Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

System 41 (2013) 149e163

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

EFL teachers language use for classroom discipline: A look at

complex interplay of variables
Dae-Min Kang*
Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, Jeongdong Bldg., 15-5, Jeong-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul 100-784, Republic of Korea
Received 29 December 2011; revised 28 December 2012; accepted 2 January 2013
Available online 31 January 2013

Abstract
The issue of classroom management in the English as a foreign language (EFL) setting has not been addressed adequately
despite teachers views of it as constituting one of their prioritized tasks. Among the aspects of classroom management, in particular, classroom discipline seems to warrant research focus because it contributes to smooth and efficient teaching and learning in
the lesson (Ur, 1996, p. 270). The current study examined Korean elementary school EFL teachers language use for disciplinary
purposes. Classroom interactions between two non-native English speaking EFL teachers and their respective students were
observed in nine classes between March and June 2010, and audio-recorded. In addition, the teachers and students were interviewed
in a semi-structured way. The results show that the teacher whose EFL proficiency level was high relied significantly more on the
target language (TL) than on the first language (L1), while the low proficiency level teacher depended significantly more on L1 than
on TL. The differences were found to be caused in complex ways by a number of factors. Based on the findings of the study,
implications are suggested.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Classroom discipline; English as a foreign language; Teachers language use; Classroom interactions

1. Introduction
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) proficiency has been viewed as a preeminent vehicle for ones material and
career success in many parts of the world including Asia (Lamb, 2007; Nunan, 2003). The importance of EFL proficiency, coupled with the input-poor nature of EFL contexts (Kouraogo, 1993), has caused considerable interest and
research into classroom EFL pedagogy. Additionally, the authorities in East Asian EFL countries, such as Korea, have
underlined the importance of studying classroom EFL teaching by their decision to begin teaching English at the
elementary school level (Butler, 2007; Nunan, 2003).
While, consequently, classroom EFL pedagogy has been examined from various perspectives, few attempts have
been made to investigate EFL classroom management (Sakui, 2007). This inattention seems surprising because
classroom management is one of the areas that teachers perceive as critical to the conduct of their teaching (Evrim
* Tel.: 82 2 932 4070.
E-mail address: snowmankdm@naver.com.
0346-251X/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.002

150

D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163

et al., 2009; Jones, 1996). Recently, classroom management has emerged as a very serious issue to be addressed in East
Asia (Sakui, 2007). In Korea, in particular, many teachers in Seoul, the capital, have found themselves increasingly
unable to implement successful classroom discipline since the authorities banned corporal punishment (Lee, 2010).
Concerns about the collapse of classroom education have escalated as the incidence of student violence against
teachers has seen an alarming increase (Kim, 2011). Concerning difficulties with classroom discipline, it appears that
teaching English places an extra burden on teachers because the government-advocated Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT) approach (Butler, 2009) encourages students to move more freely in the classroom than traditional
form-focused approaches. This increase in students spatial movement could represent a grave threat to teachers
stationed in large-size classes, and it is these which constitute the perceived constraints in Asian EFL contexts
(Carless, 2004). Butler (2011) reported that large class sizes had been identified as responsible for preventing CLT
from being successfully implemented in Asia. According to Butler, interactive activities in large classes could cause
disciplinary problems because some students fail to participate in the activities. Additionally, Butler noted that group
work could lead students to overly engage in discussions which diverge from the relevant activity goals.
The impact of CLT on classroom EFL teaching has been strongest at the elementary school level (Butler, 2005), and
this can be attributed to secondary schools focus on the English subtest of the College Scholastic Ability Test
designed mainly to measure the test takers reading skills (Jeon, 2004). For these reasons, elementary classrooms in
Korea seem to be better suited as research sites in which to adequately undertake studies on EFL classroom discipline.
Concerning language use for EFL classroom discipline, it seems that the second language (L2) and the first language
(L1) could each be used profitably: L2 to give students more abundant exposure to the TL (Chambers, 1991; Nation,
2003), and L1 for more successful implementation of discipline (Kang, 2008; Mitchell, 1988). The paucity of relevant
research efforts heretofore is surprising because the introduction of the CLT and Teaching English through English
(TETE) policies has highlighted the need to examine EFL teachers classroom language use for initiating and maintaining discipline.
It is hoped that the current study, which seeks to fill an empirical gap, will report results that adequately describe
and explain how Korean elementary school EFL teachers use L1 and/or L2 for classroom discipline, as well as suggest
practical implications for teachers in other EFL contexts. The questions for this study were:
1. What language use type(s) do EFL teachers employ for disciplinary purposes in their classrooms?
2. What are the underlying factors that determine the teachers language use type(s)?

2. Literature review
Classroom management has been defined as the provisions and processes needed to initiate and sustain an environment where teaching and learning can occur (Cruickshank et al., 1995). Considering this definition, classroom
management greatly influences not only teachers and students but other stakeholder groups (Good and Brophy, 1990).
The importance of classroom management has led many general education researchers to conduct relevant investigations (e.g., Kagan, 1992; Tauber, 1999; Vitto, 2003).
Notwithstanding the extensive interest, little attention has been directed toward EFL classroom management. Of
the few relevant prior studies, Sakuis (2007) study is noteworthy because it addresses the differences that the
introduction of CLT made in EFL classroom management. She explains how the application of CLT caused a substantial paradigm transformation in EFL classroom management. Specifically, the transformation is attributed to
changes in the spatial arrangements of the classrooms, changes in students and teachers expected roles, and the
increased cognitive complexity of activities expected to be performed by the students. Additionally, the study reports
EFL teachers perceptions of the difficulties that they encountered while managing their classrooms.
Although Sakuis study offers some insightful results obtained through observations and interviews, it lacks
adequate description and explanation of how EFL teachers engage in classroom management in real time. To gain
a more complete understanding of EFL teachers conduct of classroom management, it seems necessary to examine
closely EFL teachers real-time managerial interactions with students (Ritter and Hancock, 2007). In addition,
concerning the interactional nature of classroom management, Sakuis study did not address student perspectives on
teachers classroom management. Given that classroom management affects and is affected by student beliefs and the
resultant behavior, investigations into the relevant student perspectives appear to be indispensable.

