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.

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

System 41 (2013) 149e1630346-251X/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Abstract

The issue of classroom management in the English as a foreign language (EFL) setting has not been addressed adequatelydespite teachers views of it as constituting one of their prioritized tasks. Among the aspects of classroom management, in par-ticular, classroom discipline seems towarrant research focus because it contributes to smooth and efficient teaching and learning inthe lesson (Ur, 1996, p. 270). The current study examined Korean elementary school EFL teachers language use for disciplinarypurposes. Classroom interactions between two non-native English speaking EFL teachers and their respective students wereobserved in nine classes betweenMarch and June 2010, and audio-recorded. In addition, the teachers and students were interviewedin a semi-structured way. The results show that the teacher whose EFL proficiency level was high relied significantly more on thetarget language (TL) than on the first language (L1), while the low proficiency level teacher depended significantly more on L1 thanon 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 andcareer success in many parts of the world including Asia (Lamb, 2007; Nunan, 2003). The importance of EFL pro-ficiency, coupled with the input-poor nature of EFL contexts (Kouraogo, 1993), has caused considerable interest andresearch into classroom EFL pedagogy. Additionally, the authorities in East Asian EFL countries, such as Korea, haveunderlined the importance of studying classroom EFL teaching by their decision to begin teaching English at theelementary school level (Butler, 2007; Nunan, 2003).

While, consequently, classroom EFL pedagogy has been examined from various perspectives, few attempts havebeen made to investigate EFL classroom management (Sakui, 2007). This inattention seems surprising becauseEFL teachers language use for classroom discipline: A look atcomplex 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 2013http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.002

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 main-

150 D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163taining 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 suggestpractical 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 envi-ronment where teaching and learning can occur (Cruickshank et al., 1995). Considering this definition, classroommanagement 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 in-vestigations (e.g., Kagan, 1992; Tauber, 1999; Vitto, 2003).

Notwithstanding the extensive interest, little attention has been directed toward EFL classroom management. Ofthe few relevant prior studies, Sakuis (2007) study is noteworthy because it addresses the differences that theintroduction of CLT made in EFL classroom management. She explains how the application of CLT caused a sub-stantial paradigm transformation in EFL classroom management. Specifically, the transformation is attributed tochanges in the spatial arrangements of the classrooms, changes in students and teachers expected roles, and theincreased cognitive complexity of activities expected to be performed by the students. Additionally, the study reportsEFL 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 lacksadequate description and explanation of how EFL teachers engage in classroom management in real time. To gaina more complete understanding of EFL teachers conduct of classroom management, it seems necessary to examineclosely 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 onteachers classroom management. Given that classroom management affects and is affected by student beliefs and theet al., 2009; Jones, 1996). Recently, classroommanagement has emerged as a very serious issue to be addressed in EastAsia (Sakui, 2007). In Korea, in particular, many teachers in Seoul, the capital, have found themselves increasinglyunable 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 againstteachers has seen an alarming increase (Kim, 2011). Concerning difficulties with classroom discipline, it appears thatteaching English places an extra burden on teachers because the government-advocated Communicative LanguageTeaching (CLT) approach (Butler, 2009) encourages students to move more freely in the classroom than traditionalform-focused approaches. This increase in students spatial movement could represent a grave threat to teachersstationed 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 CLTfrom being successfully implemented in Asia. According to Butler, interactive activities in large classes could causedisciplinary problems because some students fail to participate in the activities. Additionally, Butler noted that groupwork could lead students to overly engage in discussions which diverge from the relevant activity goals.

The impact of CLTon classroom EFL teaching has been strongest at the elementary school level (Butler, 2005), andthis can be attributed to secondary schools focus on the English subtest of the College Scholastic Ability Testdesigned mainly to measure the test takers reading skills (Jeon, 2004). For these reasons, elementary classrooms inKorea 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 relevantresultant behavior, investigations into the relevant student perspectives appear to be indispensable.

