of this support by immersing them in a strange environment, where they feel disoriented and powerless, has been identified as one possible source of demotivation, especially for students with more limited proficiency. (Littlewood & Yu (2011: 70)
Thus, the use of the L1 plays an important role in supporting students’ affective features through offering a sense of security (Schweers 1999), raising learners’ confidence levels (Karimian & Mohammadi 2015), lowering affective filters (Meyer 2008), and easing stress levels (Levine 2003). It can also be used to ensure that students are motivated and feel comfortable in the classroom (de la Campa & Nassaji 2009), to create social relations and build rapport between teachers and their students (Littlewood & Yu 2011), and to build integrated knowledge in the learners’ minds (Mart 2013). Atkinson (1993) perhaps summarises it best, stating that
the L1 can be a vital resource, and there is certainly no reason why any teacher of monolingual classes should feel that it is somehow ‘wrong’ to make use of it. (Atkinson (1993: 13)
2.2 Self-Efficacy
The notion of self-efficacy is what Bandura (1997: 3) conceptualised as the “beliefs in one‘s capabilities to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments”. In other words, it refers to one’s self-perceived ability to perform at a desired level to accomplish a certain task. Self-efficacy beliefs function as the strongest group of determinants for human motivation, and can influence one’s decision making, cognitive processes, thoughts, affective states, efforts, perseverance, adversity resilience, and accomplishments (Bandur 1997).
Self-efficacy is not a measure of one’s actual performance in a task, but rather refers to the beliefs that an individual holds regarding how well they can accomplish a task. Self-efficacy beliefs thus play a major role in how individuals approach certain situations. Those individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to believe they can achieve the task and recover more quickly from any issues. On the other hand, those with low self-efficacy are less confident and therefore less likely to believe they can adequately perform to complete a given task. Self-efficacy is central to Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, which conceptualises humans as proactive, self-reflective, self-regulating, and self-organising beings with the ability to shape and transform their surrounding environments rather than passively react to them. The theory asserts that human functioning results from the triadic reciprocal interactions occurring between an individual’s environment, behaviour, and personality factors such as physiological, cognitive and affective aspects, which are based on a person’s self beliefs (Bandura 1986).
Individuals can form, raise and / or lower their self-efficacy beliefs through four sources: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states (Bandura 1997). Mastery experiences refer to the analysis of information gained through personal experience and performance. Those people who have experienced success in a particular task tend to have a higher level of self-efficacy than those who have not. Vicarious experiences refer to the observation of others’ performances. Pajares (1997: 5) notes that, the greater the perceived similarities are between the individual and the social model, the greater will be the learners’ beliefs that they, too, can succeed. Verbal persuasion occurs when an individual receives verbal assessment. When a person is able to be verbally persuaded that he or she possesses the abilities to master certain tasks and activities, he or she is more likely to put the effort into doing so than a person who harbours self-doubts that they cannot (Bandura 1997: 101). Finally, psychological states refer to the effects of an individual’s emotional wellbeing on their judgment of their own self efficacy. Here, a person with a positive affective state will experience high levels of perceived self-efficacy, whereas a person suffering a negative mood, such as stress or anxiety, will feel the opposite (Pajares 1997: 6). Individuals use these four sources to develop their self-efficacy beliefs which “become instrumental to the goals they pursue and to the control they are able to exercise over their environment” (Pajares 2002: 116).
Because of the effect they can have on one’s environment, self-efficacy beliefs are a major motivational variable in classroom learning, with the power to influence the way a person thinks, feels, motivates herself, and behaves as she works towards achieving her educational goals. Self-efficacy beliefs are both domain (language, scientific, mathematic, etc.) and task specific (Bandura 1997). So, regardless of how similar two tasks are, an individual’s self-efficacy in one task may not necessarily impact her efficacy in another. Research has shown self-efficacy beliefs can affect learners’ interest in a given topic, their persistence and how much effort they are willing to invest in a task, the goals they set for themselves, and their employment of self-regulated strategies while carrying out a task (Raoofi, Tan & Chan, 2012).
2.3 Self-Efficacy and L2 / FL Learning
Some studies have looked specifically at self-efficacy beliefs in foreign / second language education. Su & Duo (2012), for example, used two questionnaires to investigate 200 Taiwanese high-school students’ language learning strategies and found a positive relationship between students’ strategy use and their self-efficacy beliefs. Similarly, Yilmaz (2010), investigating the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and language learning strategies in 140 Turkish university students, found that learners’ self-efficacy beliefs were strongly correlated to all types of learning strategies, including memory, cognitive, metacognitive, compensation, and social and affective strategies, and that students with higher self-efficacy beliefs used a wider variety of learning strategies overall.
Other scholars have examined self-efficacy as a predictor of academic achievement. Tilfarlioğlu & Ciftci (2011), for example, surveyed 250 preparatory level university students in Turkey through use of a questionnaire, and found a positive correlation between students’ academic success (as defined by grades) and learners’ self-efficacy beliefs, as well as between students’ self-efficacy and learner autonomy. Hsieh & Schallert (2008), investigating the relationship between self-efficacy and attribution of 500 undergraduate students learning beginner Spanish, German, and French, found that self-efficacy was the strongest of the different variables tested in predicting learner achievement. Similarly, Wang, Spencer & Xing (2009) used a questionnaire and tests to examine the metacognitive beliefs and strategies of 45 second-year university students’ learning Chinese as a foreign language. They found that among all metacognitive strategies and beliefs, learners’ self-efficacy was the best predictor of language learning achievement.
Self-efficacy beliefs have also been shown to exert positive effects on each of the four language domains (reading, writing, speaking, and listening). Shang (2010), for example, examined the relationship between the use of reading strategies (cognitive, metacognitive, and compensation) and perceived self-efficacy of 53 Taiwanese EFL learners. The results showed a significant positive correlation between the use of reading strategies and students’ perceptions of self-efficacy, particularly with regards to the most commonly used metacognitive strategy (also Zare & Mobarakeh 2011). Hetthong & Teo (2013) employed a questionnaire and paragraph-writing test to investigate the relationship between writing self-efficacy and writing performance in 51 third-year university EFL majors in Thailand. They found there to be a significant positive relationship between students’ self-efficacy and writing performance, both at the paragraph level and at the sub-skill level (also Rahimpour & Nariman-Jahan 2010).