D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163

151

As Sakui herself claims, CLT encourages learners to more actively participate in classroom activities. The
increased opportunities for student participation associated with learner-centered instruction (Cornelius-White, 2007),
which CLT has eagerly embraced (Jacobs and Farrell, 2001), could somewhat paradoxically cause intensified efforts
on the teachers part for effective classroom management (Carless, 2002). Considering that EFL students possible
confusion caused by the contradictory teacher behavior relating to classroom management could negatively affect
their learning (Ormrod, 2003), examinations of student perceptions of classroom management could yield profitable
implications about how to most effectively implement it.
Regarding the aspects of classroom management, discipline seems to merit the most attention because it occupies
approximately half of the time a teacher spends in the classroom (Cotton, 1990). Specifically, it has been asserted that
elementary teachers with large EFL classes have been particularly preoccupied with the issue of discipline (Davies
and Pearse, 2000). As for disciplinary means, the teachers have been encouraged or pressured to rely most heavily on
language use, for reasons including the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment (Robinson et al., 2005) and the
authorities decision against its use in some European countries (Regoli et al., 2009) and Korea. In the case of
elementary school EFL teaching, the use of English for disciplinary purposes could be viewed as additionally
justifiable since beginner-level learners are given authentic TL input. The utility of TL use for classroom discipline,
however, has been debated. While some have strongly supported English use (e.g., Ellis, 1992; Nation, 2003), others
have claimed that the exclusive L1 use can contribute to better classroom management (e.g., Lai, 1996; Macaro,
1997).
In connection with teachers classroom use of L1 or TL, teacher beliefs have been substantially analyzed because
of their role in determining teacher behavior (Breen et al., 2001). Of the factors that could affect teacher beliefs, i.e.,
training, teaching experience, learning experience, and contextual factors (Borg, 2003), only training has been
identified as influencing secondary and higher education teachers beliefs that result in their use of L1 (Turnbull and
Lamoureux, 2001). In light of the prevalence of large-size, mixed-ability classes in Asian and other EFL settings
(Byrd, 2005; Carless, 2004), it would seem to be necessary to undertake a closer look at how contextual factors affect
teachers beliefs and their language use for classroom discipline. Additionally, teachers TL teaching and learning
experiences could be profitably scrutinized concerning their influence on elementary EFL teachers relevant beliefs
(Woods, 1996). With respect to teacher beliefs, it would be interesting to investigate whether they correspond to
student beliefs as well, since a mismatch between them would highlight the need to attend to how students perceive
learning and how this could be facilitated or debilitated by teacher behavior (Schulz, 1996) in the form of language use
for discipline.
As the discussions thus far indicate, elementary school EFL teachers language use while implementing classroom
discipline should be examined in detail as it affects English learning at school. Clearly, elementary EFL classrooms
should be where learners are provided opportunities to build the fundamental knowledge of English needed for future
learning at middle school and beyond. Unless elementary school EFL classroom discipline is conducted properly,
a milieu conducive to facilitating English learning could neither be created nor maintained, and learners readiness for
language learning could not be fully developed. Neufeld (1979, cited in Horwitz, 1995) contended that readiness for
language learning involves a learners openness toward language learning and enthusiasm toward participating in
language learning processes. Specifically, a learners eagerness to participate in language learning processes constitutes the prerequisite for the successful implementation of CLT and engagement in self-directed language learning
(Nunan, 2004). The present study, conducted to fill the empirical gaps, is expected to provide access to insights into
elementary school EFL teachers language use for classroom discipline and to propose pedagogically beneficial directions predicated upon its findings.
3. Methodology
3.1. Participants
The participants in this study were two Korean EFL teachers who taught at two elementary schools in Seoul (see
Table 1). Their EFL teaching experiences were six and ten years. These female teachers differed in their EFL proficiency and in their scores on the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC), a standardized test
taken by over two million Koreans in 2008 (Korea JoongAng Daily, 2009). First, in terms of self-evaluated EFL
proficiency, the teacher with lesser overall and EFL teaching experience (teacher A) had a high proficiency level. The

D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163

152
Table 1
Participants in the present study.
Teacher

A
B

Age

31
42

EFL teaching
experience

Overall teaching
experience

EFL proficiency level

TOEIC scores

Self-evaluated

Others-evaluated

Teachers
score

Highest
score

Lowest
score

Mean
score

6 years
10 years

8 years
18 years

High
Low

High
Low

975
350

990
990

10
0

613.75
615.77

teachers proficiency level was judged advanced also by the researcher, two peer reviewers, and two native English
speakers (NESs) who either/both impressionistically evaluated the two teachers during observations or/and analyzed
the transcribed data. The other teachers (teacher B) proficiency level was evaluated low by herself and by the
researcher, the peer reviewers, and the NESs. Second, the teachers scores on the TOEIC, administered on 27
September, 2009 (teacher A) and on 20 December, 2009 (teacher B), corresponded to self-evaluated and othersevaluated proficiency levels. Teacher As score was 975 while that of teacher B was 350 (see Table 1 for their
scores compared to the highest, lowest, and mean scores on their respective testing dates) (Educational Testing
Service, 2011).
3.2. Data collection
Before undertaking this study at the beginning of March, 2010, the researcher contacted four Korean elementary
EFL teacher study groups and asked them to recommend candidates for the study. Originally, all the recommended
teachers refused to participate for various reasons, but mainly because of uncomfortableness. Through the researchers
persuasive argument that their participation would contribute to producing pedagogically valuable findings, two of
them agreed to cooperate with the researcher. The teachers obtained the consent of their school principals and the
parents of their students. The researcher informed the teachers only of the initial study purpose (to research interactions in elementary EFL classrooms). As a result of taking the procedures commonly used in grounded theory
studies (Strauss and Corbin, 1998), the researcher decided to narrow the initial research purpose to investigating
Korean EFL teachers classroom language use for disciplinary purposes.
The data collection fieldwork occurred on nine occasions, once biweekly between March and June 2010. The
researcher made non-participant observations of two fifth-grade classrooms in two elementary schools. Consistent
with Butlers (2011) suggestion concerning English language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region, the teachers under
study were found to engage very little in task-based language teaching. Consequently, disciplinary issues arising
during tasks are not reported in this article.
There were 29 students in teacher As class and 31 students in teacher Bs class; they studied English twice a week
in 40 min periods. The students had already received two years of English instruction. The schools were located in
neighborhoods regarded generally as neither very affluent nor very poor. As a means of recording the classroom
interactions, the two participant teachers allowed only audio-recording and note-taking. The researcher requested that
they do their best to minimize their attention to the presence of the audio recorder and him, to decrease any undesirable
influence of the awareness of being audio-recorded and observed. In addition to non-participant observations, the
researcher conducted three semi-structured interviews with the teachers: prior to the first observation, and at the end of
the fifth and ninth observations. The three interviews in Korean lasted approximately an hour and a half each. The goal
of the pre-observation interview was to enable the researcher to gain some understanding of the teachers personal
backgrounds and build rapport between them and him. The questions for the inter-observation interview were prepared based on the information gathered from the pre-observation interview and what the researcher had observed.
The focus of the post-observation interview was to conclusively confirm, from the perspectives of the teachers belief
systems, what had been observed and analyzed in their language use for classroom discipline. As for their students, the
researcher carried out semi-structured interviews in Korean which lasted approximately 15 min per student. The
interviews with the students, conducted after the ninth observation, were also used to complement the researchers
analysis. The interviews with the teachers and the students were audio-recorded. The researcher practiced considerable caution to ensure that all the interviews were conducted in a non-manipulative way for stronger investigatory