151D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163As Sakui herself claims, CLT encourages learners to more actively participate in classroom activities. Theincreased 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 effortson the teachers part for effective classroom management (Carless, 2002). Considering that EFL students possibleconfusion caused by the contradictory teacher behavior relating to classroom management could negatively affecttheir learning (Ormrod, 2003), examinations of student perceptions of classroom management could yield profitableimplications about how to most effectively implement it.

Regarding the aspects of classroom management, discipline seems to merit the most attention because it occupiesapproximately half of the time a teacher spends in the classroom (Cotton, 1990). Specifically, it has been asserted thatelementary teachers with large EFL classes have been particularly preoccupied with the issue of discipline (Daviesand Pearse, 2000). As for disciplinary means, the teachers have been encouraged or pressured to rely most heavily onlanguage use, for reasons including the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment (Robinson et al., 2005) and theauthorities decision against its use in some European countries (Regoli et al., 2009) and Korea. In the case ofelementary school EFL teaching, the use of English for disciplinary purposes could be viewed as additionallyjustifiable 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), othershave 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 becauseof 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 beenidentified as influencing secondary and higher education teachers beliefs that result in their use of L1 (Turnbull andLamoureux, 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 affectteachers beliefs and their language use for classroom discipline. Additionally, teachers TL teaching and learningexperiences 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 tostudent beliefs as well, since a mismatch between them would highlight the need to attend to how students perceivelearning and how this could be facilitated or debilitated by teacher behavior (Schulz, 1996) in the form of language usefor discipline.

As the discussions thus far indicate, elementary school EFL teachers language use while implementing classroomdiscipline should be examined in detail as it affects English learning at school. Clearly, elementary EFL classroomsshould be where learners are provided opportunities to build the fundamental knowledge of English needed for futurelearning 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 forlanguage learning could not be fully developed. Neufeld (1979, cited in Horwitz, 1995) contended that readiness forlanguage learning involves a learners openness toward language learning and enthusiasm toward participating inlanguage learning processes. Specifically, a learners eagerness to participate in language learning processes con-stitutes 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 intoelementary school EFL teachers language use for classroom discipline and to propose pedagogically beneficial di-rections 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 (seeTable 1). Their EFL teaching experiences were six and ten years. These female teachers differed in their EFL pro-ficiency and in their scores on the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC), a standardized testtaken 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

with Butlers (2011) suggestion concerning English language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region, the teachers understudy were found to engage very little in task-based language teaching. Consequently, disciplinary issues arising

152 D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163during 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 inneighborhoods regarded generally as neither very affluent nor very poor. As a means of recording the classroominteractions, the two participant teachers allowed only audio-recording and note-taking. The researcher requested thatthey do their best to minimize their attention to the presence of the audio recorder and him, to decrease any undesirableinfluence of the awareness of being audio-recorded and observed. In addition to non-participant observations, theresearcher conducted three semi-structured interviews with the teachers: prior to the first observation, and at the end ofteachers proficiency level was judged advanced also by the researcher, two peer reviewers, and two native Englishspeakers (NESs) who either/both impressionistically evaluated the two teachers during observations or/and analyzedthe transcribed data. The other teachers (teacher B) proficiency level was evaluated low by herself and by theresearcher, the peer reviewers, and the NESs. Second, the teachers scores on the TOEIC, administered on 27September, 2009 (teacher A) and on 20 December, 2009 (teacher B), corresponded to self-evaluated and others-evaluated proficiency levels. Teacher As score was 975 while that of teacher B was 350 (see Table 1 for theirscores compared to the highest, lowest, and mean scores on their respective testing dates) (Educational TestingService, 2011).

3.2. Data collection

Before undertaking this study at the beginning of March, 2010, the researcher contacted four Korean elementaryEFL teacher study groups and asked them to recommend candidates for the study. Originally, all the recommendedteachers refused to participate for various reasons, but mainly because of uncomfortableness. Through the researcherspersuasive argument that their participation would contribute to producing pedagogically valuable findings, two ofthem agreed to cooperate with the researcher. The teachers obtained the consent of their school principals and theparents of their students. The researcher informed the teachers only of the initial study purpose (to research in-teractions in elementary EFL classrooms). As a result of taking the procedures commonly used in grounded theorystudies (Strauss and Corbin, 1998), the researcher decided to narrow the initial research purpose to investigatingKorean EFL teachers classroom language use for disciplinary purposes.