Rahimi & Abedini (2009), utilising a questionnaire and a TOEFL test, investigated the role of 61 Iranian ESL undergraduate students’ self-efficacy beliefs in listening comprehension and found that learners’ self-efficacy was positively related to their listening proficiency (also Graham 2011). Alawiyah (2018) employed a questionnaire to measure students speaking self-efficacy and a speaking test to assess their speaking achievement. She investigated the correlation between self-efficacy and speaking performance in 96 Islamic university students in Indonesia and found significant positive correlations between students’ self-efficacy and speaking achievement (also Asakereh & Dehghannezhad 2015).
Researchers have also looked at the correlation between self-efficacy beliefs and language learning anxiety. Anyadubalu (2010), for example, studied 318 middle-school students in Thailand and their perceptions of self-efficacy and learner anxiety in acquiring EFL. In contrast to many other studies such as those discussed above, he found there to be no positive correlation between learners’ self-efficacy and overall EFL performance. He attributed this to the age of the students (12 years old), and to the collectivist society in which the students were raised, which does not encourage children to make decisions on their own. Similarly, Erkan & Saban (2011), through the use of a writing test, a self-efficacy scale, and a questionnaire, examined the relationship between self-efficacy and anxiety in 188 EFL university students in Turkey. They found a significant negative correlation between learners’ self-efficacy beliefs and EFL writing anxiety. Mills, Pajares & Herron (2006) also investigated the relationship between self-efficacy and anxiety in 303 university-level intermediate students of French. They also found that learners’ self-efficacy was negatively correlated with their L2 listening- and reading anxiety.
Although studies can be found investigating self-efficacy beliefs in Japanese contexts (Rivers & Ross 2018 and Thompson 2018), a thorough review of the current literature found very few studies that have looked specifically at the role of the L1 in students’ self-efficacy beliefs when studying English as a foreign language. The present paper thus attempts to address this gap in the research by examining the beliefs of university-level Japanese EFL students regarding whether there is a connection between the L1 (Japanese) and self-efficacy in the learning of the L2 (English). The following research question was investigated:
3 Methodology
3.1 Participants
Two-hundred and seventy four (M=150, F=124) native-speaker Japanese university students took part in the study voluntarily. All students were in their first year at one of two private universities, undertaking compulsory English courses. All students were aged between 18 and 20, and had been studying English as a foreign language for an average of 7.3 years. All participants were students of the researcher and of an intermediate EFL proficiency, as based on their university placement tests and their own self-report. These students were accepted for the present study because of their similar proficiency levels, their similar history of EFL education in a specifically Japanese context, and for their willingness to partake.
3.2 Questionnaire and Procedure
A 22-item questionnaire (Appendix) was made available by the researcher through an online system (Google Forms), where it could be easily accessed by the student participants. An internet platform was chosen for use over a paper-based survey because of the advantages such technology affords including its overall speed, reach, convenience, and efficiency (Birnbaum 2004). An early version of the questionnaire was piloted with a small group of 12 first-year Japanese university students to provide the researcher with an insight into the potential of the survey. Afterwards, the participants were asked follow-up questions including: Were the instructions clear? Did you find any questions difficult to understand or to answer? How was the length of the questionnaire? Based on students’ comments, minor edits and refinements were made to the questionnaire, particularly to the wording of several questions, so as to produce a more comprehendible, well-structured questionnaire.
The final version of the survey was distributed to all students via the above-mentioned online system. Data was acquired in the first class of the semester, as this time is the most effective for teachers to become aware of learner beliefs and act on them as early as possible (Horwitz 1985). The survey consisted of three main sections. In the first introductory section, participants were asked for their background demographic information, including age, proficiency level, EFL education background, etc. The second section sought to investigate the use of the L1 in the EFL classroom to determine how often the participants wanted their teacher to use, and for themselves to be able to use, Japanese both inside the EFL classroom and when studying outside the classroom. The final section aimed to determine the participants’ beliefs about the effects of the L1 on their learning of various language domains. These sections were included as it was believed they would provide necessary information required to answer the predetermined research question (Peterson 2000). The questionnaire consisted of both closed Likert-scale questions and open-ended questions. Despite their perceived limitations, open-ended questions were also included in the questionnaire to allow for a “greater freedom of expression” on the participants’ behalf (Dörnyei 2007: 36) by not restricting participants’ answers to a list of predetermined variables.
The subsequent data analysis was two-fold. First, the responses to each quantitative (closed-ended) question were converted into a numerical score which corresponded to a list of predetermined variables. Data was entered and coded in SPSS Version 23, where descriptive analysis was employed to determine the frequencies, percentages, and standard deviation of the data. One-way ANOVAs were also performed to determine any statistical differences between categories. Next, the responses to each qualitative (open-ended) question were first translated into English by the researcher (who is a native English speaker from New Zealand with fluent Japanese) and checked by a native Japanese bilingual peer.
The data was then examined with interpretative analysis by the researcher. This method was selected for use in the present study because, as Heigham & Croker (2009: 11) suggest, the researcher is the “primary research instrument” in qualitative analysis. It is acknowledged that subjective interpretation can be susceptible to bias; however, the researcher was aware of this and systematically reflected on his own positionality throughout the analysis process. Furthermore, particularly with qualitative studies such as the present one, in which the data must “go through the researcher’s mind” (Bodgan & Biklen 2007: 37), subjective interpretation plays a key role in the analysis process which, as Bodgan & Biklen (2007: 37-38) suggest, provides “a much more detailed rendering of events than even the most creatively prejudiced mind might have imagined prior to the study”. The qualitative responses were then analysed according to emerging themes (Ryan & Bernard 2003). This was done as a way of finding interesting patterns and reducing a large amount of data into understandable categories (Brown 2009), and because it is not always possible to anticipate all of the themes that may arise from the data in advance (Dey 1993). Finally, these themes were processed through content analysis (Schreier 2012) relevant to the overall goals of the study, which allowed the researcher to develop a richer understanding of the target phenomenon and to easily compare and identify relationships between thematic categories (Hsieh & Shannon 2005).
The use of a questionnaire method was chosen over others (such as individual interviews, for example) because it:
allowed the main research question to be addressed by efficiently reaching a large number of respondents, thus representing of a larger population,
allowed for an effective correlation of participant’s answers
generated standardised, quantifiable, and empirical data through closed-ended questions
generated qualitative data through the use of open-ended questions; and
allowed for respondents to be anonymous and to ensure their confidentiality (O’Leary 2014: 152-153).