D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163

153

validity. The audio-recorded classroom language use and interviews were transcribed verbatim, and when the transcriptions were in Korean, translated into English for reporting.
3.3. Data analysis
The analysis of the data from the transcribed audio-recordings, interviews, and field notes was performed as
follows. First, the researcher reviewed, analyzed, and compared the transcriptions of audio-recordings and field note
entries from the first four observations (Maykut and Morehouse, 1994). He found certain patterns in the teachers
classroom language use for disciplinary purposes. The high-proficiency teacher predominantly used TL while the lowproficiency teacher predominantly used L1. The patterns were continuously observed throughout the remainder of the
observation period. Second, the researcher ran a paired-samples t-test to investigate the significance of the differences
between L1 and TL use for each teacher. The amount of L1 or TL use for disciplinary purposes was operationalized as
the number of L1 or TL words used by each teacher, as in prior studies (Liu et al., 2004; Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie,
2002). Additionally, Storch and Aldosari (2010) suggested that word counts could beneficially be employed for
studies examining the amount of L1used. According to Storch and Aldosari, high coding reliability could be expected
through word counts because of the easy identifiability of words. The rationale for the employment of a mixedmethods approach (Bryman, 2006; Greene, 2008) in this study, which requires the combined use of qualitative and
quantitative approaches, was that it can lead to an improved understanding of research problems over the exclusive use
of either approach (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). Third, the researcher tentatively identified important characteristics of the patterns in classroom language use for discipline, based on the qualitatively analyzed data. The
characteristics were then reviewed by the two peer reviewers (each with masters degrees in TEFL) who also evaluated
the participant teachers proficiency. Fourth, the researcher analyzed the interviews with the teachers and students to
determine whether their ideas and beliefs about the patterns in language use for classroom discipline corresponded to
his initial interpretations. Further, the interviews were examined to refine the researchers interpretations. Interestingly, it was revealed that the answers to some interview questions were considerably similar across students while
those to some questions were practically identical. Consequently, it was decided that the representative answers would
be used together with other data in reporting the findings of the study.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Teacher As language use for classroom discipline
Teacher A was revealed to use more TL than L1 for disciplinary purposes in the nine observed classes (see Table 2).
The difference in language use, statistically significant, t (8) 29.61, p < .001, was first attributed to her high TL
proficiency. Carless (2004) similarly found that a Hong Kong elementary EFL teacher predominantly preferred TL to
L1 because of her advanced TL proficiency.
Teacher As preference for TL was ascribed also to the socioeconomic characteristics of the geographic context in
which her school was located. Teacher A taught at a school located in the affluent residential area in Seoul collectively
known as Gangnam, a southern part of the capital city. She stated that she had less difficulty with her students than she
had had while teaching at a school located in a neighborhood in the northern part of Seoul, collectively known as
Gangbuk and less affluent. The perceived difference relating to classroom discipline resulting from socioeconomic
differences, according to her, caused her to experience less irritation during class and to rely more on TL than L1 as
suggested in Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002). The excerpt below indicates how the teacher used language for disciplinary purposes.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics for teacher As L1 use and TL use for disciplinary purposes.