The data collection fieldwork occurred on nine occasions, once biweekly between March and June 2010. Theresearcher made non-participant observations of two fifth-grade classrooms in two elementary schools. Consistent

Table 1

Participants in the present study.

Teacher Age EFL teaching

experience

Overall teaching

experience

EFL proficiency level TOEIC scores

Self-evaluated Others-evaluated Teachers

score

Highest

score

Lowest

score

Mean

score

A 31 6 years 8 years High High 975 990 10 613.75

B 42 10 years 18 years Low Low 350 990 0 615.77the fifth and ninth observations. The three interviews in Korean lasted approximately an hour and a half each. The goalof the pre-observation interview was to enable the researcher to gain some understanding of the teachers personalbackgrounds and build rapport between them and him. The questions for the inter-observation interview were pre-pared 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 beliefsystems, what had been observed and analyzed in their language use for classroom discipline. As for their students, theresearcher carried out semi-structured interviews in Korean which lasted approximately 15 min per student. Theinterviews with the students, conducted after the ninth observation, were also used to complement the researchersanalysis. The interviews with the teachers and the students were audio-recorded. The researcher practiced consid-erable caution to ensure that all the interviews were conducted in a non-manipulative way for stronger investigatory

validity. The audio-recorded classroom language use and interviews were transcribed verbatim, and when the tran-scriptions were in Korean, translated into English for reporting.

3.3. Data analysis

determine whether their ideas and beliefs about the patterns in language use for classroom discipline corresponded to

153D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163Minimum Maximum M SD

L1 5 8 6.56 1.13

TL 49 64 56.89 5.23his initial interpretations. Further, the interviews were examined to refine the researchers interpretations. Interest-ingly, it was revealed that the answers to some interview questions were considerably similar across students whilethose to some questions were practically identical. Consequently, it was decided that the representative answers wouldbe 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 Awas 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 TLproficiency. Carless (2004) similarly found that a Hong Kong elementary EFL teacher predominantly preferred TL toL1 because of her advanced TL proficiency.

Teacher As preference for TL was ascribed also to the socioeconomic characteristics of the geographic context inwhich her school was located. Teacher A taught at a school located in the affluent residential area in Seoul collectivelyknown as Gangnam, a southern part of the capital city. She stated that she had less difficulty with her students than shehad had while teaching at a school located in a neighborhood in the northern part of Seoul, collectively known asGangbuk and less affluent. The perceived difference relating to classroom discipline resulting from socioeconomicdifferences, according to her, caused her to experience less irritation during class and to rely more on TL than L1 assuggested in Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002). The excerpt below indicates how the teacher used language for dis-ciplinary purposes.

Table 2

Descriptive statistics for teacher As L1 use and TL use for disciplinary purposes.The analysis of the data from the transcribed audio-recordings, interviews, and field notes was performed asfollows. First, the researcher reviewed, analyzed, and compared the transcriptions of audio-recordings and field noteentries from the first four observations (Maykut and Morehouse, 1994). He found certain patterns in the teachersclassroom language use for disciplinary purposes. The high-proficiency teacher predominantly used TL while the low-proficiency teacher predominantly used L1. The patterns were continuously observed throughout the remainder of theobservation period. Second, the researcher ran a paired-samples t-test to investigate the significance of the differencesbetween L1 and TL use for each teacher. The amount of L1 or TL use for disciplinary purposes was operationalized asthe 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 forstudies examining the amount of L1used. According to Storch and Aldosari, high coding reliability could be expectedthrough word counts because of the easy identifiability of words. The rationale for the employment of a mixed-methods approach (Bryman, 2006; Greene, 2008) in this study, which requires the combined use of qualitative andquantitative approaches, was that it can lead to an improved understanding of research problems over the exclusive useof either approach (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). Third, the researcher tentatively identified important charac-teristics of the patterns in classroom language use for discipline, based on the qualitatively analyzed data. Thecharacteristics were then reviewed by the two peer reviewers (each with masters degrees in TEFL) who also evaluatedthe participant teachers proficiency. Fourth, the researcher analyzed the interviews with the teachers and students to