As such, particular care was given to instrument construction and instrument administration (King & Bruner 2000). Questions were carefully worded to avoid the demand effect (Orne 1969); that is, including potentially leading expressions that may influence the way participants respond. Furthermore, to avoid having participants answer in a socially desirable manner, the questionnaire was written and conducted by ensuring complete anonymity (e.g. Ong & Weiss 2000). To do so, participants were informed both in writing and in person that the questionnaire was anonymous. Personal, identifying information was not collected so the participants felt assured their responses could not be linked back to them, and the participants were assured that all responses would be disposed of at the end of the study. A combination of quantitative statistical analysis and qualitative interpretative analysis was used because, as Cohen, Manion, & Morrison (2000: 253) state: it allows the researcher the “freedom to fuse measurement with opinion, quantity and quality”, providing a more illustrative analysis overall. A reliability analysis for the survey was conducted using the SPSS 23 software, and Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient was identified to be .793 and thus satisfactory overall (Cohen 1988).
4 Results
The findings of the present study are separated below into five main categories related to L1 and Self-Efficacy for the purpose of analysis: (1) Use of the L1; (2) the Four Language Skills; (3) Grammar, Vocabulary, and Culture; (4) Confidence and Test Scores; and (5) L1 Use as a Help / Hinderance. Each section includes relevant statistical data and explanatory quotes from the participants. Representative responses were selected as the most general and illustrative of the data collected from all participants, and because they provided evidence to help answer the research question. The data sets (quantitative statistical data and qualitative quote data) were integrated and displayed together for two main purposes. First, they aimed to achieve complementarity, which “seeks elaboration, enhancement, illustration, clarification of the results from one method with the results from another” (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham 198,: 259). Second, they were displayed together as an effective means of comparing whether both sets of data supported or refuted each other to answer the main research question (Creswell & Plano Clark 2007).
4.1 Use of the L1
A rather even split was found between the participants when asked whether they wanted their teacher to use Japanese in the English classroom. A total of 40.9% answered in the affirmative to some extent (25.2% = ‘yes, a little’, 15.7% = ‘yes, very much’), and 32.5% answered ‘no’ in some form (17.9% = ‘no, not really’, 14.6% = ‘no, definitely not’). The remaining 26.6% of the participants answered that they neither agreed nor disagreed. When asked whether they liked to use Japanese to learn English inside the classroom, 60.7% of the participants asserted that they did, compared to just 39.3% who did not. A total of 37.8% of the participants said they liked to use Japanese more than 60% of the time in class, with 36.3% preferring it between 40-60% of the time. A further 16.5% of the participants said they liked to use Japanese between 2-–40% of the time, with 9.6% preferring it less than 20% (SD=1.05).
Interestingly, when the participants were asked how much Japanese they liked to use when studying English outside the class, the majority stated that they preferred to use more Japanese. Over three quarters (77.5%) stated that they preferred to use Japanese, compared to just 22.5% who said they did not. One third of the participants (33.6%) said they ‘always’ (80–100% of the time) used Japanese when studying by themselves outside of the classroom, with a further 39.8% saying they did so between 60-80% of the time. In other words, a majority 73.4% of the participants suggested they used Japanese more than 60% of the time when studying English outside of the classroom. A mere 22.3% said they used it just ‘sometimes’ (40-60% of the time), with only 4.3% saying they used it less than 40% (SD=0.91).
4.2 The Four Language Skills
Next, the participants were asked how much, on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 equalled ‘not at all’, and 5 equalled ‘a lot’), they believed they could improve each of the four language skills through the use of the L1. The participants answered in the following manner:
Figure 1: Agreement Scale for L1 Role in Improving Each of the Four Language Skills
More participants believed that the use of the L1 could not help them to improve their speaking and listening skills than those who believed it could. This suggests a potentially negative correlation between L1 use and self-efficacy in learning EFL speaking and listening. The participants rated their agreement that the use of the L1 could improve their L2 speaking an average of 2.84 out of 5 (SD=1.21). A total of 39.7% believed it had ‘no’ or ‘little’ effect on their speaking improvement, compared to just 30.9% who believed it had ‘some’ effect, and 29.4% who believed it had a ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ effect on their speaking skill improvement overall. Those who agreed that the use of Japanese could help to improve their English speaking (i.e., a positive relationship between the L1 and self-efficacy beliefs) provided reasons such as:
話すのは英語でも何を言うか頭のなかで考えるのは日本語だと思うから。
(Because, even if I speak in English, I think I will contemplate what I will say in my head in Japanese.)
内容を端的な日本語でまとめられれば理解がスムーズだから。
(Because my understanding will be smoother if I can organise the content in plain Japanese.)
On the contrary, those participants who did not think the L1 could improve their L2 speaking justified their responses in the following way:11
Similar results were found for listening improvement, for which participants rated their agreement at an average of 2.32 out of 5 (SD=1.24). A total of 57.0% of the participants believed the use of the L1 had ‘no’ or ‘little’ effect. Only 26.1% believed it had ‘some’ effect, and just 16.9% believed the effect to be ‘moderate’ or ‘high’. Those in favour of L1 use in L2 listening claimed such benefits as:
リスニングをした後に日本語訳を聞いてこそ意味があるから。
(Because listening to a Japanese translation after listening [in English] makes more sense.)
母国語との対比により、より深く理解できるから。
(Because I can understand more deeply by comparing with my native language.)
However, those who did not believe the use of Japanese could improve their L2 listening suggested it was because of the following:
英語を聞くことによって英語を聞く力が向上すると思うから。
(Because I think listening in English will improve my English listening ability.)
日本語を聞いていたら英語は耳がなれないと思うから。
(Because I think I won’t get used to listening to English if I listen to Japanese.)
Interestingly, the majority of participants (72.5%) believed that the use of the L1 could help them improve their L2 reading and writing skills. This belief is potential evidence to support a positive correlation between L1 use and self-efficacy regarding the learning of EFL reading and writing. The participants rated their agreement that the use of the L1 could improve their L2 reading by an average of 3.11 out of 5 (SD=1.13). A total of 39.4% believed the L1 had a ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ effect on their reading skill improvement, compared to 33.1% who thought it had ‘some’ effect, and just 27.6% who believed it had ‘little’ or ‘no’ effect. The participants who believed that the use of Japanese could improve their English reading (i.e., a positive relationship between L1 use and self-efficacy beliefs) provided reasons such as:
日本語訳の意味をとりながら読むことが大事だと思うから。
(Because I think it is important to read while grasping the meaning from a Japanese translation.)
日本語と英語の比較をすることで、より深い理解に繋がりやすいと思うから。
(Because I think it is easier to understand more deeply by comparing Japanese and English.)
However, those who believed the L1 could not improve their L2 reading claimed it was because:
英語は英語で読まないと慣れないから。
(Because I will not get used to English if I do not read in English.)
