The Effect of Teachers’ Use of L1 on EFL Learners’ Anxiety and Enjoyment in Emergency Online Language Classrooms

Research in English Language Pedagogy

مقاله 3، دوره 11، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 22، اردیبهشت 2023، صفحه 27-45   

نوع مقاله: Original Article

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30486/relp.2022.1967445.1405

نویسندگان

Reza Bakhsheshi Atigh¹؛ Mohammad Mohammadi¹؛ Salva Kazemipour Khabbazi^{* 2}

¹Department of English language and literature, faculty of literature and humanities, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

²Department of English Language and Persian Literature, School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran

چکیده

Emergency online teaching and learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic has called for new research. The pandemic situation has increased the importance of creating a low-anxiety atmosphere and enhancing learners’ enjoyment levels. As a result, this study aimed to investigate the level of language learners’ emotions; that is, foreign language enjoyment (FLE) and foreign language classroom anxiety (FLCA) in online education together with the effect of teachers’ L1 use on these two effects. Participants were 81 intermediate English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in four intact classes, in two of which the teacher used both their first language (L1) and English, while in the other two, he only used English as the medium of instruction. They then completed a questionnaire, consisting of two parts, one designed by Horwitz et al. (1986) and the other one by Dewaele and MacIntyre (2014), which reveal the levels of FLCA and FLE, respectively. The paired t-test indicated higher levels of FLE compared to FLCA reported by the participants. The correlation analysis pointed to a significant negative correlation between FLE and FLCA, implying that as enjoyment increases, anxiety level decreases. Furthermore, according to the independent t-test, learners in both groups reported similar levels of FLE and FLCA. Thus, it could be concluded that teachers’ use of L1 did not affect the levels of FLE and FLCA in online education. The current study provides significant pedagogical implications for EFL practitioners.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Emergency Online Language Classrooms؛ First Language Use؛ Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety؛ Foreign Language Enjoyment؛ Positive Psychology

اصل مقاله

1. Introduction

There is no denying that emotions are a source of individual differences when learning foreign languages. Understanding emotions or effects plus learning how to control them helps language learners and instructors to anticipate and overcome the potential threats that learning a new language poses to one’s ego (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015;  Teimouri et al., 2020). One main effect investigated to a large extent is anxiety triggered by internal and external-social factors. There are more effects than anxiety or negative emotions experienced by language learners. Learners can similarly experience positive emotions in language classrooms. Enjoyment as one of the key terms of positive psychology has found its way into foreign language research (MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012). This shift from general psychology, which tackles FLCA to learners’ positive emotions, like enjoyment (e.g., Dewaele & Li, 2018; Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2016; Jiang & Dewaele, 2019; Saito et al., 2018) establishes new lines of research in the realm of foreign language acquisition (FLA).

Some key studies in this area have asserted that Asian foreign language learners show meaningfully different levels of FLCA and FLE compared to language learners in other regions (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014; MacIntyre et al., 2021). As these studies have had participants from Eastern parts of Asia (China in particular), the Middle East was left under-investigated. Moreover, the sudden change from onsite to online classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic (thus the emergency online learning) has brought about new lines of inquiry. As the majority of the studies on the levels of FLCA and FLE have been in onsite classes, this study aimed to examine the emotions of Iranian foreign language learners (i.e., FLCA and FLE) in emergency online language classrooms. In addition, the effect of a classroom management factor; that is, teachers’ use of L1 on language learners’ levels of FLCA and FLE was investigated.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety

Anxiety in a foreign language classroom can be the result of the relationship between the classroom members (educator and students) or the students’ concerns about their educational success or failure. Foreign language classroom anxiety (FLCA) research is associated with Horwitz (e.g., Horwitz et al., 1986; Horwitz, 1988), whose surveys focused on mental and emotional conditions plus learners’ self-esteem. Horwitz (2010) mentions language anxiety as a feature of the second-language and foreign-language context that has an emotional impact on learning.

