Abstract

This paper traces the impact of the Grammar Translation Method and the Direct Method on adult language learners in Pakistan. It points out the major emotional and psychological factors related to the medium of instruction in the class. It explores whether L1 use in the class negatively or positively impacts adult English language learners. Since it is a descriptive/quantitative study, a survey has been administered to the teachers and students. With the help of statistical data analysis, this research explores the impact of DM/GTM. The study highlights the current situation and gives food for thought to language learners, teachers, administrators, and policymakers to improve English language teaching/learning in Pakistani colleges and universities. The article opens the doors for future research on diverse aspects of the issue.

Key Words

GTM/DM, Adult Language Learners, Descriptive/Qualitative Study, Emotional/Psychological Factors

Introduction

There are four main factors related to English language teaching/learning, viz., anxiety, motivation, environment, and personality (McCain, 2000), impacting the pace and progress. In many ways, these factors are considered responsible for the lack of learning in adult language learners in the Pakistani English language learning/teaching context.

Firstly, the learners experience high anxiety due to their inability to understand others in the language class and communicate in English with the English-speaking teachers. They fear opening themselves to ridicule or censure. Such discomfort induces a dire need for self-defence, and they retreat into self-created isolated cognitive isolation. They, as a result, lose the much-needed condition of calm and dignified composure that is a prerequisite for effective learning. They go into a completely silent mode and start thinking of the ways and means whereby they could avoid the language teachers’ teaching moves and tasks. Such intentional or unintentional inhibition proves to be an obstacle in language learning. 

Secondly, many new adult language learners find the environment/faces in the classroom challenging when they start the course. They feel highly vulnerable when building up new relationships with English-speaking teachers. Due to their self-consciousness, adult learners face immense psychological pressure. To add fuel to the fire, pronounced unprofessionally, the expectation expressed by the teacher in language skill development in the initial classes can put them under immense stress. Class fellows with good socio-economic backgrounds and confident performance in the initial lectures cause further damage to their morale. Any effort to cope with such situations and failure to establish a relationship with the class can significantly affect their self-esteem. If any unprofessional or poorly trained teacher mismanages all this, it may end in a complete psychological disaster for such learners. Sadly, in Pakistan, teachers are indifferent and not qualified to play a positive role. They fail as motivators and facilitators in such situations. Teachers are responsible for making informed efforts to build a positive classroom learning atmosphere. Some in-service training is desirable to make the teachers more professional and, in turn, they could help learners build a good self-image. Puchta (2000) rightly points out that self-belief significantly influences learning outcomes. A learner with psychological support and supportive beliefs definitely has a better chance of success. Thus, the learner’s self-confidence, good self-image and faith in his capabilities are vital for a successful foreign/second language learning process. 

Thirdly, the learner and learning intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is equally important. If the adult learners' motivational level drops for one reason or another, they become completely disinterested in the assigned tasks and activities. They may drop the course altogether; if not, they feel it hard to set a concrete and well-directed learning goal. “The slightest hindrances can lead learners to become demotivated and eventually give up on academia altogether” (Sameen, Farid, & Hussain 2021, p-109). The relationship between the teacher and the learner based on mutual understanding and interaction help curb demotivation. The teacher, thus, is an important source of external motivation. Nevertheless, the role of the learner is equally important. The learner needs to take a step ahead, build a relationship with the teacher and express himself/herself and his/her learning needs; only then can the teacher perform the role of the motivator. However, learners' lack of trust in the teacher leads to further demotivation. The situation can be even worse if teachers and learners, due to some reason, develop a conflict. The conflict may arise due to failure on the part of the teacher in establishing a good relationship, usually resulting from an unprofessional attitude or lack of professional skills. 

To resolve such conflicts and establish a better relationship with the learners, the teachers must come in full action with self-motivation and self-assurance to raise the morale of adult language learners. Teachers' lack of professional competence and skills may turn the pleasurable, interesting experience of learning the world's lingua franca into dull drudgery. There are two conflicting opinions among teachers in this regard: some believe the use of L1 may help resolve these conflicts and help develop teacher-learners relationship for optimum learning situation; however, others opine that the use of L1 makes the students relaxed and affect their need to use English, and is detrimental to their English language development, and thus must be avoided. 