L1
TL

Minimum

Maximum

SD

5
49

8
64

6.56
56.89

1.13
5.23

D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163

154

(1) Classroom interactions featuring teacher As TL use for disciplinary purposes

T: Today we are learning expressions for giving someone directions. They are very important and useful, so
you should listen to me.
Ss: Yes, maam.
T: When the place is far from you and, . . . (pointing to two students seated in front and chattering) Shame on
you two! Dont you know how important it is to listen to me? If you get caught chattering once again, you will
have to write the sentences in Lesson 5 ten times! The rule applies to anyone who gets caught from now on. Is
that clear enough?
Ss: (falling silent)
T: Lets get back to the lesson.
The two students toward whom teacher A directs disciplinary TL input in (1) stated in interviews that they were
demotivated to be attentive to the teacher. They attributed their disruptive behavior to the pace of the lesson that they
had found slow enough to cause boredom. The teacher observed that limited classroom time allowed her little room to
pay attention to either quick or slow CLT learners (Butler, 2011) despite her willingness to do so. She stressed that she
had to prioritize the minimization of such disruptive behavior to capitalize on her limited instructional time. Further,
she noted that classroom activities that appear to be more motivating to students could cause disciplinary problems by
allowing students to become overly excited and to behave disruptively. The consequent contradictory need for the
implementation of classroom discipline prevented her from introducing more motivating activities. Gao and Lamb
(2011) asserted that learner motivation has been little researched in relation to teacher beliefs and practices. The
finding above seems to illustrate, although inadequately, how learner motivation is addressed pedagogically in
a specific classroom setting. It is expected that further studies will produce insightful results fundamentally predicated
on the findings of this study and bridge the empirical gap.
As a disciplinary means, she commented that she relied mostly on non-insulting verbal input in TL because of her
students docility as well as the official policy against corporal punishment. This preferred use of TL was found to arise
also from the belief emanating from her TL teaching and learning experiences that such use would benefit students by
exposing them to more TL in input-poor EFL contexts (Duff and Polio, 1990). Her belief was further affected by preservice and in-service teacher training that emphasized maximum TL use in the classroom, inconsistent with Kagans
(1992) assertion against the influence of training on teachers beliefs. The following is the teachers report.
(2) Teacher As Report:
While my current students are less unruly than those I had in Gangbuk, they are nonetheless children. I should
make disciplinary efforts to create and maintain a studious atmosphere. The reason I use more TL is that my
experience as a learner and a teacher of English has taught me the importance of giving students as much TL
input as possible. Also, my EFL teacher educators have stressed that we teachers should use as much English
as possible because we are their main sources of TL input. I have absolutely agreed with them. Certainly, my
TL use for disciplinary purposes helps my students increase their proficiency substantially.
Concerning the teachers perceived benefit of her TL use for classroom discipline, her students were interestingly
divided along proficiency levels. While low-level students found such language use to influence their behavior little,
high-level students found it helpful in enhancing their TL knowledge. The high-level students observed that the
teachers TL use for disciplinary purposes also increased their respect of her proficiency and their obedience to her.
The partial gap between teacher motive and student perspective seems to represent an incongruity regarding the
findings of two prior studies which did not address teachers TL use specifically for classroom discipline. Korean
elementary students in Kang (2008) and US university students in Duff and Polio (1990) were predominantly in
agreement with their teachers in terms of teacher use of TL for certain purposes. The proficiency dependent difference

D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163

155

in students views of teacher As TL use for disciplinary purposes merits substantial attention. Given that the teachers
TL use was intended to improve her students proficiency, it appears necessary to examine the reasons behind the lowlevel students insensitivity to her disciplinary input given in TL. Below is what a low-level student commented.
(3) A low-level students report:
Frankly, I cant clearly understand what my teacher is saying in English when shes angry. To me, most of her
English words are just like words space aliens use. When she uses Korean and tells me to, say, stop talking to
my friends, I sense that I might be in trouble if I dont obey her; but not so when she uses English. I cant do
what she tells me to because I cant understand her well. And the English words sound less scary because they
are hard to understand. They dont stir as much fear as Korean words would. Kids good at English seem to like
it when the teacher is angry and uses English. One of them even told me his mother often came to school and
asked her to use only English.
As is evident in (3), the low-level student perceived teacher As TL input for classroom discipline as difficult to
comprehend. Similarly, Kim (2002) asserted that Korean EFL teachers viewed students low proficiency as hindering
the implementation of TETE. What could be underlined in (3) is that student incomprehension resulted in a reduced
disciplinary effect. The dual motives for the teachers TL use, i.e., implementing classroom discipline and improving
student proficiency, were fulfilled inadequately. This failure seems to show that EFL teachers should seriously
consider taking different approaches to classroom language use for disciplinary purposes depending on student
proficiency. Most of the students, whether high-level or low-level, reported that they were aware that their behavior
was prone to irritate the teacher. In this respect, the teachers appropriate choice of language, i.e., L1 or TL, could
influence such awareness of the students and have a greater disciplinary effect. Specifically, the teachers could reflect
on the advantages of judicious use of the mother tongue (Atkinson, 1987, p. 242) for classroom discipline in the case
of low-level students. While it could require them to make extra efforts, they should not overlook an opportunity to
help low-level students who constitute the majority of Korean EFL students (Liu et al., 2004).
Additionally from (3), it appears that teacher As TL use could be cautiously attributed to parental intervention. The
intensity of parental intervention in the Gangnam area was much more noticeable to the teacher than in the Gangbuk
area because of the socioeconomic difference between the two areas. The teacher confirmed that some rich parents
called or visited her many times to urge her to use exclusively TL. The teachers principal also ordered her to employ
only TL, partly determined by the parental demand. Noteworthy here is that the parental intervention was found to
relate to the affective distance between the teacher and students as well as teacher-student power relations. The relationships among contextual factors, which affected teacher As beliefs and behavior as asserted in prior studies (e.g.,
Richards and Pennington, 1998), demonstrate that the teachers TL use for disciplinary purposes was influenced in
a complex way. The teacher reported as follows.
(4) Teacher As Report:
I become angry when rich parents come to school and tell me to use only English. I come away, justifiably or
not, disliking my students. For these two reasons, i.e., the parents demand and my resultant dislike of the
students, I have come to believe that I should use more English for purposes including classroom discipline.
Yes, admittedly, it seems paradoxical that both my desire to expose my students to more English input and my
dislike of the students can be cited as motives for increased English use for disciplinary purposes. As you
know, though, determinants of human belief and behavior can come from opposing directions. My dislike of
the students, in particular, causes me to give them relevant English input sometimes beyond their comprehension. By doing so, I expect them to realize that I am their English teacher whose proficiency is much higher
than theirs and whose authority should not be challenged.
In (4), teacher A explains how a contextual factor activates another contextual factor consecutively in prompting
her to use TL for classroom discipline. The linear sequential relationships among contextual factors, presented in
Fig. 1 with other components of teacher beliefs, have heretofore been little addressed. To adequately understand how
teacher beliefs influence a teachers practice of using language for disciplinary purposes, more attention should be

D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163

156

TL learning
experience

Teacher

TL teacher

proficiency

training

Teacher

Teachers

beliefs

language use

Contextual factors

TL teaching

Students

experience

socioeconomic
backgrounds

Parental
P

intervention

Affective distance
between
FIGURE
2 teacher
students comp
Figure and
2 Determinant

Teacher-student
power relations

Fig. 1. Determinant components of teacher As classroom language use for disciplinary purposes.