While some researchers (e.g., Bailey, 1983; Elliott, 1995; Purcell & Suter, 1980) mention positive aspects of anxiety as facilitating anxiety; others (e.g., Krashen 1985; Oxford 1999) argue that anxiety is never supportive. Some studies on anxiety have probed the effect of second/foreign language learners’ characteristics on FLCA. Dewaele et al. (2008) investigated the age factor in a large-scale study among second language learners around the world and found that age and FLA had a positive correlation; that is, with the increase in the age of the learners, there was an increased level of anxiety. They also found that the emotional intelligence trait correlates negatively with anxiety rate. Liu and Jackson (2008) suggested FLA and Willingness to Communicate (WTC) in Chinese university students as complementary characteristics to understanding learners’ affective responses to foreign language acquisition and practice. Considering gender, literature implies that this dichotomy plays an important role in foreign language speaking anxiety and learner motivation with female learners experiencing higher levels of anxiety (Balemir, 2009; Huang, 2004; Mendi, 2009)

The effect of teachers’ gender, teachers’ mother tongue (not the use of L1 in classes, though), and other teacher characteristics such as strictness versus friendliness, age, and accent on learners’ anxiety have been investigated (Dewaele et al., 2019). Bruen and Kelly (2014) also found that the use of L1, though rather limited, would decrease the cognitive load, subsequently reducing the university students’ anxiety. Nonetheless, to the best of our knowledge, no study has investigated the effect of L1 use, versus no L1 use, on the anxiety levels of learners in online EFL classrooms.

2.2. Foreign Language Enjoyment

The emergence of positive psychology (Arnold, 1999; Dewaele, 2005, 2011; Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2002; MacIntyre, 2002) paved the way to examine enjoyment in contrast to anxiety and shifted the focus toward positive emotions and their role in foreign/second language learning and teaching settings. MacIntyre and Gregersen (2012) maintain that positive and negative emotions differ in the roles they play and do not necessarily stand on the opposing poles of a continuum. In other words, the absence of FLCA would not automatically imply the existence of FLE (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014), but FLE can be accompanied by FLCA.

Teachers, as one of the crucial elements of a language classroom, play a very significant role in boosting FLE and researchers have been seeking to provide teachers with the appropriate means to achieve such goals (e.g., Arnold, 1999; Borg, 2006; Dewaele, 2015; Gkonou & Mercer, 2017, 2018; Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014). It is maintained that teachers who can create a friendly and positively immune atmosphere in their foreign/second language classrooms will be more successful in enhancing students’ educational progress and well-being (Cuéllar & Oxford, 2018). In a study, Split et al. (2012) reported that female teachers outdo males in making better relationships with their students, which subsequently leads to higher levels of FLE among students. Nevertheless, most of the research on FLE has been conducted in onsite classes, with online courses left unexplored. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, the effect of teachers’ use of L1 on increasing FLE in online classes has not been examined.

2.3. L1 Use in L2 Classroom

One of the crucial aspects of every classroom is the way teachers talk in the course of teaching which becomes even more eminent in a language classroom as the language is both the tool and the purpose of training (Long, 1983). L1 use by the teacher in the language classroom is an issue long discussed by many researchers and theoreticians. Some researchers believe that only the target language (TL), rather than the students’ L1, should be the means of communication between the instructor and the students (e.g., Cook, 2008). Furthermore, some writers (e.g., Phillipson, 1992) discussed that socio-economically dominated methods developed in the US and UK support the idea that the only medium of conversation and teacher talk in the classroom should be the target language. Adherents of these methods prefer native English instructors who cannot converse in students’ L1. Advocates of the monolingual principle in foreign language classrooms also suggest that limiting L1 use would enhance the amount of student talk in TL and would consequently maximize TL practice (Long, 2004). As Hall (2017) mentions, many teachers believe that using L1 may inhibit the use of the TL and might lead to the dominance of L1 in language classrooms. However, Macaro (2001) maintained that L1 use by teachers does not necessarily lead to the use of L1 by students.

Nevertheless, the role of students’ L1 in language classes is undeniable. In addition, as language classes’ observations show, both TL and the L1 appear to serve important, but different functions (Levine, 2003). Although there is no single straightforward answer to the question of whether or how much L1 is allowed in the language classroom, there is a body of logical reasoning for using the students’ L1 in the classroom. For instance, Cook (2010) questioned the abandoned use of L1 use and spoke persuasively in favor of integrating translation into language education. As Butzkamm (2003) mentioned, L1 can be the most important ally of the foreign language in language classes; if teachers use it systematically, selectively, and in judicious doses. Scholars such as Widdowson (2003) and Ellis (1994) see students’ L1 as a resource to be used conveniently in the formation of their TL and argue that comparisons made between the two languages result in an explicit acquisition of TL features. The use of L1 has shown to be beneficial in vocabulary learning, especially when the context is more of a focus-on-form one (Tian & Macaro 2012). Others have also suggested that if teachers use L1 in classes, they can reduce the cognitive load and the load on learners' working memory (Bruen & Kelly, 2014; Macaro, 2005).