英語をたくさん読むことによって英語を読む力は養われるから。
(Because I can cultivate my English reading ability by reading a lot in English.)
A relatively even split was found for participants’ beliefs about their writing improvement. The participants rated their average agreement 3.0 out of 5 (SD=1.09), with 32.1% believing the use of the L1 had a ‘moderate' or ‘high’ effect, 31.7% believing it had ‘little’ or ‘no' effect, and 36.2% thinking it had ‘some’ effect overall. Those participants who believed the use of Japanese could help them improve their English writing suggested it was because:
ノートを見直す際に日本語である程度メモしてある方が見直しやすいから。
(Because it is easy to look back over my notes if they are written in Japanese to a certain extent.)
書くためには文法を日本語で理解する必要があるから。
(Because I need to understand grammar in Japanese to write in English.)
Whereas those who believed the L1 could not improve their L2 writing provided reasons such as:
英語は書く練習をしないと書けないから。
(Because I cannot write if I do not practice writing in English.)
英語を書いて上達する方が早いから。
(Because I will improve faster if I write in English.)
However, based on the results of a one-way ANOhich all skills were tested together, no statistical difference was found between participants’ self-efficacy beliefs about how the L1 can help them to improve each of the four language skills (F(3,1080) = 23.94, p = 5.32).
4.3 Grammar, Vocabulary, and Culture
The participants were also asked how much, on a scale from 1 to 5, they believed they could learn English grammar, vocabulary, and culture through the use of Japanese. These three categories were grouped together as the three major points of learning outside of the four language domains (speaking, listening, reading, and writing). The participants answered in the following manner:
Figure 2: Agreement Scale for L1 Role in Learning Grammar, Vocabulary, and Culture
Overall, a large majority of the participants believed that the use of the L1 could help them to better learn English grammar, vocabulary, and culture. This majority is further evidence to support a correlation between L1 use and self-efficacy beliefs regarding the learning of certain aspects of EFL. Over half (51.8%) of the participants believed that the use of the L1 had a ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ effect on their learning of L2 grammar, compared to just 18.9% who believed it had ‘little’ or ‘no’ effect, and 29.3% who thought it had ‘some’ effect (mean=3.49, SD=1.20). A total of 45.2% believed the L1 could help them to learn L2 vocabulary, compared to 17.8% who believed it to have ‘little’ or ‘no’ effect, and 37.0% who thought it to have ‘some’ effect (mean=3.39, SD=1.15). Similarly, 44.3% of the participants thought that the L1 had a ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ effect to help them better learn English-related culture, compared to just 20.4% who believed it had ‘little’ or ‘no’ effect, and 35.3% who thought it to have ‘some’ effect (mean=3.38, SD=1.09). The results of a One-way ANOVA found no statistical difference between each of these three categories when tested together (F(2,803) = 0.75, p = 0.47).
Those who believed the use of Japanese could help them to learn English grammar, vocabulary, and culture (i.e., a positive relationship between L1 use and self-efficacy beliefs) provided reasons such as:
文法などは日本語で説明した方が最初は理解しやすいから。
(Because it is easier to understand grammar etc. at the start if it is explained in Japanese.)
日本語を使わないと微妙なニュアンスの違いが紛らわしくなることがあるから。
(Because differences between subtle nuances can be confusing if I don’t use Japanese.)
英語で一度わからなくなったらずっとわからないと思うから。文化などは複雑なので日本語が必要だと思う。
(Because I think that if I don’t understand something once in English, I will never understand it. Culture is complicated, so I need to use Japanese.)
On the other hand, those participants who believed Japanese does not help to learn English grammar, vocabulary, and culture said it was because of the following:
英語にしかない文法もあるから、日本語を使わず英語の文法を理解できたらいいと思う。
(I think that because there is grammar that is only in English, it is best to understand English grammar without using Japanese.)
単語の意味を英語と繋げて覚えていくのがいいと思うから。
(Because I think it is good to remember the meaning of vocabulary by associating it with English.)
英語でしか分からない文化があると思うから。
(Because I think there is culture that I can only understand in English.)
4.4 Confidence and Test Scores
When asked how much they believed they could gain confidence in English by using Japanese, 35.8% of the participants believed it has a ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ effect, compared to just 20.6% who believed it has ‘little’ or ‘no’ effect, and 33.6% who thought it to have ‘some’ effect (mean=3.02, SD=1.17).
Those students who believed the use of Japanese could help them to gain confidence in English justified themselves through comments such as:
日本語を使うことで安心感は得られる。
(I can get a sense of security when I use Japanese.)
Japanese makes me more confidence [sic] to learn English and communicate with others.(1)
However, those who did not believe they could gain confidence in English through the use of the L1 stated that:
英語だけでうまくやっていけた方が自信がつくから。
(Because I can get more confidence by doing well only in English.)
英語を学ぶなら、英語で自信をもって学べるようになることを目標にすべき。
(If I am learning English, I should aim to be able to learn only in English with confidence.)
In regards to how the use of the L1 could improve their test / assignment grades, 40.5% of the participants believed it has ‘some’ effect, followed by 35.7% who thought it to have a ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ effect and just 23.8% who believed it to have ‘little’ or ‘no’ effect (mean=3.16, SD=1.08). Those participants who thought the use of Japanese could improve their test grades (i.e., a correlation between L1 use and self-efficacy beliefs about their ability to do well in EFL testing) said it was because:
The tests are important for us and some students may have some difficulties to do [sic] assignments in English.(2)
テストの成績は上げられると思うけど話せないと思う。
(I think my test scores can increase, but I cannot speak.)
On the other hand, those who believed the L1 would not help to improve their test grades provided the following reasons:
関連性があまりないと思うため。
I don’t think there is much relevance [between L1 use and test scores].)
日本語でも英語でも勉強すれば点数は上がるから。
(Because if you study, in Japanese or English, your scores will increase.)
Considering the fact that the vast majority (76.2%) believed there to be at least some benefit of L1 use on EFL test scores is further evidence supporting a potential positive correlation between learners’ use of the L1 and their self-efficacy beliefs about EFL learning.
4.5 L1 Use as a Help / Hindrance
Finally, when asked whether they agreed with the idea that they could not learn English without using Japanese, the participants averaged their agreement a 2.92 out of 5 (SD=1.05). Slightly more believed that this was ‘not at all’ or ‘not’ the case (31.7%), compared to 27.0% who believed that it was ‘definitely true’ or just ‘true’. A total of 41.2%, however, believed it to be ‘somewhat’ true.