The present study focuses on L1 use in English language classrooms and its role in second language learning, taking into account the perspectives of both teachers and learners. Teachers’ role is explored in terms of how much they focus on the target language exposure to their learners, how they ensure the quality of the language input they provide, and how well they understand their learners’ psyches and motivate them through different strategies. The study mainly investigates whether L1 use helps the teachers achieve these targets or whether the English-only approach serves their purpose better. Thus, the impact of both GTM and DM on language learners is analyzed from a psycholinguistics perspective. The research explores how the DM teachers handle learners' distrust that results from their efforts to make learning an unconscious process. This research aims to bring awareness to all stakeholders in English language learning/teaching about the psychological dimensions of the process and many unseen factors known as affective filters, which make the language inputs incomprehensible by breaking the learners’ attention spans. 




Research Question

i) What is the role of the medium of instruction (use/mixing of Urdu while teaching English or use of English-only approach) in adult learners’ English language learning?

Literature Review

Learning a language is different from language acquisition. Krashen (1981) favoured acquisition in adult learners since acquisition involves understanding and communication, whereas learning is concerned with the conscious monitoring of language use (i.e. Meta Cognition). Krashen considers acquisition more critical than learning and emphasizes using communicative activities rather than vocabulary or grammar exercises in a language class. ‘Acquisition’, according to him, naturally occurs in communicative situations in the ‘real world’. The knowledge that is acquired is always readily available for communication. However, ‘learning’ results from formal training (such as in the classroom) and cannot be used to communicate meaning. It, rather, monitors the grammaticality of the ‘acquired’ language knowledge. Therefore, language learners must focus on building their acquired knowledge of the language through processing language at a level slightly beyond their ability, i.e. ‘current competence + 1’ (i +1) (Krashen, 1981), also known as instructional scaffolding. Krashen (1983) introduced Natural Approach, a remarkable addition to the existing LAD (Language Acquisition Device) and LAS (Language Acquisition System) theories, that affective filters or emotional barriers must be lowered to facilitate speedy learning.

Krashen believed that learned language cannot be termed as or turned into an acquired one. In other words, teaching grammar rules is useless since this will not help learners become better language users in authentic situations. This implies that the knowledge gained through GTM can only help learners perform better on tests of that knowledge only. Thus, all the approaches, methods and techniques must be reevaluated in the light of Krashen’s key concepts, especially from a Pakistani perspective.

The Grammar-Translation Method (GTM), based on traditional approaches to teaching Latin and Greek in the 19th century, aims to develop learners’ ability to read and comprehend scholarly literary texts with little or no focus on functional aspects of language learning. Its major characteristics are as follows: 

? A sound comprehension of the written text in the target language.

? A special emphasis on the grammar of the target language.

? Deductive grammar teaching: explicit teaching of grammar rules and their practice.

? Vocabulary teaching/learning through the use of bilingual word lists.

? Exhaustive use of translation exercises.

? Use of mother tongue as medium of instruction.

? Almost no attention to speaking and listening skills.

There has been great resistance toward GTM due to many reasons. First, it does not stress language used to serve any practical/functional goal. Second, it aims to develop learners’ cognitive abilities and the faculty of logical thought to provide valuable mental discipline (Richard, 1986). Thus, it seems to fail to address language learners' communicative needs in the modern world. Moreover, the learners with low IQ cannot perform well on tests in this method since attention is given to learning rules, and learners are assessed accordingly. Hence, learners’ motivation is severely affected, which results in frustration and boredom (Freeman, 1986). Despite these objections, the GTM has been the most established method, particularly in Pakistan. However, many new methods have recently evolved in opposition to this method.

 In the mid-19th century, the first wave of resistance to GTM led educationists to shift away to look for some teaching method that could help develop speaking abilities in the target language. They reconsidered the nature of language and language learning and found the way the children learn the language relevant to how adults should be made to learn languages. 

Moreover, developments in other fields like psychology, philosophy, and science have also affected language teaching at different times. For instance, behaviourism has had a great impact on language teaching. Various psychologists (Ivan Pavlov, John Watson, and BF Skinner) in the early to mid-1900s experimented on animals in an attempt to understand how those learnt and generalized the results to understand humans’ way of learning (Ausubel, 1977). They concluded that a series of rewards or punishments helped form animal behaviour. Skinner promoted the idea that human learning could be explained using the same model. When parents or other caretakers hear a child say something that sounds like a word in their language, they reward the child with praise and attention that motivates the child to repeat words and phrases, and thus he learns the language. 