2.4. Emergency Online Language Teaching

At the beginning of 2020, the global Covid-19 pandemic caused the lockdown of schools and universities, which forced the decision-makers to suggest utilizing online classes. This sudden shift gave teachers or students little time to prepare for online teaching and learning. Due to the lack of previous training, teachers had limited or no knowledge of using the necessary technology to conduct online classes (Schleicher, 2020). Despite the challenges teachers and students faced, this pandemic situation led to a new teaching and learning experience called “emergency online homeschooling.”

In a study, Klimova (2021) reports that despite teachers' relative preparation and skill to utilize technology in online instruction, students did not feel satisfied with their language progress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although they realize that online classes are efficient, as the results show, students believe online education can never replace onsite courses. Poor internet connection, delayed interaction and response time between the teacher and the students, absence of face-to-face classroom socialization (Anwar & Adnan, 2020) along with decreased attentiveness (Cicekci & Sadik, 2019) are reported as troubles in online classes during the Pandemic era which has caused dissatisfaction and has led to increased anxiety among teachers and students.

To address this anxiety caused by the problems of online classes, as well as the decreased level of enjoyment in language classes, the aim of this study was two-fold. The first one was to investigate the relationship between levels of FLCA and FLE in online classes. The second goal was to explore the possible effect of L1 use by teachers as a learner-external variable on the levels of FLCA and FLE in online classes. Therefore, the following research questions were addressed in this study:

1. Is there a significant difference between the levels of FLE and FLCA of Iranian EFL learners in online English classes?
2. Is there a relationship between FLE and FLCA of EFL learners in emergency online language classrooms?
3. Does L1 use by the teacher have a significant effect on the FLE and FLCA of EFL learners in emergency online language classrooms?

 

3. Methodology

3.1. Design of the Study

The design of this study was quasi-experimental as two intact classes were randomly chosen to receive the treatment, that is the L1 use by the teacher (experimental group) and two others to go on with the routine procedure, that is no L1 use (i.e., control group) without students randomly assigned to each group. The study had a posttest-only design as completing the questionnaire before the treatment would have altered the learners’ attitude, their performance in the class, and the way they complete the questionnaire after the treatment (i.e., to rule out the reactivity effect).

3.2. Participants

The present study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic when the Iran Language Institute (ILI) students were asked to stay home and study English online. ILI is a state language school with the highest number of EFL learners in Iran. ILI employed a web conferencing platform called BigBlueBotton, which has been widely used in Iran among other countries to conduct synchronous online classes. The key features of this online platform are audio and video connections of users, a multiple-user whiteboard, breakout rooms, and a chat box, which simulates a real classroom. The students could connect to their online classes using either a laptop or a cellphone.

Eighty-one Iranian young adult EFL learners from four intact classes of ILI took part in the present study. All the participants were male and were 11 to 15 years old (M = 13.34). All the participants reported having Turkish as their L1 and Farsi as their second L1. They had been learning English (as a foreign language) for about 320 hours (27 months, two sessions each week) at ILI. As ILI follows rigorous procedures to evaluate and assess learners, it is ensured that all learners and participants of this study were at the same level (i.e., intermediate proficiency level) and can be considered equally proficient in English. The same teacher taught all four classes. It is worth mentioning that there were initially ninety students; however, nine students had been excluded whose z-scores were beyond the normal range. 

 

3.3. Instruments

This study employed an online questionnaire completed by students through Google forms. The participants completed the questionnaire anonymously. The questionnaire had three sections.  This first section comprised two questions, requiring the participants’ age and class code. The second section included the FLCA questionnaire with 20 items which emphasized signs of anxiety and uncertainty (Horwitz et al., 1986). The questionnaire continued in the third section with 10 items of the FLE questionnaire (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014). All items in the third section were positively phrased.