To end, the participants were asked to provide any final comments on how they believed using Japanese could either improve or hinder their learning of English. Those who believed it did hinder their learning of the L2 provided such reasons as:
英語を実際に使わないと身につかないと思うから。
(Because I think I won’t learn English if I don’t actually use it.)
日本語と英語は言語として異なるものであり、英語は英語として理解する方が効率的であると思うから。
(Because I think that Japanese and English are different languages, so it is more efficient to understand English in English.)
すぐ日本語に逃げてしまう癖がつきそうだから。
(Because it seems like I will get into the habit of returning to Japanese straight away.)
However, those who believed that the use of the L1 improved their learning of the L2 provided reasons such as:
解説を理解するために時には日本語が必要だと思うから。
(Because I think Japanese is sometimes necessary to understand explanations.)
適切なところで日本語を使用すれば、効果は出ると思います。
(I think it is effective if I use Japanese appropriately.)
5 Discussion
It is important to note first that the majority of the participants (67.5%) stated that they either desired Japanese in the EFL classroom to ‘some’ extent, or neither agreed nor disagreed to its use. Over 60% said that they liked to use Japanese in the EFL classroom, and 77.5% said they employed it when studying by themselves outside of the classroom. This falls in line with research such as Turnbull (2018a), who found that university-level Japanese EFL students do use and desire Japanese in class, viewing it as a constituent element of their personal identity as Japanese. Therefore, coupled with the benefits that research has shown the L1 to have in L2 classroom (e.g. Cook, 2001, Cummins, 2007, Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain 2009), the question becomes how we can best capitalise on this to improve students’ self-efficacy beliefs, and therefore their L2 learning overall.
As previously mentioned, Bandura (1997) presented four motivational sources that can affect the development of learners’ self-efficacy beliefs: (1) mastery experience, (2) vicarious experience, (3) social persuasion, and (4) physiological states. Mastery experiences, that is, success as a result of overcoming hurdles through one’s perseverance, helps to build a powerful belief in one's personal efficacy. Those people who have experienced success in a task are more likely to have higher levels of self-efficacy than those who have not (Pajares 1997). Thus, past experiences in which one did well represent an important factor that affects one’s self-efficacy, and one that can easily apply to the Japanese EFL classroom. In the case of university-level Japanese EFL students, learners’ mastery experience stem from their studies at the junior and senior high school level where, despite attempts by MEXT (MEXT 2003, 2014), Japanese remains the dominant language of instruction (Iijima et. al. 2019,Terauchi 2017). In the present study, the majority of the participants showed some desire for the use of Japanese in their university-level EFL study. It may be, therefore, that because students encountered the L1 during their high-school EFL learning experiences and were successful in using it then, they continue to hold positive beliefs about their own efficacy in relation to L1 use as a result. It makes sense, then, that teachers should maintain this correlation between students’ use of the L1 and their self-efficacy beliefs regarding their ability to learn EFL into the university level as well. The question of how to do so to ensure that efficient learning takes place is the next key point
The second factor in Bandura’s (1997) motivational sources is vicarious experiences, that is, one’s social role models. Seeing others of a similar status succeed can raise a person’s beliefs that they also possess the ability to succeed in the same manner. For university-level EFL teachers in Japan, being able to model how to use both the L1 and the L2 effectively is an important skill to have for students to see exactly how the L1 can be used to improve their L2 skills and express themselves as emergent bilinguals (Author 2018b). Recall that, the greater the perceived similarities are between an individual and their social model, the greater the learners’ beliefs that they too can succeed (Pajares 1997). It is important, therefore, that students are able to draw links between themselves and their teachers for this to play a role in improving their self-efficacy beliefs. Students may perceive similarities between themselves and their teacher (who is modelling the use of both English and Japanese) in that both are (or, at least, have been) learners of an additional language (native English speakers of Japanese, native Japanese speakers of English, and non-native English / Japanese speakers of both). Given that, even in university-level FL classes, the use of Japanese is commonly reported (Bradford & Brown 2018), coupled with the present study’s findings regarding students’ desire for at least some use of Japanese by their teachers, it seems likely that teachers’ modelling of both languages would be an effective way to enhance students’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding the use of Japanese to support their own EFL study.
This ties in with Bandura’s third motivational source: social persuasion. When an individual can be verbally persuaded that he is able to master given tasks and activities, he is more likely to put the effort into doing so than those individuals who believe they cannot (Pajares 1997). While in the present study, it was found that the majority of the participants did desire at least some use of Japanese in the EFL classroom, there were also those who did not. This may simply be because they are unaware of how the L1 can actually be of benefit to their L2 learning. In addition to their own social modelling, EFL teachers in Japanese universities could inform their students that, through selected and deliberate use, they can employ Japanese to effectively improve their English skills overall. In doing so, we may see an increase in students’ own efficacy beliefs that they are able to achieve their EFL goals with the positive impact of the L1.
The final motivational source of self-efficacy is physiological states (Bandura 1997), including anxiety, stress, fatigue, and mood. An individual with a positive affective state will possess high levels of self-efficacy, whereas those individuals with a negative mood will not (Pajares 1997). Therefore, if teachers are able to reduce students’ stress levels in the classroom and lower their negative affective states, we may find that learners’ abilities (or perceived levels thereof) to improve their English will increase accordingly. Many scholars (e.g. Cook 2001, Hall & Cook 2012, Inbar-Lourie 2010, Levine 2003, Littlewood & Yu, 2011) have pointed out that the L1 is an important factor in reducing negative affective features in the classroom that act as barriers to L2 learning. If the use of the L1 can reduce anxiety, then there is reason to believe that a potential positive relationship might exist between students’ use of the L1 and their self-efficacy beliefs regarding their abilities to achieve their EFL learning goals.