Educationists supporting behaviourism believe that a contrastive analysis of languages may help make learning a new language easier: the points of similarities in languages may be the starting points in teaching/learning a new language. They would be easy for learners, and the points in which the languages differ strikingly can give a hint to the teacher to focus more on those areas. These theories led to the rise of the Audio-Lingual Method. The method focuses on the formation of good language habits through the use of drills. Learners respond to a given stimulus, the correct response is rewarded, leading to its repetition, and so the habit is formed; however, if the response is not favourable, it is corrected and amended. Moreover, after World War II, an increase in international travel, business, and cultural exchanges led to a striking realization of the need for an effective language teaching method that could guarantee successful speaking in the target language. New developments were made in language teaching and learning, including using the latest technology like tape recorders, radios, TV, and computers in language teaching and introducing new educational patterns, e.g., bilingual education, individualized instruction, immersion programs and methodological innovations like Audio Lingual Method.

The Audio-Lingual Method is given many names owing to its various principles. It is known as the Aural-Oral Method because of its emphasis on speaking and listening skills; the Reform Method since it brought reforms to the old methods; the Natural Method as it stresses the natural sequence of language skills development; the Phonetic Method due to its focus on spoken words and ear training, and Anti-Grammatical Method because it opposed the old notion of the importance of grammar in language learning. The principles underlying the Audio-Lingual Method differ from the Grammar Translation Method and can be summed up as follows:

? The natural sequence of language skills development: Listening-speaking-reading-writing

? No mother tongue use at all in the classroom.

? Practice, practice, and practice— use of drills: language learning is a habit-formation process. Learners practice language patterns through structured dialogues and drills to rehearse the language to make responses automatic (Richard, 1986).

The Audio-lingual Method gave way to the Direct Method. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Henry Sweet of England, Wilhelm Vietor of Germany, and Paul Passy of France believed that language teaching should initiate from the scientific knowledge of language: teaching must be carried out in a systematic manner, beginning with speaking and then extending it to the other skills; language input (vocabulary and syntax) must be presented in context along with inductive grammar teaching, and the translation must be avoided. These ideas became the basic principles of the Direct Method (DM), the first of the ‘natural methods’. The method is quite successful in smaller language institutes but not so practical in larger classes or public schools (Richards, 1986). Its main principles are:

? Use of target language only in class.

? Learners’ involvement in using the language in life-like situations.

? Motivating learners to think in the target language.

? Following the natural sequence of skills development: listening- speaking- reading- writing.

To get the desired results through this method, the teachers must have competence in language, stamina, energy, ability and time to create their materials and courses (Richard, 1986).  

Many teachers use both the Grammar Translation Method and the Direct Method depending on the requirement since both methods have their strengths and weaknesses. The Grammar Translation Method may kill the learners’ enthusiasm for language learning; it fails in giving learners a strong grip on the grammar of the target language since there is less or no focus on speaking skills development, and learners do not get a chance to use it in speaking. Therefore, learners cannot acquire the language competence required by their education and professional life. Similarly, the Direct Method also has some weaknesses: learners practice using language in life-like situations, but the method cannot provide all kinds of active speaking contexts learners may need to think in the target language. Without any prior training given to the learners for gradually moving from the mother tongue to the target language, they are supposed to be in the living fluid of the target language. Therefore, many teachers tend to use a combination of both methods depending upon the language training stages the learners are in.

A teacher, thus, follows an eclectic approach and falls between two stools. If the teacher is not vigilant and mindful about the stage of learning while choosing the teaching techniques, the learners may find teaching/learning difficult and unpleasant, and their affective filter can go high. 

In short, the earlier research proves that learners’ L1 can help speed up language learning in a natural way. It is, however, pertinent to point out that L1 use must be selective, planned, and based on learners’ needs. Teachers must be vigilant and observant about their learners’ learning speed. The moment they realize that the input is not comprehensible or interesting, the use of shared L1 may be judiciously used. However, the input quantity must be maintained along with the quality by giving maximum TARGET LANGUAGE input and simultaneously making it meaningful and comprehensible. The teacher needs to be aware of the learners’ psychological selves. If he realizes that the input is not being received properly on the part of the learners, he/she may allow the learners to use it with the sole objective of bringing the affective filter down.

Teaching English has been in vogue worldwide, and Pakistan is no exception. English is being introduced as a compulsory subject from Class 1 in Pakistan. It has been realized by all that learning English is essential for all, and its learning must be made mandatory for personal, professional, and national advancement. However, our teaching practices are still based on old-founded methods and, thus, are unable to produce the required results. The mainstream educational institutes present the picture where the teacher continuously lectures without involving learners in the learning process, making otherwise a pleasant experience dull and boring practice for all involved. 