The participants had to identify their level of agreement about each item on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). On this scale, 3 stood for undecided. In the second section of the questionnaire (FLCA),  the three low-anxiety items were reversed to ensure that all items are indicative of higher levels of anxiety if the participants select a high score. To guarantee the participants’ utmost understanding of the questionnaire items, they were translated from English to Farsi (the participants’ second L1 and the official language of Iran). To check for the comprehensibility of the translated version of the questionnaire and to ensure that the same responses would be elicited, two experts translated the items and compared the output in a meeting. The agreed-upon items were then reviewed by a reviewer to prevent any unclear points (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2009; Douglas & Craig, 2007). It is worth mentioning that a pilot test was done with ten similar participants to ensure the comprehensibility of the items and to eliminate any misunderstandings about the Google form or the questionnaire.

3.4. Data Collection Procedure

As mentioned, four intact classes were selected for data collection. Starting from the beginning of the semester (2021), the teacher used only English as the medium to communicate in two of the four classes. There were 43 students in these two classes. In the other two classes, with a total number of 38 students, the teacher used L1 together with the TL; that is, English. It is worth mentioning that the teacher used the L1 primarily to explain grammatical points, provide the meaning of abstract words, give directions, and assign homework.

After five weeks which included ten sessions of teaching (20 hours), the online questionnaire was sent to the experimental and the control groups.  The tenth session was chosen to ask the participants to fill out the questionnaire to rule out the possible effect of the midterm exam given in session 12, which would probably have increased the participants’ anxiety levels. To ensure honest responses and prevent social desirability bias, the students were informed of the anonymity of the questionnaire. Furthermore, they were aware that the results of the questionnaire would not change their grades, nor would they be judged accordingly.

3.5. Data Analysis Procedure

In this study, statistical analyses were employed to find the relations between FLE and FLCA and also to identify the effect of using L1 on the students’ FLE and FLCA. To answer the first question, the average score was calculated for both the FLE and FLCA sections of the questionnaire. Therefore, there were two sets of scores for each learner. Subsequently, a paired-sample t-test was conducted to find any significant difference between the FLE and FLCA levels of the learners. The normal distribution of FLE on the Q-Q plot (Fig. 1) is evident except for the region below 2.5 and above 5.5. The second Q-Q plot (Fig. 2) also suggests a normal distribution of FLCA except for the extreme tail (values below 1). As the second research question seeks the relationship between FLE and FLCA of EFL learners, a Pearson correlation analysis was also conducted. Through the paired-sample t-test and the Pearson correlation, a within-subject design was adopted.

As mentioned, the students were divided into two groups, one receiving L1 instructions together with the TL and the other being instructed only through TL. As a result, to examine the effect of L1 use by the teacher on the FLE and FLCA of the learners,  an independent t-test on the obtained scores of individuals’ responses to the questionnaires was conducted. This part of the analysis had a between-subject design. All the analyses were conducted in the SPSS version 23.

       Figure 1.

     The Normal Distribution of FLE on the Q-Q Plot       

             

 

 

                            Figure 2.

The Normal Distribution of FLCA Except for the Extreme Tail

 

4. Results

Table 1 indicates the descriptive results for the scores of the participants on FLE and FLCA based on the questionnaire.

 

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for FLE and FLCA Scores

	Mean	SD
FLE	3.9614	.71879
FLCA	2.3659	.90616

n = 81

The first research question concerned if the FLE and FLCA levels of EFL learners are significantly different. A paired t-test was run on the average scores of EFL learners’ (n=81) FLE (M = 3.96, SD = .71) and FLCA (M = 2.36, SD = .90) levels. The results (df = 80, t = 10.148, p < .0001) indicated that the difference between enjoyment and anxiety levels was significant. The findings point to the higher levels of enjoyment than anxiety levels of learners in online classes with a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.97).

Aimed to determine if a relationship (either positive or negative) exists between FLE and FLCA, a Pearson correlation analysis was conducted. According to the results, a significantly negative relationship (r ₈₁ = -.51, p < .0001, R² = .26) existed between FLE (M = 3.96, SD = .71) and FLCA (M = 2.36, SD = .90). The findings point to the medium negative correlation coefficient between FLE and ELCA (Plonsky & Oswald, 2014, p. 889). An overlapping variance of 26.01% suggests that learners with higher FLE in online classes tended to have lower FLCA.

 

Table 2.