directed toward contextual factors (Borg, 2003) from various perspectives. Particularly, the issue of teacher-student
power relations should be closely examined because they are frequently subject to negotiation through interactions
(Thornborrow, 2002). According to teacher A, she decided to shift her paradigm of classroom relations toward less
learner-centeredness because of the reasons in (4). Although she did not support the view that teachers are predominantly invested with the right to control how learning will occur as in what Nunan (1998) designated as highstructure teaching (p. 75), she considered it necessary for them to function as an authority figure in elementary school
EFL classrooms where more disciplinary problems could arise because of the CLT approach. As is evident in (4),
teacher A regarded her TL use for classroom discipline as the means of empowering her as the authority figure.
Fairclough (1989) suggested that language use practices demonstrate who possesses authority and power. Teacher As
switch to more TL use seems to constitute her effort to reclaim her position as the authority figure, irrespective of its
actual effectiveness for initiation and sustainment of classroom discipline.
4.2. Teacher Bs language use for classroom discipline
As shown in Table 3, teacher B employed more L1 than TL for classroom discipline in the nine observed classes.
The statistically significant difference, t (8) 33.59, p < .001, was ascribed to her lack of TL proficiency. Liu et al.
(2004) similarly reported that L1 use was favored by Korean high school EFL teachers because of their low TL
proficiency.

D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163

157

Table 3
Descriptive statistics for teacher Bs L1 use and TL use for disciplinary purposes.

L1
TL

Minimum

Maximum

SD

82
10

98
17

89.00
13.44

5.24
2.51

In addition to her low TL proficiency, teacher B stated that the considerable unruliness of her students prompted her
to prefer L1. This was consistent with Mitchells (1988) finding that Scottish foreign language teachers used L1
English when confronted with the need for serious disciplinary intervention. Since teacher B had taught in the
Gangbuk area and never been transferred to the more affluent Gangnam area, she did not compare students in the two
areas and instead described her students as usually substantially uncontrollable. The following is how the teacher
engaged in disciplinary interventions using L1.
(5) Classroom interactions featuring teacher Bs L1 use for disciplinary purposes
T: Uhm, we learn important expressions today.
Ss: (making noises talking to each other)
T: ! . !(Aah! Neomu sikkeureobne. Joyonghi haseyo e Ah! Youre so noisy.
Please be quiet!)
Ss: (falling silent)
T: We learn important expressions about your everyday schedule.
Ss: Yes, maam. (making noises anew)
T: (much irritated) ? . ! (Oneul wae ireojyo? Dojeohi
mot chamgetne. Jebal joyonghi haseyo! e Whats the matter today? Ive had enough. Please be quiet!)
Ss: (falling silent)
The students who caused the teacher to use L1 for disciplinary purposes in (5) were mostly low-level students. The
students reported that their lack of comprehension of the content that the teacher taught resulted in their chattering
noisily repeatedly. The teacher emphasized that she adhered to the importance of classroom discipline for promoting
learning. According to the teacher, she responded to such disruptive behavior by giving disciplinary orders immediately following its occurrence. Concerning language use for disciplinary purposes, teacher B stated that she was
sensitized to the negative effects of corporal punishment and not much influenced by the official policy against it.
Teacher Bs prevalent reliance on L1, demonstrated in (5), was found to result from a belief deriving from her
anxiety and TL teaching experience (see Fig. 2). In particular, teacher anxiety and language use for disciplinary
purposes seem to warrant attention. Horwitz (1996) claimed that teachers whose confidence in TL abilities is low tend
to avoid approaches that require them to provide an increased amount of input. Teacher B was not enthusiastic about
CLT and regarded her low TL proficiency as inducing anxiety. She admitted that her anxiety prompted her to depend
more on L1 for classroom discipline. The teacher reported as follows.
(6) Teacher Bs Report:
I fully understand that my English proficiency is low. This awareness definitely causes anxiety during classes. I
cannot pretend to be a fluent English speaker. The prefabricated expressions I memorize from the Classroom
English Sourcebook can take me only so far. In particular, when you get angry with your students

D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163

158

TL learning

Teacher

TL teacher

experience

proficiency

training

Teacher
anxiety

Teachers
Teacher beliefs
language use

Contextual factors
TL teaching
Students

experience

socioeconomic
backgrounds
The total
number of words:
.
Teacher-student
power relations

Fig. 2. Determinant components of teacher Bs classroom language use for disciplinary purposes.

misbehavior, your low proficiency cant help you produce appropriate English sentences. I want to warn them
in fluent English, but I cant; so, out of anxiety, I use Korean rather than English in many cases. I wish my
secondary and tertiary school teachers had helped me develop better English abilities. And neither has teacher
training been helpful. They could have been structured to better improve my English proficiency.
As is clear from (6), teacher B deemed her TL learning experience and teacher training as responsible for her
anxiety. In relation to teacher training, Kagans (1992) argument against its effect on teachers beliefs was not corroborated in this study. Given that East Asian elementary school EFL teachers are given inadequate training to enable
them to confidently help students acquire communicative skills (Butler, 2004), this finding reinforces the need to
improve the quantity and quality of pre-/in-service teacher training in a way that enhances teachers fluency and
proficiency (Park, 2006).
Concerning teacher-student power relations, teacher Bs anxiety sensitized her to the likelihood of student disobedience. She reported that when she perceived any occurrence of student defiance, she became suspicious that her
low proficiency was its cause. To establish and consolidate her authority, she relied on the use of L1 for disciplinary
purposes (Chambers, 1991). She viewed classroom order maintenance as fundamental for facilitating EFL learning.
As for teacher Bs L1 use, her students showed differing perceptions depending on proficiency levels. While high-level
students cooperated with the teachers disciplinary calls, low-level students did not considerably modify their
behavior. Additionally, while the high-level students were in agreement with the teachers emphasis on the prioritization of order maintenance, the low-level students seemed to be disinterested in it. As in the case of teacher As
students, the high-level students in teacher Bs class appeared to form a rapport with their teacher concerning the effect
of her language use for discipline. The following are a high-level and a low-level students report.