It is also important to remember that self-efficacy is task-specific and differs from context to context (Bandura 1986). Thus, regardless of how similar two tasks may be, an individual’s self-efficacy in one may not necessarily be reflected in another. This was seen in the present study, whereby participants held a slightly higher belief that Japanese could help them to improve their English reading and writing skills more than their speaking and listening, and in particular their learning of English grammar, vocabulary, and culture. The difficult problem that university EFL teachers face, then, is when, and to what extent, the L1 should be used both by themselves and by the students to effectively improve learners’ English abilities overall. Macaro (2001: 545) called for a distinct framework that “identifies when reference to the L1 can be a valuable tool and when it is simply used as an easy option”, which Levine (2003) attempted to answer with his three tenets for L1 / L2 use(3). However, in examining these tenants, Inbar-Lourie (2010) suggests that a unified framework of L1 use in FL learning is a complex and problematic issue, and no one agreed method exists to this day.(4) It seems evident that L1 use to support students’ self-efficacy beliefs must therefore operate on a case-by-case (or class-by-class) basis
What we can determine from the present study is that there is a general desire amongst Japanese university students for L1 use in EFL learning both inside the classroom and outside, suggesting a relatively positive relationship between students’ use of the L1 and their EFL self-efficacy beliefs. However, this is not necessarily the case for all students, nor is it the same across different task types or skills involved in L2 learning. Therefore, whilst there cannot be an overarching, all-encompassing pedagogical guide for how and when to use the L1 in a Japanese EFL context, what university EFL educators can do is start each semester with a general needs analysis, focusing specifically on the role of the L1 in learners’ self-efficacy. In doing so, they will be able to obtain the general attitudes and opinions of each class, to understand what students actually want, and act efficiently thereafter based on those results.
6 Conclusion
The present study has shown that, in general, Japanese university-level EFL students desire some use of the L1 by their teacher and by themselves, both inside the classroom and outside. This desire was shown to be dependent on the task at hand. The participants believed that the use of the L1 may help to improve their reading and writing skills more than their speaking and listening skills, and for more concrete learning of grammar and vocabulary in particular. Bearing in mind Bandura's (1997) four motivational sources that affect the development of learners’ self-efficacy beliefs (i.e. mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and physiological states), and how each of these relate to L1 use in the Japanese EFL context, a needs analysis at the start of each semester would be a simple yet effective way to gauge the attitudes of each class regarding the following. First, their current set of self-efficacy beliefs. Second, their opinions / desire for L1 use in various L2 learning tasks and contexts. And third, how and when teachers can effectively employ the L1 to heighten learners’ efficacy beliefs concerning how they can better learn EFL.
A possible limitation is that any evaluation of learners’ self-efficacy beliefs within a specific EFL context such as Japan, among a specific population of Japanese university students, may be open to criticism in terms of the broader applicability of the findings. However, this paper has shown that, despite the current trend in MEXT’s FL policies, there certainly appears to be a place for the L1 in promoting higher levels of self-efficacy amongst Japanese university-level EFL learners regarding their ability to learn English. It is hoped that these findings shine a light on the positive role that the L1 can play in L2 education in terms of impacting affective features that may hinder successful learning of the TL.
Appendix: Student Questionnaire
Section 1: Introduction
1. What is your gender? 性別は何ですか。
◻︎ male (男性) ◻︎ female (女性)
2. To which age group do you belong? どの年齢層に入りますか。
◻︎ < 17 ◻︎ 18-20 ◻︎ 21-23 ◻︎ 24-26 ◻︎ 27+
3. What is your native language? 母国語は何ですか。
4. For how long have you been studying English? どのくらいの期間英語を勉強していますか。
5. Which type of institution do you currently attend? 現在どのような大学で英語を勉強していますか。
◻︎ Public university (公立大学)
◻︎ Private university (私立大学)
◻︎ National university (国立大学)
◻︎ Technical school (専門学校)
◻︎ Other (その他)
6. What level of English classes do you currently take? 現在どのレベルの英語の授業を受けていますか。
◻︎ Lower intermediate (準中級)
◻︎ Intermediate (中級)
◻︎ Upper intermediate (中級上)
◻︎ Advanced (上級)
Section 2: L1 use in the EFL classroom
7. Do you want your teacher to use Japanese in the English classroom? あなたの先生に英語の授業で日本語を使用して欲しいですか。
◻︎ Yes, very much (はい、とても欲しいです)
◻︎ Yes, little bit (はい、少し欲しいです)
◻︎ I don't care either way (どちらでもいいです)
◻︎ No, not really (いいえ、あまり欲しくありません)
◻︎ No, definitely not (いいえ、全然欲しくありません)
8. Do you personally like to use Japanese in your English classroom? あなたは個人的に英語の授業で日本語を使用することが好きですか。
◻︎ Yes (はい)
◻︎ No (いいえ)
9. How often do you personally like to use Japanese in your English classroom? あなたは個人的にどれくらい英語の授業で日本語を使用しますか。
◻︎ Always (いつも) (80—100%)
◻︎ Often (よく) (60—80%)
◻︎ Sometimes (ときどき) (40—60%)
◻︎ Seldom (あまり) (20—40%)
◻︎ Rarely (めったに) (1—20%)
◻︎ Never (ぜんぜん) (0%)
10. Do you like to use Japanese when studying English by yourself outside of the class? 授業以外で自分で英語を勉強している時に日本語を使用することが好きですか。
◻︎ Yes (はい)
◻︎ No (いいえ)
11. How often do you use Japanese when studying English by yourself outside of the classroom? 授業以外で自分で英語を勉強している時に、どれくらい日本語を使用しますか。
◻︎ Always (いつも) (80—100%)
◻︎ Often (よく) (60—80%)
◻︎ Sometimes (ときどき) (40—60%)
◻︎ Seldom (あまり) (20—40%)
◻︎ Rarely (めったに) (1—20%)
Section 3: L1 effects in the EFL classroom
12. On a scale from 1 to 5, how much do you agree with the following statements?
下記の意見については、１(賛成しない) から５ (賛成する) までどれほど賛成しますか。
13. What do you think about how using Japanese can improve / hinder your learning of English? 日本語の使用があなたの英語学習を向上させる、若しくは妨げることに関して、どう思いますか。
References
Alawiyah, T. (2018): Speaking self-efficacy and EFL student teachers’ speaking achievement. In: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran 5 (1), 87-96. (doi:10.19109/ejpp.v5i1.2052; 15-01-2022).
Anyadubalu, C. C. (2010): Self-efficacy, anxiety, and performance in the English language among middle-school students in English language program in Satri Si Suriyothai School, Bangkok. In: International Journal of Human and Social Sciences 5 (3), 193-198.
Asakereh, A. M. & M. Dehghannezhad (2015): Student satisfaction with EFL speaking classes: Re- lating speaking self-efficacy and skills achievement. Issues in Educational Research 25 (4), 345–363.
Atkinson, D. (1993): Teaching monolingual classes. London, UK: Longman.
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 27 (1), 9-32 (doi:10.2307/3586949; 15-01-2022).
Bandura, A. (1986): Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997): Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Birnbaum, M. H. (2004): Human research and data collection via the Internet. Annual Review of Psychology 55, 803–832 (doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141601;15-01-2022).