Independent Samples T-Test for the Effect of L1 Use on FLE and FLCA

	t	df	Sig.	Mean difference	Std. Error Difference
FLE	.618	79	.538	.12	.20
FLCA	1.760	79	.082	.27	.15

 

To address the third research question; that is, if L1 use by the teacher has a significant effect on the learners’ FLE and FLCA, an independent t-test (Table 2) was carried out. Regarding FLE levels of EFL learners, the 38 participants in the experimental group who received L1, as well as TL instruction, had similar levels of FLE (M = 4.1, SD = .68) compared to the 43 participants in the control group who received TL instruction (M = 3.83, SD = .72). The results showed no significant relationship between the use of L1 on levels of FLE in the control and experimental groups (t₇₉ = 1.76, p = .082).

Considering the FLCA levels of learners, the participants in the control group did not experience higher levels of FLCA (M = 2.30, SD = .95) than those in the experimental group (M = 2.43, SD = .84). According to the results, no significant relationship was found between the use of L1 by the teacher and levels of FLCA for EFL learners in online classes (t₇₉ = .618, p = .538). Accordingly, the FLCA of learners was not affected by the teacher’s use of L1 in online classes.

5. Discussion

The present study aimed to investigate the FLE and FLCA levels of Iranian EFL learners in online classes. Additionally, it attempted to look into the effect of L1 use by the teacher on the learners’ FLE and FLCA. The majority of studies on the FLE and FLCA have been in onsite classes where the students meet with the teacher in regular sessions. This study tried to extend earlier research by examining the two concepts in online classes. It is worth mentioning that the levels of FLE and FLCA were measured through a self-reported questionnaire.

The first research question discussed the difference between EFL learners’ levels of FLE and FLCA in online English classes. Analysis of data revealed that the EFL learners’ levels of FLE were significantly more than their level of FLCA. The findings were in line with the findings of similar studies (Jiang & Dewaele, 2019; Khajavy et al., 2018) whose participants also showed higher levels of FLE compared to FLCA implying that learners experience more enjoyment in language classes. The mean of the international sample for FLE in Dewaele and MacIntyre (2014), which was 3.82, is comparable to that of the FLE levels in this study, which was found to be 3.96. One reason for the fact that the participants of our study expressed moderately higher levels of FLE compared to previous studies may be the different contexts of the two studies. In contrast with the previous international study of language learners’ levels of enjoyment in an onsite context, in the present study due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there were online classes. The nature of online classes seems to induce more enjoyment in learners than when they are attending onsite classes (Piniel & Albert, 2018). The mean of FLCA levels in the participants of the current study was 2.36, which was lower than the mean (2.75) stated in Dewaele and MacIntyre (2014). It can be concluded that Iranian EFL learners experienced less anxiety than the international sample in Dewaele and MacIntyre (2014). This difference might also be the result of different contexts in which the studies were conducted (i.e. on-site versus online courses).

The second research question focused on the possible correlation between the FLE and FLCA levels of the participants. These two emotions showed to have a medium significant negative correlation. Therefore, despite being connected, enjoyment and anxiety seem to be distinct effects that did not stand on the exact opposite sides of the same continuum. The shared variance in the present study (26%) was more than that of similar studies (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014; Dewaele et al., 2018; Dewaele et al., 2019) which indicated that levels of FLCA and FLE were more interdependent for Iranian learners than learners in other studies. Nevertheless, these findings confirmed the claims of the previous studies (e.g. Dewaele et al., 2019), which stated that students with high enjoyment levels tend to experience low anxiety in the classroom, but it was also probable that learners practice high or low levels of both emotions at the same time. Moreover, Jiang and Dewaele (2019) asserted that Chinese learners showed lower levels of anxiety when they were enjoying their language classes. They mention, however, that experiencing high levels of both or experiencing neither was also plausible.

The third research question discussed the effect of teachers’ use of L1 as a learner-external variable on the FLE and FLCA of EFL learners. The findings of our study revealed that the presence or absence of L1 use in the online language classroom by the teacher did not significantly affect the learners’ levels of enjoyment or anxiety. This finding contrasts with what Liao (2006) concludes in a study about the role of L1 among Taiwanese college students. He mentions that L1 use and translation in a language classroom were beneficial to reducing learning anxiety and boosting learners’ motivation. Furthermore, Harbord (1992) claims that teachers’ chats in L1 at the beginning of the class could lessen the learners’ anxiety and subsequently increase their enjoyment. Dewaele et al. (2019) found that learners with a teacher who had used L1 in the classroom experienced more FLE and less FLCA compared to those with a teacher who only used the FL.