Second language acquisition researchers have explored many non-traditional approaches, which have led to the development of teaching methods that facilitate language learning better. These methodologies’ main focus is to reduce learners’ anxiety level/affective filter through active, communicative interaction, language acquisition and the creation of a conducive learning classroom environment. These new methodologies have successfully developed foreign language learners’ language proficiency better than traditional methodologies like GTM (Omaggio, 1993). In these new methodologies, language is acquired through comprehensible input instead of conscious learning of rules (Krashen, 1983). Moreover, the focus is more on the target language, and L1 use is almost non-existent.

The Natural Approach that later evolved into the Direct Method (Stern, 1992; Modica, 1994; Harbord, 1992) strictly opposed using L1 in the classroom since L1 use is regarded as ineffective for enhancing learners’ communicative competence and performance. Another reason for the rejection of L1 use is the suspected reliability of translation in the ESL learning process. L1 interference with the target language always plagues any learner who has ever learned one language before another (Weschler (1997). In other words, mental translation is virtually unavoidable. Weschler questions the idea that one may give up thinking in one's language for thinking in another and argues against the fossilization of an interlanguage that arises from too much reliance on the first language. 

Weschler explains that foreign language is acquired through constant, trial-and-error negotiation of meaning and an interlanguage is unavoidable. Teachers' consistent and accurate instructions and explanations, plus the learners' analytic and self-corrective powers, can help prevent fossilization. Adult language learners are certainly different from children learning their first language since they need to express their abstract ideas efficiently and, thus, are more interested in learning relevant vocabulary and structures. They like to take shortcuts through their first language learning experience (Pinker, 1994). Weschler agrees with Willis (1990) that “mature learners of a foreign language already have these abstract concepts as part of their knowledge of their first language…they will want to understand and create similar concepts in the target language. We should provide them with experience of the kind of language they need to do this” (cited in Weschler, 1997, p. 3).

Although there have been arguments against L1 use and the translation approach, there are comments in its favour too. This paves the way for great debate on whether Urdu should be used while teaching English and if the use of Urdu can bring positive psychological impacts on learners’ affective filter.  

Littlewood (1981) argues that L1 use if intended for social interaction and classroom management, could contribute to well-motivated communicative opportunities (pp. 44-45). Widdowson (1979) points out that translation of a kind in some circumstances can be a useful pedagogic device; however, learners must be able to understand what they are supposed to learn- input. 

Some researchers, in this regard, consider some detrimental effects of THE TARGET LANGUAGE-ONLY approach. Using the target language only approach may lead to misunderstanding and lack of comprehension (Modica, 1994; Stern, 1992; Weschler, 1997). Therefore, Atkinson (1993) emphasizes the target language use supplemented by occasional L1. Harbord (1992), though he favours the Direct Method, considers L1 use a time-saving strategy facilitating second/foreign language acquisition. In Prabhu’s Bangalore project for the experimentation of a procedural syllabus, L1 was “neither disallowed nor excluded” (Prabhu, 1987, p. 60), which meant that the instructors occasionally used L1 for explaining complicated procedural descriptions and instructions.

Researchers seem to be divided into their opinions and perceptions regarding the medium of instruction in English language classes. Polio (1994) admits that “limited, but timely, exposure to an L1 item with appropriate target language support is warranted by recent research on fostering language awareness and selective attention to grammatical form(s) among instructed learners …helping learners to notice specific gaps in their target language knowledge and then proving them with the needed structures are fundamental aspects of the target language learning and teaching” (p. 325). At the same time, he is critical of the use of L1 and considers as a shortsighted strategy as it is a barrier to providing learners with exposure to the target language. Auerbach (1993) disapproves of the “English–only” approach as it rests on unexamined assumptions. She explains that the research shows the value of L1 and/or bilingual options as effective and necessary for adult ESL learners with limited L1 literacy or schooling. Takahashi (1996) also conducted a survey on the use of L1 in the TESOL classroom in Nagoya College in Japan and found it difficult to have exclusive English in the classroom where the teacher and the learners were all Japanese. He proposed “much more pure English use by teachers in the classrooms except when explaining English grammar in a monolingual setting”. The middle way, perhaps, is that the occasional and selective use of L1 may help make the input more comprehensible.