D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163

159

(7) A high-level students report:

I get scared when my English teacher scolds us in Korean. I immediately stop talking to my friends. She scolds
us, usually in Korean. I understand why shes angry. You see, were noisy. We should pay attention to her. And
when my teacher uses English scolding us, I dont as quickly stop talking to my friends as when she uses
Korean. Scolding in Korean is much scarier.
(8) A low-level students report:
I am not that interested in English learning because Im poor at it, so I talk a lot to my friends or move around
during class. And when my English teacher scolds me in Korean, I dont sit still and quiet. You see, what she
teaches is hard to understand and boring. Also, what she says during her scolding is much harsher than what
other teachers say in math or science classes. Her harsh words turn me off, and I dont actively participate in
the activities. Funny, she doesnt try to help us poor achievers learn English better. My friends and I would talk
and move around a lot less, if she helped us first.
Of the two reports, (8) seems more interesting because the students perspective poses an underlying question for
EFL classrooms: how to approach the issue of enabling students to learn EFL better. The conflict between the student
in (8) and teacher B on the methodology of facilitating students EFL learning reflects a need to take a balanced view
of the relevant issue. Further, when one considers that learner-centeredness is a prerequisite for CLT (Holec, 1980), the
students need, explicitly expressed in (8), should be addressed with a degree of attention equal to teacher Bs perspective. The teacher strongly supported the idea that the goal of initiating and maintaining classroom discipline was
to facilitate students learning (Jones, 1979). According to her, the initiation and maintenance of classroom discipline
should precede efforts to fulfill the student need in (8). The sharp contrast between the student and teacher B in terms
of the sequence of classroom discipline and fulfillment of student need underscores the importance of examining both
student and teacher perspectives in formulating approaches to developing students TL abilities.
Another interesting point in (8) is that the student perceived the severity of L1 used by teacher B for disciplinary
purposes as greater than that of the L1 used by teachers of other subjects. Borg (2006) reported that one of the
perceived distinguishing characteristics of the EFL class is that teacher-student communication occurs more often in
the class than in those of other subjects. What prevents Borgs account from being applied to the narrated phenomenon
in (8) is that communication mostly occurred not between teacher B and the low-level students but among the lowlevel students. The teachers of other subjects mentioned in (8) confirmed that they used less harsh L1 expressions than
teacher B when shown, with her permission, some of her transcribed L1 use. Teacher B acknowledged what the other
teachers commented, based on what she had learned during her conversations with them. She defended her idiosyncratic L1 use, however, citing its possible beneficial influence on prompting students to concentrate harder on her
teaching. According to her, students were required to pay greater attention to her than to the teachers of other subjects
because EFL teaching in Korea begins only at Grade 3 (Butler, 2007) unlike that of other subjects which begins at
Grade 1. She maintained that her characteristic L1 use resulted from her belief that a classroom represents a very
important context for EFL learning in Korea where students are inadequately exposed to English outside the classroom (Deckert, 2004).
Concerning teacher Bs emphasis on the role a classroom plays, it seems somewhat contradictory that she was
insensitive to the low-level students affective and physical detachment from classroom activities. Farrell (2002)
observed that communication in the classroom determines the level of student participation in classroom activities.
From (8), it appears that teacher Bs harsh L1 words failed to cause the low-level students to modify their behavior
(Wlodkowski, 1982; cited in Barquist Hogelucht and Geist, 1997). Rather than activating classroom communication
by providing the low-level students with remedial teaching, teacher B focused on giving disciplinary orders. The
resultant student reluctance to participate in classroom activities indicates that she should critically reflect on how to
trigger active classroom communication when using L1 for disciplinary purposes. In relation to such L1 use, teacher B
would do her students considerable service by providing L1 input that could support their autonomy. Many researchers
have discussed the benefits that autonomy-supporting teachers could deliver, including the improvement of students
academic intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1981). Teacher Bs accommodation of the two functions that her L1 use for

160

D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163

disciplinary purposes could be modified to perform (i.e., triggering active classroom communication and supporting
student autonomy) would contribute to the facilitation of student learning, which represents a major component of
student-centered teaching (Cheng and Mok, 2007), upon which CLT is based.
5. Conclusion
The present study examined, using classroom observations and semi-structured interviews, two Korean elementary
school EFL teachers language use for disciplinary purposes. The teachers, consisting of high-proficiency teacher A
and low-proficiency teacher B, were found to use predominantly either TL or L1 for reasons and motives influenced in
complex ways by various components of their teacher beliefs.
First, teacher As statistically significant preference for TL resulted from her high TL proficiency and from her
perceived lack of need for discipline at her current school relative to her former school located in a less affluent
geographic area. Moreover, the teachers TL teaching/learning experiences and teacher training caused her to
strongly appreciate the importance of a teachers utmost TL use in the EFL context and favor TL use for classroom
discipline. The teachers perspectives for TL use only partially corresponded to those of her students. Unlike the
high-level students in agreement with the teacher, the low-level students complained about the incomprehensibility
of her disciplinary TL input and questioned the disciplinary impact of such input on them. Interestingly, parental
intervention for maximum TL use caused widened affective distance between her and the students, and a shift in
teacher-student power relations. In particular, the teacher became less supportive of the learner-centeredness
paradigm and viewed her TL use for discipline as contributing to her establishment as the authority figure in
her CLT-based classroom where disruptive student behavior could potentially occur more frequently (Leung, 1987;
cited in Evans, 1997).
Second, teacher Bs statistically significant dependence on L1 arose from her low TL proficiency and from the
perceived prevalence of student unruliness. The teachers preference for L1 was also caused by her TL teaching
experience and anxiety stemming from her low TL proficiency. Her anxiety, for which she cited her TL learning
experience and teacher training as responsible, prompted her to regard L1 use for discipline as advancing her authority
in terms of teacher-student power relations. Teacher Bs students differed in their approval of her prioritization of
discipline maintenance depending on TL proficiency. In contrast to the high-level students who supported the teacher,
the low-level students showed little change in their disruptive behavior when given her L1 disciplinary orders. What
the low-level students desired instead was teacher Bs efforts to give them remedial teaching. Additionally, the lowlevel students considered the disciplinary L1 used by teacher B to be harsher than that used by teachers of other
subjects, while the teacher attributed such harsher L1 use to its perceived effect on pressuring students to concentrate
more on the learning of English as distinct from other subjects. Despite the teachers intentions, however, the low-level
students lost interest in participating in classroom activities, being further alienated from an opportunity to learn
English.
The main results of this study could cursorily seem predictable: use of more TL by a high-proficiency teacher
instructing students at higher socioeconomic levels and use of more L1 by a low-proficiency teacher instructing
students at lower socioeconomic levels. The seeming obviousness, however, was found to involve a complicated
interaction of variables, as discussed earlier. The contextually situated individual teachers under study each illustrate
for us their distinct and complex lived experiences.
In terms of implications, this study has two suggestions. First, EFL teacher training should enable teachers to make
a balanced evaluation of L1 use for classroom management, including discipline. Cook (2001) argued that language
teachers have an ambivalence toward their L1 use. They find it useful, yet experience guilt influenced by the prevalent
attitude against it. It seems that the issue should be addressed in a way that reflects the realities in large-size, mixedability EFL classes. Considering that teacher training should equip teachers with knowledge that is both theory- and
practice-based (Korthagan and Kessels, 1999), teachers actual behavior relating to language use for discipline should
be seriously considered in preparing courses for EFL teachers. Such an effort would lead EFL teachers to enhance
their understanding of the pedagogical interactions in which van Lier claimed they need training (personal communication, October 20, 2011). Second, as for the first suggestion, the TETE policy should be modified in a way that
allows appropriate English use. In Korea, the authorities have adopted the policy and asked teachers to use only
English in classrooms (Kang, 2008). The demand for the exclusion of L1 appears to lack practicality based on efficiency. In particular, for the functions of initiating and maintaining classroom discipline, Cook (2001) claimed that