Bodgan, R., & W. K. Biklen (2007): Qualitative research for education (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pear- son A & B.
Bradford, A., & H. Brown (Eds.) (2018): English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Brooks-Lewis, K. A. (2009): Adult learners’ perceptions of the incorporation of their L1 in foreign language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics 30 (2), 216–235 (doi:10.1093/applin/ amn051; 15-01-2022).
Brown, J. D. (2009): Open-response items in questionnaires. In J. Heigham & R. Croker, (Eds), Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction. New York, NY: Palgrave Mac- millian, 200-219.
Brown, H. (2006): Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Long- man.
Burden, P. (2001): When do native English speaking teachers and Japanese college students dis- agree about the use of Japanese in the English conversation classroom? In: The Language Teacher, 25 (4), 5-9.
Chinese Ministry of Education. (2011): English curriculum standards for compulsory education (2011 version). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
Crichton, H. (2009): ‘Value added’ modern languages teaching in the classroom: An investigation into how teachers' use of classroom target language can aid pupils' communication skills. In: The Language Learning Journal 37 (1), 19-34 (doi:10.1080/09571730902717562; 15-01-2022).
Cohen, J. (1988): Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cohen, L., L. Manion & K. Morrison (2000): Research methods in education (5th ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
Cook, V. (1992): Evidence for multicompetence. In: Language Learning, 42(4), 576–591. (doi:10.1111/ j1467-1770.1992.tb01044.x 15-01-2022).
Cook, V. (2001): Using the first language in the classroom. In: Canadian Modern Language Review / La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 57(3), 402–423. doi:10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402; 15-01-2022.
Creswell, J. W. & V. L. Plano Clark (2007): Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cummins, J. (2007): Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. In: Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics / Revue Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquee 10 (2), 221-240.
Curriculum Development Council (2004): English language education key learning area: English language curriculum guide (Primary 1–6). Hong Kong: Education and Manpower Bureau. Available through (http://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/kla/eng-edu/ primary%201_6.pdf; 15-01-2022).
De la Campa, J. C. & H. Nassaji (2009): The amount, purpose, and reasons for using L1 in L2 classrooms. Foreign Language Annals 42 (4), 742-759 (doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01052.x; 15-01-2022).
Dey, I. (1993): Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London, UK: Routledge Kegan Paul.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007): Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Erkan, Y. D. & A. I. Saban (2011): Writing performance relative to writing apprehension, self-efficacy in, writing and attitudes towards writing: A correlational study in Turkish ter- tiary-level EFL. The Asian EFL Journal 13 (1), 163-191.
Graham, S. (2011): Self-efficacy and academic listening. In: Journal of English for Academic Pur- poses 10 (2), 113-117 (doi;10.1016/j.jeap.2011.04.001; 15-01-2022).
Greene, J.C., V. J. Caracelli & W. F. Graham (1989): Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. In: Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11 (3), 255–74 (doi:10.3102/01623737011003255; 15-01-2022).
Hall, G. & G. Cook (2012): Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching: Surveys and Studies 45 (3), 271-308.
Harmer, J. (2007): The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Longman.
Heigham, J. & R. Croker (2009): Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillian.
Hetthong, R. & A. Teo (2013): Does writing self-efficacy correlate with and predict writing per- formance? In: International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature 2 (1), 157–167(doi:10.7575/ijalel.v.2n.1p.157; 15-01-2022).
Horwitz, E. K. (1985): Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the foreign language methods course. Foreign Language Annals 18 (4), 333-340. (doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720. 1985.tb01811.x; 15-01-2022.
Howatt, A. (1984): A history of English language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hsieh, H. F. & S. E. Shannon, S. E. (2005): Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15 (9), 1277-1288 (doi:10.1177/1049732305276687; 15-01-2022).
Hsieh, P. H. P. & D. L. Schallert (2008): Implications from self-efficacy and attribution theories for an understanding of undergraduates’ motivation in a foreign language course. In: Contemporary Educational Psychology 33, 513-532 (doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.01.003; 15-01-2022).
Iijima, Y., S. Takahashi, A. Watanabe & H. Watari (2019): EAP in Japan. I: Terauchi, H., J. Noguchi, & A. Tajino (Eds.): Towards a new paradigm for English language teaching: English for specific purposes in Asia and beyond. London, UK: Routledge, 79-92.
Inbar-Lourie, O. (2010): English only? The linguistic choices of teachers of young EFL learners. In: International Journal of Bilingualism 14 (3), 351-367(doi:10.1177/1367006910367849; 15-01-2022).
Jessner, U. (2008): Teaching third languages. Findings, trends and challenges. In: Language Teaching 41(1), 15-56.
Karimian, Z. & S. Mohammadi (2015): Teacher's use of first language in EFL classrooms. In: Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research 2 (3), 61-71.
Kim, S.-Y. (2008): Five years of teaching English through English: Responses from teachers and prospects for learners. In: English Teaching 63 (1), 51-70.
King, M. F. & G. C. Bruner (2000): Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity testing. In: Psychology & Marketing 17 (2), 79-103.
Krashen, S. D. (1981): Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D: (1985). State of the art on input in second language acquisition. In: Gass, S. & C. Madden (Eds.): Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House; 433-444.
Levine, G. S. (2003): Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. In: The Modern Language Journal, 87 (3), 343-364 (doi:10.1111/1540-4781.00194; 15-01-2022).
Lightbown, P. M. & N. Spada (2013): How languages are learned (4th ed.) - Oxford handbooks for language teachers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W., B. Yu, (2011): First language and target language in the foreign language class- room. In: Language Teaching 44 (1), 64-77 (doi:10.1017/S0261444809990310; 15-01-2022).
Macaro, E. (2001): Analyzing student teachers’ code-switching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. In: Modern Language Journal 85 (4), 531-548. (doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00124; 15-01-2022).
Macaro, E. (2014): Overview: Where should we be going with classroom codeswitching research? In: Barnard, R. & J. McLellan (Eds.): Codeswitching in university English-medium classes: Asian perspectives. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, 10-23.
Mahboob, A. & A. Lin (2016): Using local languages in English language classrooms. In: Widodo, H. & W. Renandya (Eds.): English language teaching today: Building a closer link between theory and practice . New York, NY: Springer International, 25-40.
Mart, C. T. (2013): The facilitating role of L1 in ESL classes. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 3 (1), 9-14.
Meiring, L. & N. Norman (2002): Back on target: Repositioning the status of target language in MFL teaching and learning. In: Language Learning Journal 26 (1), 27-35. (doi:10.1080/09571730285200201; 15-01-2022).