In short, globalization has led to an immense increase in English language learners worldwide. So much so that even the countries like Great Britain, the USA and other English-speaking countries have witnessed a huge increase in the number of non-native speakers of English in the classrooms. The ELT researchers are intrigued by the debate on how best to teach such a diverse type of learners and make the language input comprehensible for them. The same is the case in the countries like Pakistan, where English is official and, in many cases, 2nd language. The researchers mostly focus on the two opposing approaches to address this issue with no acceptable solution as yet, viz., maximize the learner’s exposure to English and/or provide instruction in the mother tongue and the target language—English. 

Methodology

The present research is qualitative and analytical. However, to avoid subjectivity and bias, the data obtained on the survey has been quantified. Analyzing the quantified data has helped find themes underlying the participants' opinions to generalize the results to the whole population.

The target population of the present study— English language teachers and adult language learners, is broad because English language learning/teaching is carried out throughout the country. The researchers targeted the population to the people and places in Rawalpindi/Islamabad, thus delimiting the study. There were compelling reasons for this research decision and choice by researchers as to why the target population should be from Rawalpindi/Islamabad: 

? There was enough number and variety of educational institutes available to conduct the research.

? Educational institutes engaged in teaching English to adult learners in other parts and provinces of the country mainly catered for learners of their areas only. 

In short, not only the learners but also the teachers in the educational institutes included in the accessible population from Rawalpindi/Islamabad were almost from all corners of the country, and they reasonably represented the whole country.




Sampling

The researchers used cluster sampling to

sample populations. The main reason to do so is that there were no convenient lists of frames. We found it the most feasible method of selecting a sample, as it involved less time and less expense and was more convenient. Barnard (1994) pertinently points out that any location where we find an intact group of similar characteristics (population members) is a cluster (p.118). The sample selected was a total of 200 participants: 50 teachers and 50 students from NUML (where English is taught as a language) and 50 teachers and 50 students from colleges in Islamabad/Rawalpindi (where English is taught as a subject). The response rate was 100% because the researchers would be physically present to collect the responses and approached the respondents using their past social relations with them.




Research Tools

The researchers prepared the 16-statements survey on the Likert scale, highlighting all the possible hurdles and benefits of both the English-only approach and the mixing of Urdu with the English approach. A small-scale pilot study based on them was conducted, and Cronbach's alpha was also run to ensure that the research tool to be administered was valid and reliable to investigate the role of the medium of instruction in English language learning/teaching and to reach a profound understanding of the prevailing scenario. In addition, as descriptive research largely depends on human perceptions and opinions, there is always a danger of data distortion leading to invalid findings, recommendations, and conclusions. Walliman N.  (2005) rightly recommends that such a danger be avoided by inadvertently including biased items in questionnaires or through selective observation of events. Accordingly, the researchers added ten statements in the survey in favour of the traditional stance on the issue of medium of instruction and 6 in favour of a new or changed approach and administered them to the teachers and the learners in a controlled manner.

Data Analysis

This analytical research focuses on the

present status of English language teaching/learning at the adult level in Pakistan. As the study required the analysis of the current practices regarding the situation in the English language classroom, a comparative analysis of the perception of the learners and teachers was needed. To find the answer to the research question, “What is the role of the medium of instruction (use/mixing of Urdu while teaching English or use of English-only approach) in adult learners’ English language learning?” the responses obtained from the participants in the survey were calculated and compared in terms of percentages and chi-square tests run for each statement.




What should be the Medium of Instruction in your English Language Class?

1. Urdu       

2. English      

 3. Both English and Urdu mixed

Figure 1

Distribution of Responses to the Question of Medium of Instruction



The chi-square result (calculated value of x^2 = 26.906) shows a strict association between the nature of the respondents and their choice of medium of instruction, and a closer look at the data collected reveals the following important findings regarding the medium of instruction:

There is a dichotomy between the teachers teaching English as a language and the others taking it as a subject (60% of language teachers vote for English vs 40% of subject teachers vote for English).

English language teachers prefer the Direct Method.

English subject teachers prefer mixing/using Urdu in class. (28% subject teachers vs 4% language teachers)

Most learners, whether learning English as a subject or language, want to be taught with the Direct Method. (84% language learners vs 60% subject learners).

Many teachers and learners are indecisive about the medium of instruction while teaching/learning English, whether a subject or language (28% language teachers vs 32% subject teachers).

Language learners are the most clear-headed about the medium of instruction— 84% favouring English, 8% favouring Urdu/English mixed and only 8% with no response.