divide

teachThe pfindin

154 D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163elementary students in Kang (2008) and US university students in Duff and Polio (1990) were predominantly inagreement with their teachers in terms of teacher use of TL for certain purposes. The proficiency dependent differenceers TL use for disciplinary purposes also increased their respect of her proficiency and their obedience to her.artial gap between teacher motive and student perspective seems to represent an incongruity regarding thegs of two prior studies which did not address teachers TL use specifically for classroom discipline. Koreanhigh-level students found it helpful in enhancing their TL knowledge. The high-level students observed that the

d along proficiency levels. While low-level students found such language use to influence their behavior little,Concerning the teachers perceived benefit of her TL use for classroom discipline, her students were interestinglyinput as possible. Also, my EFL teacher educators have stressed that we teachers should use as much Englishas possible because we are their main sources of TL input. I have absolutely agreed with them. Certainly, myTL use for disciplinary purposes helps my students increase their proficiency substantially.make disciplinary efforts to create and maintain a studious atmosphere. The reason I use more TL is that myexperience as a learner and a teacher of English has taught me the importance of giving students as much TLWhile my current students are less unruly than those I had in Gangbuk, they are nonetheless children. I shouldT: Lets get back to the lesson.

The two students toward whom teacher A directs disciplinary TL input in (1) stated in interviews that they weredemotivated to be attentive to the teacher. They attributed their disruptive behavior to the pace of the lesson that theyhad found slow enough to cause boredom. The teacher observed that limited classroom time allowed her little room topay attention to either quick or slow CLT learners (Butler, 2011) despite her willingness to do so. She stressed that shehad 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 byallowing students to become overly excited and to behave disruptively. The consequent contradictory need for theimplementation 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. Thefinding above seems to illustrate, although inadequately, how learner motivation is addressed pedagogically ina specific classroom setting. It is expected that further studies will produce insightful results fundamentally predicatedon 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 herstudents docility as well as the official policy against corporal punishment. This preferred use of TLwas found to arisealso from the belief emanating from her TL teaching and learning experiences that such use would benefit students byexposing them to more TL in input-poor EFL contexts (Duff and Polio, 1990). Her belief was further affected by pre-service 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:you two! Dont you know how important it is to listen to me? If you get caught chattering once again, you willhave to write the sentences in Lesson 5 ten times! The rule applies to anyone who gets caught from now on. Isthat clear enough?

Ss: (falling silent)(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, soyou 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

(3) A

155D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163the students, in particular, causes me to give them relevant English input sometimes beyond their compre-hension. By doing so, I expect them to realize that I am their English teacher whose proficiency is much higherthan theirs and whose authority should not be challenged.

In (4), teacher A explains how a contextual factor activates another contextual factor consecutively in promptingher to use TL for classroom discipline. The linear sequential relationships among contextual factors, presented inFig. 1 with other components of teacher beliefs, have heretofore been little addressed. To adequately understand how

teacheI become angry when rich parents come to school and tell me to use only English. I come away, justifiably ornot, disliking my students. For these two reasons, i.e., the parents demand and my resultant dislike of thestudents, 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 mydislike of the students can be cited as motives for increased English use for disciplinary purposes. As youknow, though, determinants of human belief and behavior can come from opposing directions. My dislike ofasked her to use only English.