MEXT (n.d.): Top Global University Project. (https://tgu.mext.go.jp/en/about/index.html; 14-09-2020),
MEXT (2003): Regarding the establishment of an action plan to cultivate “Japanese with English abilities”. (http://web.archive.org/web/20030810151415/http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/03 07 2801.htm; 01-03-2020).
MEXT (2011): The revisions of the courses of study for elementary and secondary schools. (http://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/elsec/title02/detail02/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/03/28/1303755_001.pdf; 20-01-2020).
MEXT (2014): Eigo kyoiku kaizen jisshi jokyo chosa (kotogakko) no kekka gaiyo. (http://www.mext. go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/06/10/1358566_03.pdf; 02-03-2016).
Meyer, H. (2008): The pedagogical implications of L1 use in the L2 classroom. In: Maebashi Kyoai Gakuen College Ronsyu 8, 147-159.
Mills, N., F. Pajares, & C. Herron (2007): Self-efficacy of college intermediate French students: Relation to achievement and motivation. Language Learning 57 (3), 417-442. (doi:10.1111/j.14 67-9922.2007.00421.x; 15-01-2022).
O’Leary, Z. (2014): The essential guide to doing your research project (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE.
Ong, A. D. & D. J. Weiss (2000): The impact of anonymity on responses to sensitive questions. In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30 (8), 1691-1708.
Orne, M. T. (1969): Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. In: Rosenthal, R. & R. L. Rosnow (Eds.): Artifact in behavioral research. New York: Academic Press, 143-179.
Pajares, F. (2002): Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. In: Theory into Practice 41 (2), 116-125.
Pajares, F. (1997): Current directions in self-efficacy research. In: Maehr, M. & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.): Advances in motivation and achievement (volume 10). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1-49.
Peterson, R. A. (2000): Constructing effective questionnaires (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rahimi, A. & A. Abedini (2009): The interface between EFL learners' self-efficacy concerning listening comprehension and listening proficiency. In: Novitas-Royal 3 (1), 14-28.
Rahimpour, M. & R. Nariman-Jahan (2010): The influence of self-efficacy and proficiency on EFL learners’ writing. In: Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 7 (11), 19-32.
Raoofi, S., B. H. Tan, & S. H. Chan (2012): Self-efficacy in second/foreign language learning contexts. In: English Language Teaching 5 (11), 60-73 (doi:10.5539/elt.v5n11p60; 15-01-2022).
Richards, J., J. Platt & H. Weber (1989): Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. Hong Kong: Longman.
Richards, J. C. & T. S. Rodgers (2014): Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, D. J. & A. S. Ross (2018): L1/L2 communication self-efficacy beliefs and the contribution of personality. In: The Language Learning Journal. Advanced Online Publication (doi:10.1080/09571736.2018.1441895; 15-01-2022).
Ryan, G. W. & H. R. Bernard (2003): Techniques to identify themes. In: Field Methods 15 (1), 85-109 (doi:10.1177/1525822X02239569;15-01-2022).
Schreier, M. (2012): Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schweers, C. W. Jr. (1999): Using L1 in the L2 classroom. English Teaching Forum 37 (2), 6-9.
Scott, V. M. & M. J. de la Fuente (2008): What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the L1 during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal 92 (1), 100-113 (doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00689.x; 15-01-2022).
Shang, H. F. (2010): Reading strategy use, self-efficacy and EFL reading comprehension. In: The Asian EFL Journal 12 (2), 18-42.
Storch, N., & A. Aldosari (2010): Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. In: Language Teaching Research 14 (4), 355-375 (doi:10.1177/1362168810375362; 15-01-2022).
Su, M. H. & P. C. Duo (2012): EFL Learners’ Language Learning Strategy use and Perceived Self-Efficacy. In: European Journal of Social Sciences 27 (3), 335-345.
Terauchi, H. (2017): English education at universities in Japan: An overview and some current trends. In: Park, E. S. & B. Spolsky (Eds.): English education at the tertiary level in Asia: From policy to practice. New York, NY: Routledge, 65-83)
Thompson, G. (2018): Insights for efficacy development from an exploration of Japanese business management students’ EAP self-efficacy beliefs. In: The Asian ESP Journal 14 (7.1), 244-284.
Tilfarlioğlu, F. T. & F. S Ciftci (2011): Supporting self-efficacy and learner autonomy in relation to academic success in EFL classrooms (a case study). In: Theory and Practice in Language Studies 1 (10), 1284-1294 (doi:10.4304/tpls.1.10.1284-1294; 15-01-2022).
Turnbull, B. (2018a): Is there a potential for a translanguaging approach to English education in Japan? Perspectives of tertiary learners and teachers. In: JALT Journal 40 (2), 101-134. (doi:10.37546/JALTJJ40.2-3; 15-01-2022).
Turnbull, B. (2018b): Reframing foreign language learning as bilingual education: Epistemological changes towards the emergent bilingual. In: International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 21 (8), 1041-1048 (doi:10.1080/13670050.2016.1238866; 15-01-2022).
Turnbull, M. (2001): There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but … In: The Canadian Modern Language Review 57 (4), 531-540.
Turnbull, M. & J. Dailey-O’Cain (2009): Introduction. In: Turnbull, M. & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.): First language use in second and foreign language learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, 1-14)
Wang, J., K. Spencer & M. Xing (2009): Metacognitive beliefs and strategies in learning Chinese as a foreign language. In: System 37 (1), 46-56 (doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.05.001; 15-01-2022).
Yilmaz, C. (2010): The relationship between language learning strategies, gender, proficiency and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of ELT learners in Turkey. In: Procedia Social and Behavioural 2, 682-687 (doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.084; 15-01-2022).
Zare, M. & S. D. Mobarakeh (2011): The relationship between self-efficacy and use of reading strategies: The case of Iranian senior high school students. In: Studies in Literature and Language 3 (3), 98-105 (doi:10.3968/j.sll.1923156320110303.148; 15-01-2022).
Author:
Blake Turnbull, Ph.D
Assistant Professor
Doshisha University
Faculty of Global and Regional Studies
647-20 Sokokuji Monzencho
Kamigyo Ward
Kyoto, 602-0898
Japan
Email: bturnbul@mail.doshisha.ac.jp
_________________________
(1) This comment was originally written in English; the [sic] mark points to a grammatical error made by the participant.
(2) See the previous footnote.
(3) The Optimal Use Tenet, the Marked L1 Tenet, and the Collaborative Language Use Tenet (Levine, 2003).
(4) Although consider the New Concurrent Method, Community Language Learning, and the Bilingual Method (Cook 2001).