One of the contributing factors to the contrast between our findings and those of previous studies may be the difference in the language proficiency of the students. Participants in the present study were quite proficient in English and could fully understand the teacher when he spoke in English. As a result, L1 use in the class did not lower FLCA levels, nor did it increase FLE levels. Another explanation for the results may be the online nature of the classrooms studied. As foreign language learning anxiety has been categorized into situation-specific anxiety (Zhang, 2019), learners’ anxiety levels would probably decrease as the context changed to online classes where the teacher or their classmates could not see them as a result which they would not feel embarrassed if they could not answer a question. Moreover, as Jiang and Dewaele (2019) concluded, anxiety was more affected by variables related to the learners themselves (i.e. learner-internal, such as proficiency levels, comparable status among other learners, and their attitude toward EFL learning) rather than teacher-related variables. Among the items on the FLCA, three of them were directly related to learners’ status among peers. Only 13.6% of the participants strongly agreed with the first one, “I always feel that the other students speak the foreign language better than I do”. 18.5% agreed with the statement, 21% were indecisive, and 22.2% and 24.7% disagreed and strongly disagreed. The second item “It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my language class” had 69.1% strong disagreement, 13.6% disagreement, 11.1% agreement, and only 2.5% strong agreement on the part of the learners. 3.7% of the participants were indecisive about this item. The third item asked the participants if they were afraid that the other students would laugh at them when they spoke a foreign language. 16% of the participants strongly agreed, and 12.3% agreed with this item, with 6.2% undecided answers. However, 17.3% disagreed, and 48.1% strongly disagreed with the sentence showing no fear for their peers’ opinions about them. The learners' answers to these three items, in particular, indicated that the majority of the participants in the current study were confident when speaking in online language classes, confirming the fact that FLCA mainly pertained to learner-internal factors. Accordingly, the FLCA of the learners was not influenced by L1 use, and both groups experienced the same anxiety levels.

Another plausible explanation might be the L1 itself. As stated in the previous sections, the participants’ first mother tongue was Turkish, with Farsi as their second L1 and the official language of Iran. The fact that learners must have had more mastery over Turkish rather than Farsi and might not have felt comfortable with Farsi can be one reason for the findings. Comparably, Dewaele and colleagues (2019) reported teacher friendliness and foreign accent to have a small effect on learners’ FLE. Conversely, in a study by Moussu (2010), the results of the survey revealed that learners tend to appreciate both L1 and LX user teachers even though students preferred L1 user teachers at the beginning of the semester. Hence, there exist other factors, especially teacher-related variables, which modify and subsequently conceal or fluctuate the effect of L1 use on FLE.

6. Conclusion

Language teachers’ foremost responsibility is to enhance learning opportunities in the classroom. To achieve that purpose, they should create a positive and efficient atmosphere. For a long, research in the field of SLA had only revolved around anxiety and its effect on language learning. But then the concept of a more holistic view of the learners and their emotions, including their positive emotions; that is positive psychology was introduced. Dörnyei and Ryan (2015) pointed to the lack of sufficient amount of research on the effect of emotions on language learning. In addition to this call for more research on psychological and affective factors in language learning contexts, the affective and emotional aspects of the EFL classrooms faced a crucial risk because of the shift from onsite to online classes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This sudden shift brought about new issues and different sources of anxiety for both learners and teachers. Therefore, it became crucial to control online classroom anxiety and increase enjoyment in language learning, which are regarded as the right and left feet of language learners (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2016). As online courses are not limited to the pandemic era, the purpose of this study was to investigate learners’ FLE and FLCA levels in online classes. Moreover, the effect of teachers’ L1 use on these two was explored. The participants in this study reported higher levels of enjoyment and lower levels of anxiety compared to the participants of a study with an international sample (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014) who attended onsite courses. According to the results of the present study, it can be concluded that teachers and learners are well-adapted to the new context of online language classes.

Our study revealed that FLE and FLCA were not two contrasting emotions. It means that the absence of one does not necessarily imply the presence of the other. Learners with low levels of anxiety may show high levels of enjoyment in the classroom, whereas other learners may experience the same levels of anxiety and enjoyment in the same class. On the other hand, unmotivated learners may report low levels of both FLE and FLCA. Teachers’ intended and unintended characteristics may also have an effect on the learners’ emotions in the classroom and increase or decrease their anxiety and enjoyment levels. However, the results of this study showed that the EFL teacher’s L1 use or L1 avoidance in online classrooms did not change the learners’ FLE or FLCA levels.