As is evident in (3), the low-level student perceived teacher As TL input for classroom discipline as difficult tocomprehend. Similarly, Kim (2002) asserted that Korean EFL teachers viewed students low proficiency as hinderingthe implementation of TETE. What could be underlined in (3) is that student incomprehension resulted in a reduceddisciplinary effect. The dual motives for the teachers TL use, i.e., implementing classroom discipline and improvingstudent proficiency, were fulfilled inadequately. This failure seems to show that EFL teachers should seriouslyconsider taking different approaches to classroom language use for disciplinary purposes depending on studentproficiency. Most of the students, whether high-level or low-level, reported that they were aware that their behaviorwas prone to irritate the teacher. In this respect, the teachers appropriate choice of language, i.e., L1 or TL, couldinfluence such awareness of the students and have a greater disciplinary effect. Specifically, the teachers could reflecton the advantages of judicious use of the mother tongue (Atkinson, 1987, p. 242) for classroom discipline in the caseof low-level students. While it could require them to make extra efforts, they should not overlook an opportunity tohelp 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. Theintensity of parental intervention in the Gangnam area was much more noticeable to the teacher than in the Gangbukarea because of the socioeconomic difference between the two areas. The teacher confirmed that some rich parentscalled or visited her many times to urge her to use exclusively TL. The teachers principal also ordered her to employonly TL, partly determined by the parental demand. Noteworthy here is that the parental intervention was found torelate to the affective distance between the teacher and students as well as teacher-student power relations. The re-lationships 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 ina complex way. The teacher reported as follows.

(4) Teacher As Report:low-level students report:

Frankly, I cant clearly understand what my teacher is saying in English when shes angry. To me, most of herEnglish words are just like words space aliens use. When she uses Korean and tells me to, say, stop talking tomy friends, I sense that I might be in trouble if I dont obey her; but not so when she uses English. I cant dowhat she tells me to because I cant understand her well. And the English words sound less scary because theyare hard to understand. They dont stir as much fear as Korean words would. Kids good at English seem to likeit when the teacher is angry and uses English. One of them even told me his mother often came to school andin students views of teacher As TL use for disciplinary purposes merits substantial attention. Given that the teachersTL use was intended to improve her students proficiency, it appears necessary to examine the reasons behind the low-level students insensitivity to her disciplinary input given in TL. Below is what a low-level student commented.r beliefs influence a teachers practice of using language for disciplinary purposes, more attention should be

156 D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163Contextual factors

TL learning

experience

Students

socioeconomic

backgrounds

TL teacher

training

Teacher

proficiency

Teacher

beliefs

Teachers

language use

TL teaching

experiencedirected toward contextual factors (Borg, 2003) from various perspectives. Particularly, the issue of teacher-studentpower 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 lesslearner-centeredness because of the reasons in (4). Although she did not support the view that teachers are pre-dominantly invested with the right to control how learning will occur as in what Nunan (1998) designated as high-structure teaching (p. 75), she considered it necessary for them to function as an authority figure in elementary schoolEFL 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 Asswitch to more TL use seems to constitute her effort to reclaim her position as the authority figure, irrespective of itsactual 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 TLproficiency.

PP

FIGURE 2

Figure 2 Determinant comp

Parental

intervention

Affective distance

between teacher

and students

Teacher-student

power relations

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

studen

Table 3

Descrip

157D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163noisily repeatedly. The teacher emphasized that she adhered to the importance of classroom discipline for promotinglearning. According to the teacher, she responded to such disruptive behavior by giving disciplinary orders imme-diately following its occurrence. Concerning language use for disciplinary purposes, teacher B stated that she wassensitized 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 heranxiety and TL teaching experience (see Fig. 2). In particular, teacher anxiety and language use for disciplinarypurposes seem to warrant attention. Horwitz (1996) claimed that teachers whose confidence in TL abilities is low tendto avoid approaches that require them to provide an increased amount of input. Teacher B was not enthusiastic aboutCLT and regarded her low TL proficiency as inducing anxiety. She admitted that her anxiety prompted her to dependmore on L1 for classroom discipline. The teacher reported as follows.(6) Tts reported that their lack of comprehension of the content that the teacher taught resulted in their chattering