D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163

161

L1 warnings convey to students a message that a teacher seriously intends to punish them for disruptive behavior.
Given that classroom discipline constitutes a major EFL issue, it would be sensible for authorities to consider licensing
teachers L1 use for disciplinary purposes (Cook, 2001) under appropriate conditions.
The current study is admittedly open to criticism and improvement in many respects, including the limited number
of participants. Concerning this limitation, a suggestion can be made for future research: the conduct of large-scale
surveys to examine how elementary EFL teachers use language for classroom discipline and whether their practice
reflects their beliefs. Not only would such surveys provide comprehensive diagnoses of EFL teachers language use
for discipline depending on teaching experience, proficiency, and the geographic/socioeconomic locations of schools,
but they would advance our understanding of which factors affect the teachers language use and in what ways.
References
Atkinson, D., 1987. The mother tongue in the classrooms: a neglected resource? ELT Journal 41 (4), 241e247.
Barquist Hogelucht, K.S., Geist, P., 1997. Discipline in the classroom: communicative strategies for negotiating order. Western Journal of
Communication 61 (1), 1e34.
Borg, S., 2003. Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language
Teaching 36, 81e109.
Borg, S., 2006. The distinctive characteristics of foreign language teachers. Language Teaching Research 10 (1), 3e31.
Breen, M.P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., Thwaite, A., 2001. Making sense of language teaching: teachers principles and classroom practices.
Applied Linguistics 22 (4), 470e501.
Bryman, A., 2006. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative Research 6, 97e113.
Butler, Y.G., 2004. What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to attain to teach EFL? case studies from Korea, Taiwan,
and Japan. TESOL Quarterly 38 (2), 245e278.
Butler, Y.G., 2005. Comparative perspectives towards communicative activities among elementary school teachers in South Korea, Japan, and
Taiwan. Language Teaching Research 9 (4), 423e446.
Butler, Y.G., 2007. How are nonnative-English-speaking teachers perceived by young learners? TESOL Quarterly 41 (4), 731e755.
Butler, Y.G., 2009. How do teachers observe and evaluate elementary school students foreign language performance? a case study from South
Korea. TESOL Quarterly 43 (3), 417e444.
Butler, Y.G., 2011. The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region? Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 31, 36e57.
Byrd, P., 2005. Instructed grammar. In: Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 545e561.
Carless, D., 2002. Implementing task-based learning with young learners. ELT Journal 56 (4), 389e396.
Carless, D., 2004. A contextualised examination of target language use in the primary school foreign language classroom. Australian Review of
Applied Linguistics 27 (1), 104e119.
Chambers, F., 1991. Promoting use of the target language in the classroom. Language Learning Journal 4, 27e31.
Cheng, Y.C., Mok, M.M.C., 2007. School-based management and paradigm shift in education: an empirical study. International Journal of
Educational Management 21 (6), 517e542.
Cook, V., 2001. Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 57 (3), 402e423.
Cornelius-White, J., 2007. Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 77 (1),
113e143.
Cotton, K., 1990. Summary of Research. Time to Teach Resource Manual. Hayden Lake, ID.
Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L., 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Cruickshank, D.R., Bainer, D.L., Metcalf, K.K., 1995. The Act of Teaching. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Davies, P., Pearse, E., 2000. Success in English Teaching. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Deci, E.L., Nezlek, J., Sheinman, L., 1981. Characteristics of the rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 40, 1e10.
Deckert, G., 2004. The communicative approach: addressing frequent failure. English Teaching Forum 42 (1), 12e17.
Duff, P.A., Polio, C.G., 1990. How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? The Modern Language Journal 74,
154e166.
Educational Testing Service, 2011. The Analysis of the TOEIC Test Scores Administered in Korea. Retrieved February 15, 2011. http://exam.
ybmsisa.com/score/result/data_t_nu m.asp.
Ellis, R., 1992. Learning to communicate in the classroom: a study of two language learners requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
14, 1e23.
Evans, S., 1997. Teacher and learner roles in the Hong Kong English language classroom. Educational Journal 25 (2), 43e61.
Evrim, E.-A., Gokce, K., Enisa, M., 2009. Exploring the relationship between teacher beliefs and styles on classroom management in relation to
actual teaching practices: a case study. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (1), 612e617.
Fairclough, N., 1989. Language and Power. Longman, London.
Farrell, T.S.C., 2002. Classroom Discourse: An Introduction. Prentice Hall, Singapore.