It should be mentioned that the participants of this study willingly enrolled in a language school in addition to their language lessons at school. Thus, it could be concluded that they were motivated to learn English as a foreign language, and could not be generalized the findings of this study to all EFL learners in Iran. The second limitation to mention is that all the participants in this study were male EFL learners, which might have affected the results. A sample consisting of male and female participants for the upcoming research in this realm is deemed necessary. In addition, as previous studies have pointed to the contribution of age to variation in FLE and FLCA (Dewaele et al., 2008), the results of this study might have been affected by the fact that the participants were in their teens. Further studies might want to include different age ranges. L1 in this study was used solely to explain grammatical points, provide the meaning of abstract words, give directions, and assign homework. Other research can further examine the effect of the proportion of L1 use in language classes on learners’ emotions. Finally, it should be taken into account that the participants of this study were rather proficient language learners who were able to understand their teacher when speaking English and did not feel the need to be instructed in L1 as well. Other studies can also compare the effect of different proficiency levels together with teacher and learner L1 use on emotions experienced in language classes. The findings of this study have pedagogical implications for language teachers, syllabus designers, and policymakers regarding online classes.

مراجع

Anwar, K. & Adnan, M. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Students’ perspectives.  Journal of Pedagogical Research, 1(2), 45-51.

Bailey, K. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language acquisition: Looking at and through the diary studies. In H. Seliger and M. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 67–103). Newbury House.

Balemir, S. H. (2009). The sources of foreign language speaking anxiety and the relationship between proficiency level and the degree of foreign language speaking anxiety [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Bilkent University.

Bruen, J. & Kelly, N. (2014). Using a shared L1 to reduce cognitive overload and anxiety levels in the L2 classroom. The Language Learning Journal, 45(3). DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2014.908405.

Butzkamm, W. (2003). We only learn a language once. The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms: Death of a dogma. Language Learning Journal, 28(1), 29–39.

Cicekci, M.A. & Sadik, F. (2019). Teachers’ and students’ opinions about students’ attention problems during the lesson. Journal of Education and Learning, 8(6), 15-30. DOI:10.5539/jel.v8n6p15.

Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching. OUP.

Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching (4th edition). Hodder Education.

Cuéllar, L., & Oxford, R. (2018). Language teachers’ emotions: Emerging from the shadows. In J. de Dios Martínez Agudo (Ed.), Emotions in second language teaching: Theory, research, and teacher education (pp. 53–72). Springer.

Dewaele, J. -M. (2005). Investigating the psychological and the emotional dimensions in instructed language learning: Obstacles and possibilities. Modern Language Journal, 89, 367–380.

Dewaele, J. -M. (2011). Reflections on the emotional and psychological aspects of foreign language learning and use. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 22, 23–42.

Dewaele, J. -M., Magdalena, A. F., & Saito, K. (2019). The effect of perception of teacher characteristics on Spanish EFL learners’ anxiety and enjoyment. The Modern Language Journal, 103(2), 412-427.

Dewaele, J. -M., & Li, C. (2018). Emotions in SLA (editorial special issue). Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 15–19

Dewaele, J. -M. & MacIntyre, P.D. (2014). The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 237–274.

Dewaele, J. -M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2016). Foreign language enjoyment and foreign language classroom anxiety: The right and left feet of FL learning? In P. D. MacIntyre, T. Gregersen, & S. Mercer (Eds.), Positive psychology in SLA (pp. 215–236).  Multilingual Matters.

Dewaele, J. -M., & Pavlenko, A. (2002). Emotion vocabulary in interlanguage. Language Learning, 52, 265-324.

Dewaele, J. -M., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2008). Effects of trait emotional intelligence and sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety among adult multilingual: A review and empirical investigation. Language Learning, 58(4), 911-960.

Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2009). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (2^nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203864739.

Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge.

Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (2007). Collaborative and iterative translation: An alternative approach to back translation. Journal of International Marketing, 15(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.15.1.030.

Elliott, A. R. (1995). Foreign language phonology: field independence, attitude, and the success of formal instruction on Spanish pronunciation. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 530–42.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. OUP.