The students who caused the teacher to use L1 for disciplinary purposes in (5) were mostly low-level students. TheSs: (falling silent)T: (much irritated) ?.! (Oneul wae ireojyo? Dojeohimot chamgetne. Jebal joyonghi haseyo! e Whats the matter today? Ive had enough. Please be quiet!)Ss: Yes, maam. (making noises anew)T: We learn important expressions about your everyday schedule.Ss: (falling silent)T: ! . !(Aah! Neomu sikkeureobne. Joyonghi haseyo e Ah! Youre so noisy.Please be quiet!)Ss: (making noises talking to each other)In addition to her low TL proficiency, teacher B stated that the considerable unruliness of her students prompted herto prefer L1. This was consistent with Mitchells (1988) finding that Scottish foreign language teachers used L1English when confronted with the need for serious disciplinary intervention. Since teacher B had taught in theGangbuk area and never been transferred to the more affluent Gangnam area, she did not compare students in the twoareas and instead described her students as usually substantially uncontrollable. The following is how the teacherengaged in disciplinary interventions using L1.

(5) Classroom interactions featuring teacher Bs L1 use for disciplinary purposes

T: Uhm, we learn important expressions today.

L1 82 98 89.00 5.24

TL 10 17 13.44 2.51tive statistics for teacher Bs L1 use and TL use for disciplinary purposes.

Minimum Maximum M SDeacher Bs Report:

I fully understand that my English proficiency is low. This awareness definitely causes anxiety during classes. Icannot pretend to be a fluent English speaker. The prefabricated expressions I memorize from the ClassroomEnglish Sourcebook can take me only so far. In particular, when you get angry with your students

Asanxieroborthemimproprofic

Coobedilow ppurpoAs fostudebehavzationstudeof her

158 D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163Contextual factors

StudentsTL teaching

experienceTL learning

experience

TL teacher

training

Teacher

proficiency

Teacher beliefsTeachers

language use

Teacher

anxietymisbehavior, your low proficiency cant help you produce appropriate English sentences. I want to warn themin fluent English, but I cant; so, out of anxiety, I use Korean rather than English in many cases. I wish mysecondary and tertiary school teachers had helped me develop better English abilities. And neither has teachertraining been helpful. They could have been structured to better improve my English proficiency.

is clear from (6), teacher B deemed her TL learning experience and teacher training as responsible for herty. In relation to teacher training, Kagans (1992) argument against its effect on teachers beliefs was not cor-ated in this study. Given that East Asian elementary school EFL teachers are given inadequate training to enableto confidently help students acquire communicative skills (Butler, 2004), this finding reinforces the need tove the quantity and quality of pre-/in-service teacher training in a way that enhances teachers fluency andiency (Park, 2006).ncerning teacher-student power relations, teacher Bs anxiety sensitized her to the likelihood of student dis-ence. She reported that when she perceived any occurrence of student defiance, she became suspicious that herroficiency was its cause. To establish and consolidate her authority, she relied on the use of L1 for disciplinaryses (Chambers, 1991). She viewed classroom order maintenance as fundamental for facilitating EFL learning.r teacher Bs L1 use, her students showed differing perceptions depending on proficiency levels. While high-levelnts cooperated with the teachers disciplinary calls, low-level students did not considerably modify theirior. Additionally, while the high-level students were in agreement with the teachers emphasis on the prioriti-of order maintenance, the low-level students seemed to be disinterested in it. As in the case of teacher As

nts, the high-level students in teacher Bs class appeared to form a rapport with their teacher concerning the effectlanguage use for discipline. The following are a high-level and a low-level students report.