162

D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163

Gao, X., Lamb, T., 2011. Exploring links between identity, motivation and autonomy. In: Murrary, G., Gao, X., Lamb, T. (Eds.), Identity,
Motivation and Autonomy in Language Learning. Multilingual Matters, Bristol, UK, pp. 1e8.
Good, T.L., Brophy, J.E., 1990. Educational Psychology: A Realistic Approach. Longman, New York.
Greene, J.C., 2008. Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2 (1), 7e22.
Holec, H., 1980. Learner-centered communicative language teaching: needs analysis revisited. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3 (1),
26e33.
Horwitz, E.K., 1995. Student affective reactions and the teaching and learning of foreign languages. International Journal of Educational Research
23 (7), 573e579.
Horwitz, E.K., 1996. Even teachers get the blues: recognizing and alleviating language teachers feeling of foreign language anxiety. Foreign
Language Annals 29 (3), 365e372.
Jacobs, G.M., Farrell, T.S.C., 2001. Paradigm shift: understanding and implementing change in second language education. TESL-EJ 5 (1), 1e16.
Retrieved December 30, 2010. http://tesl-ej.org/ej17/a1.html.
Jeon, B.-M., 2004. A comparative study of English test items of college entrance examinations in Korea, China, and Japan. English Language &
Literature Teaching 10 (2), 113e132.
Jones, F.H., 1979. The gentle art of classroom discipline. National Elementary Principal 58, 26e32.
Jones, V., 1996. Classroom management. In: Sikula, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. Macmillan, New York, pp. 503e521.
Kagan, D.M., 1992. Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research 62, 129e169.
Kang, D.-M., 2008. The classroom language use of a Korean elementary school EFL teacher: another look at TETE. System 36, 214e226.
Kim, K.-H., 2011. Gyeonggi hagsaeng Ttaerin Gyosa Boda gyosa Ttaerin Hagsaeng Mana (More Students Hit Teachers than Vice Versa in
Gyeonggi Province). Yonhap News Agency. November 17. Retrieved November 19, 2011. http://app.yonhapnews.co.kr/YNA/Basic/article/
new_search/YIBW_showSearchArticle.aspx?searchpart=article&searchtext=%ea%b5%90%ec%82%ac%eb%95%8c%eb%a6%b0%20%ed%
95%99%ec%83%9d&contents_id=AKR20111117127400061.
Kim, S.-Y., 2002. Teachers perceptions about teaching English through English. English Teaching 57 (1), 131e148.
Korea JoongAng Daily, 2009. Jagnyeon Toig Eungsija 200 Manmyeong Dolpa (Over 2 Million Took TOEIC Tests Last Year). Retrieved February
15, 2011. http://Article.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.asp?total_id3486584.
Korthagan, F.A.J., Kessels, J.P.A.M., 1999. Linking theory and practice: changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Education Researcher 28
(4), 4e17.
Kouraogo, P., 1993. Language learning strategies in input-poor environments. System 21, 165e173.
Lai, M.L., 1996. Using the L1 sensibly in English language classrooms. Journal of Primary Education 6 (1&2), 91e99.
Lamb, M., 2007. The impact of school on EFL learning motivation: an Indonesian case study. TESOL Quarterly 41 (4), 757e780.
Lee, R., 2010. Schools Buckle under Corporal Punishment Ban. The Korea Herald. December 26. Retrieved February 15, 2011. http://www.
koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp? newsMLId2010122 6000217.
Liu, D., Ahn, G.-S., Baek, K.-S., Han, N.-O., 2004. South Korean high school English teachers code-switching: questions and challenges in the
drive for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly 38 (4), 605e638.
Macaro, E., 1997. Target Language, Collaborative Learning and Autonomy. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, UK.
Maykut, P., Morehouse, R., 1994. Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophic and Practical Guide. The Falmer Press, London.
Mitchell, R., 1988. Communicative Language Teaching in Practice. CILT, London.
Nation, P., 2003. The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL Journal. Retrieved January 11, 2010. http://www.asian-efljournal.com/june_2003 _pn.pdf.
Nunan, D., 1998. Second Language Teaching and Learning. Heinle and Heinle, Boston, MA.
Nunan, D., 2003. The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly 37
(4), 589e613.
Nunan, D., 2004. Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ormrod, J.E., 2003. Educational Psychology: Developing Learners, fourth ed. Merrill/Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Park, S.-H., 2006. EFL teacher training for South Korean elementary school teachers. In: McCloskey, M.L., Orr, J., Dolitsky, M. (Eds.), Teaching
English as a Foreign Language in Primary School. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, pp. 191e200. Alexandria, VA.
Regoli, R.M., Hewitt, J.D., DeLisi, M., 2009. Delinquency in Society. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA.
Richards, J.C., Pennington, M., 1998. The first year of teaching. In: Richards, J.C. (Ed.), Beyond Training. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 173e190.
Ritter, J.T., Hancock, D.R., 2007. Exploring the relationship between certification sources, experience levels, and classroom management orientations of classroom teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 23, 1206e1216.
Robinson, D.H., Funk, D.C., Beth, A., Bush, A.M., 2005. Changing beliefs about corporal punishment: increasing knowledge about ineffectiveness to build more consistent moral and informational beliefs. Journal of Behavioral Education 14 (2), 117e139.
Rolin-Ianziti, J., Brownlie, S., 2002. Teacher use of learners native language in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language
Review 58 (3), 402e426.
Sakui, K., 2007. Classroom management in Japanese EFL classrooms. JALT Journal 29 (1), 41e58.
Schulz, R.A., 1996. Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: students and teachers views on error correction and the role of grammar.
Foreign Language Annals 29, 343e364.
Storch, N., Aldosari, A., 2010. Learners use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research 14 (4),
355e375.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Tauber, R.T., 1999. Classroom Management: Sound Theory and Effective Practice. Bergin & Garvey, London.

D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163

163

Thornborrow, J., 2002. Power Talk: Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse. Longman, Harlow, UK.
Turnbull, M., Lamoureux, S., 2001. L1 and L2 Use in Core French: A Focus on Pre-service Students Views and Classroom Practice. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics, Quebec, Canada.
Ur, P., 1996. A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Vitto, J.M., 2003. Relationships-driven Classroom Management: Strategies That Promote Student Motivation. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Woods, D., 1996. Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: Beliefs, Decision-making and Classroom Practice. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.