Gkonou, C., & Mercer, S. (2017). Understanding emotional and social intelligence among English language teachers. British Council.

Gregersen, T. & MacIntyre, P.D. (2014). Capitalizing on language learners’ individuality: From premise to practice. Multilingual Matters.

Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal, 46, 350-355

Hall, G. (2017). Exploring English language teaching: Language in action. Routledge.

Horwitz, E. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283–94.

Horwitz, E.K. (2010) Foreign and second language anxiety. Language Teaching, 43(2), 154–167.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–32.

Huang, H. (2004). The relationship between learning motivation and speaking anxiety among EFL non English major freshmen in Taiwan [Unpublished master’s thesis]. The Chaoyang University of Technology.

Jiang, Y., & Dewaele, J.M. (2019). How unique is the foreign language classroom enjoyment and anxiety of Chinese EFL learners? System, 82, 13–25.

Khajavy, G. H., MacIntyre, P. D. & E. Barabadi (2018). Role of the emotions and classroom environment in willingness to communicate: Applying doubly latent multilevel analysis in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 605-624.  10.1017/S0272263117000304

Klimova, B. (2021). An insight into online foreign language learning and teaching in the era of COVID-19 pandemic. Procedia Computer Science, 192, 1787–1794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.08.183

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. Longman.

Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 343-364.

Liao, P. (2006). EFL learners’ beliefs about and strategy use of translation in English learning. RELC, 37(2), 191-215.

Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 71-86.

Long, M. (1983). Inside the “Black Box”’. In H. Seliger and M. Long (Eds), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 3–36). Newbury House.

Long, M. (2004). Acquisition and teaching. In M. Byram (ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 4–5). Routledge.

MacIntyre, P. D. (2002). Motivation, anxiety, and emotion in second language acquisition. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 45–68). John Benjamins.

MacIntyre, P.D. & Gregersen, T. (2012) Emotions that facilitate language learning: The positive-broadening power of the imagination. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 193–213.

MacIntyre, P. D., Dewaele, J.M., Macmillan, N. & Li, C. (2021). The emotional underpinnings of Gardner’s Attitudes and Motivation Test Battery. In P. D. MacIntyre & A. Al-Hoorie (Eds.), Contemporary language motivation theory: 60 years since Gardner and Lambert (1959). Multilingual Matters.

Macaro, E. (2001). Analyzing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 531–48.

Macaro, E. (2005). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In E. Llurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession (pp. 63–84). Springer.

Mendi, H. B. (2009). The relationship between reading strategies, motivation and reading test performance in foreign language learning [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Marmara University.

Moussu, L. (2010). Influence of teacher-contact time and other variables on ESL students’ attitudes towards native- and non-native-English-speaking teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 746–768.

Oxford, R. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner: New insights, in J. Arnold (ed.), Affect in Language Learning ( pp. 58–67). CUP.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.

Piniel, K., & Albert, A. (2018). Advanced learners' foreign language-related emotions across the four skills. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 127-147. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.1.6.

Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878-912.  10.1111/lang.12079

Purcell, E., & Suter, R. (1980). Predictors of pronunciation accuracy: a reexamination. Language Learning, 30, 271–87.

Saito, K., Dewaele, J. M., Abe, M., & In’nami, Y. (2018). Motivation, emotion, learning experience, and second language comprehensibility development in classroom settings. Language Learning, 68, 709–743.

Schleicher, A. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on education insights from education at a glance 2020. Retrieved from: https://www. oecd. org/education/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-education-insights-education-at-a-glance-2020. pdf.

Split, J. L., Koomen, H. Y. Y., & Jak, S. (2012). Are boys better off with male and girls with female teachers? A multilevel investigation of measurement invariance and gender match in teacher–student relationship quality. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 363–378.

Teimouri Y., Plonsky L., Tabandeh F. (2020). L2 grit: passion and perseverance for second-language learning. Language Teaching Research, 26(5). Doi: 10.1177/1362168820921895

Tian, L. & Macaro, E. (2012). Comparing the effect of teacher code-switching with English-only explanations on the vocabulary acquisition of Chinese university students: A lexical focus-on form study. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 367–91.

Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining issues in language teaching. OUP.

Zhang, X. (2019). Foreign language anxiety and foreign language performance: A meta‐analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 763-781.