The total number of words:

..

socioeconomic

backgrounds

Teacher-student

power relations

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

syncrteachibecauGradeimporroom

Co

by prresulttriggewould

159D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163have discussed the benefits that autonomy-supporting teachers could deliver, including the improvement of studentsacademic intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1981). Teacher Bs accommodation of the two functions that her L1 use forkowski, 1982; cited in Barquist Hogelucht and Geist, 1997). Rather than activating classroom communicationoviding the low-level students with remedial teaching, teacher B focused on giving disciplinary orders. Theant student reluctance to participate in classroom activities indicates that she should critically reflect on how tor active classroom communication when using L1 for disciplinary purposes. In relation to such L1 use, teacher Bdo her students considerable service by providing L1 input that could support their autonomy.Many researchersinsensitive 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(Wlodatic L1 use, however, citing its possible beneficial influence on prompting students to concentrate harder on herng. According to her, students were required to pay greater attention to her than to the teachers of other subjectsse EFL teaching in Korea begins only at Grade 3 (Butler, 2007) unlike that of other subjects which begins at1. She maintained that her characteristic L1 use resulted from her belief that a classroom represents a verytant context for EFL learning in Korea where students are inadequately exposed to English outside the class-(Deckert, 2004).ncerning teacher Bs emphasis on the role a classroom plays, it seems somewhat contradictory that she was(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 scoldsus, usually in Korean. I understand why shes angry. You see, were noisy. We should pay attention to her. Andwhen my teacher uses English scolding us, I dont as quickly stop talking to my friends as when she usesKorean. 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 aroundduring class. And when my English teacher scolds me in Korean, I dont sit still and quiet. You see, what sheteaches is hard to understand and boring. Also, what she says during her scolding is much harsher than whatother teachers say in math or science classes. Her harsh words turn me off, and I dont actively participate inthe activities. Funny, she doesnt try to help us poor achievers learn English better. My friends and I would talkand 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 forEFL classrooms: how to approach the issue of enabling students to learn EFL better. The conflict between the studentin (8) and teacher B on the methodology of facilitating students EFL learning reflects a need to take a balanced viewof the relevant issue. Further, when one considers that learner-centeredness is a prerequisite for CLT (Holec, 1980), thestudents need, explicitly expressed in (8), should be addressed with a degree of attention equal to teacher Bs per-spective. The teacher strongly supported the idea that the goal of initiating and maintaining classroom discipline wasto facilitate students learning (Jones, 1979). According to her, the initiation and maintenance of classroom disciplineshould precede efforts to fulfill the student need in (8). The sharp contrast between the student and teacher B in termsof the sequence of classroom discipline and fulfillment of student need underscores the importance of examining bothstudent 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 disciplinarypurposes as greater than that of the L1 used by teachers of other subjects. Borg (2006) reported that one of theperceived distinguishing characteristics of the EFL class is that teacher-student communication occurs more often inthe class than in those of other subjects. What prevents Borgs account from being applied to the narrated phenomenonin (8) is that communication mostly occurred not between teacher B and the low-level students but among the low-level students. The teachers of other subjects mentioned in (8) confirmed that they used less harsh L1 expressions thanteacher B when shown, with her permission, some of her transcribed L1 use. Teacher B acknowledged what the otherteachers commented, based on what she had learned during her conversations with them. She defended her idio-

160 D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163disciplinary purposes could be modified to perform (i.e., triggering active classroom communication and supportingstudent autonomy) would contribute to the facilitation of student learning, which represents a major component ofstudent-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 elementaryschool EFL teachers language use for disciplinary purposes. The teachers, consisting of high-proficiency teacher Aand low-proficiency teacher B, were found to use predominantly either TL or L1 for reasons and motives influenced incomplex ways by various components of their teacher beliefs.

First, teacher As statistically significant preference for TL resulted from her high TL proficiency and from herperceived lack of need for discipline at her current school relative to her former school located in a less affluentgeographic area. Moreover, the teachers TL teaching/learning experiences and teacher training caused her tostrongly appreciate the importance of a teachers utmost TL use in the EFL context and favor TL use for classroomdiscipline. The teachers perspectives for TL use only partially corresponded to those of her students. Unlike thehigh-level students in agreement with the teacher, the low-level students complained about the incomprehensibilityof her disciplinary TL input and questioned the disciplinary impact of such input on them. Interestingly, parentalintervention for maximum TL use caused widened affective distance between her and the students, and a shift inteacher-student power relations. In particular, the teacher became less supportive of the learner-centerednessparadigm and viewed her TL use for discipline as contributing to her establishment as the authority figure inher 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 theperceived prevalence of student unruliness. The teachers preference for L1 was also caused by her TL teachingexperience and anxiety stemming from her low TL proficiency. Her anxiety, for which she cited her TL learningexperience and teacher training as responsible, prompted her to regard L1 use for discipline as advancing her authorityin terms of teacher-student power relations. Teacher Bs students differed in their approval of her prioritization ofdiscipline 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. Whatthe low-level students desired instead was teacher Bs efforts to give them remedial teaching. Additionally, the low-level students considered the disciplinary L1 used by teacher B to be harsher than that used by teachers of othersubjects, while the teacher attributed such harsher L1 use to its perceived effect on pressuring students to concentratemore on the learning of English as distinct from other subjects. Despite the teachers intentions, however, the low-levelstudents lost interest in participating in classroom activities, being further alienated from an opportunity to learnEnglish.

The main results of this study could cursorily seem predictable: use of more TL by a high-proficiency teacherinstructing students at higher socioeconomic levels and use of more L1 by a low-proficiency teacher instructingstudents at lower socioeconomic levels. The seeming obviousness, however, was found to involve a complicatedinteraction of variables, as discussed earlier. The contextually situated individual teachers under study each illustratefor us their distinct and complex lived experiences.

In terms of implications, this study has two suggestions. First, EFL teacher training should enable teachers to makea balanced evaluation of L1 use for classroom management, including discipline. Cook (2001) argued that languageteachers have an ambivalence toward their L1 use. They find it useful, yet experience guilt influenced by the prevalentattitude against it. It seems that the issue should be addressed in a way that reflects the realities in large-size, mixed-ability EFL classes. Considering that teacher training should equip teachers with knowledge that is both theory- andpractice-based (Korthagan and Kessels, 1999), teachers actual behavior relating to language use for discipline shouldbe seriously considered in preparing courses for EFL teachers. Such an effort would lead EFL teachers to enhancetheir understanding of the pedagogical interactions in which van Lier claimed they need training (personal com-munication, October 20, 2011). Second, as for the first suggestion, the TETE policy should be modified in a way thatallows appropriate English use. In Korea, the authorities have adopted the policy and asked teachers to use onlyEnglish in classrooms (Kang, 2008). The demand for the exclusion of L1 appears to lack practicality based on ef-

ficiency. In particular, for the functions of initiating and maintaining classroom discipline, Cook (2001) claimed that

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.

161D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163Deckert, 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.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 licensingteachers 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 numberof participants. Concerning this limitation, a suggestion can be made for future research: the conduct of large-scalesurveys to examine how elementary EFL teachers use language for classroom discipline and whether their practicereflects their beliefs. Not only would such surveys provide comprehensive diagnoses of EFL teachers language usefor 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.Farrell, T.S.C., 2002. Classroom Discourse: An Introduction. Prentice Hall, Singapore.

162 D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163Gao, 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-efl-

journal.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, Cam-

bridge, pp. 173e190.

Ritter, J.T., Hancock, D.R., 2007. Exploring the relationship between certification sources, experience levels, and classroom management ori-

entations 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 ineffec-

tiveness 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 forDevelopingGrounded Theory. Sage, ThousandOaks, CA.

Tauber, R.T., 1999. Classroom Management: Sound Theory and Effective Practice. Bergin & Garvey, London.

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.

163D.-M. Kang / System 41 (2013) 149e163

EFL teachers' language use for classroom discipline: A look at complex interplay of variables1. Introduction2. Literature review3. Methodology3.1. Participants3.2. Data collection3.3. Data analysis

4. Results and discussion4.1. Teacher A's language use for classroom discipline4.2. Teacher B's language use for classroom discipline

5. ConclusionReferences