The primary concern of the teachers taking English as a subject is to improve reading and writing skills, and there is glaring neglect of listening and speaking skills.

There is a misperception among the teachers taking English as a subject that the adult learners want to be taught in Urdu. They are proved wrong-footed by the minority of the learners in the class who find it hard to form new habits and cope with new situations in the ‘English only’ class. 60% of the learners studying English subject favour English as the medium of instruction in their class.

Element of indecisiveness about the medium of instruction in the “subject population” is more than in the “language population” (no response percentages: 52% vs 36%).   

The data portrays a lack of direction and vision between the teachers and the taught. The next statements on the survey investigated about the pros and cons of use of L1 in teaching and learning of English in the ESL classes as perceived by the learners/students and teachers: whether using Urdu in English language class makes learners feel free to tell their learning problems and what they want to learn and less afraid to speak English in the classroom and to have a good start in learning English, and helps teachers understands learners’ background better, their problems in life as a person from remote area and needs for English as a survival means, evaluate their comprehension level better, identify the problem areas in English language learning and remove psychological barriers in the comprehensible input or gives learners less exposure to English, less understanding of colloquial English in local settings and the English culture, less accurate pronunciations and intonation and makes them feel less the need for practicing and using English inside and outside the classroom.

The results of the survey reflect that our students, whether they are studying English as a language or subject, feel the need to develop a command of the English language; however, they face a lot of challenges in terms of expressing themselves, sharing their learning needs and problems and develop good terms with their teacher due to the self-consciousness about their poor English language skills, hence, consider occasional use of Urdu in class to relieve themselves from the pressure and have a better sailing on their journey towards English language learning. In the same way, the teachers in both categories (teaching English as a language and subject) with a few exceptions agree that judicial and occasional use of Urdu can benefit the English language learners in their classes. However, there are a few teachers in both categories who believe otherwise. A few teachers teaching English as a language favoured the English-only approach as the only acceptable solution to issues related to learning the English language. In the same way, in the other category of teachers, a few believe that the students study English for comprehension, and Urdu is good support to help them accomplish this task. The obvious reason behind this is that the English language teacher focuses on developing communication skills in his/her learners. In contrast, the English subject teacher's sole aim is to finish the course and enable the learners to pass exams by providing him/her with knowledge about the language. 

Conclusion, Implications & Recommendations

A clear distinction can be drawn between teachers teaching English as a language and teachers teaching it as a subject in the Pakistani ELT scenario. The dichotomy becomes more glaring when they are viewed from the lenses of teacher cognition, and their beliefs regarding their preferred medium of instruction in the class are explored. The former has a different cognition and believes in using English as the medium of instruction in the class, whereas the latter, for other socio-cognitive factors, believes in mixing Urdu and English both. The present research infers that the reason behind this is that the English language teachers focus on developing communication skills in their students. In contrast, the English subject teacher's sole teaching aim and mission is to finish the course and enable the learners to pass exams by providing them with knowledge about the language. The context constraints play a powerful role in both cases. The study on the impact of using Urdu in English class has brought forth some striking findings in this regard. The learners are well-informed (whether they study it as a language or subject) that to be proficient in English (the target language), they must practice it the most and Urdu (their L1) the least. But at the same time, the study recommends using Urdu when/as it is beneficial to lower the affective filter (the psychological barriers between the learners and the language input provided to them in the class). The conclusion drawn by the researchers is for the teachers to adopt a middle way between GTM and DM and use L1 in the class but judiciously, occasionally, and mindfully.

There is a convincing logic behind the above recommendation. When Pakistani English language learners enter the class, they carry a specific background in terms of age, language background, cultural experience, social background, learning motivation and learning style. They are not without heavy psychological baggage, thick affective filter and minds filled with anxiety, inhibition, and apprehensions. Such learning problems are mainly due to pressure arising from their inability to comprehend/express the opinions in the target language classroom, especially at an initial stage. Whether they face the teachers and the teaching environment with GTM or as DM, they suffer psychologically alike. In the case of GTM, they do not get much exposure to the language or a strong sense of achievement and thus start losing interest and motivation. In this scenario, they might not fear the class but tend to develop doubts about the language learning outcome. The case in DM is altogether different as the learners find it hard to cope with a drastic paradigm shift, viz., English-Only all around and start developing effective barriers. Some sort of relief in the shape of their first language use at the initial stage is highly recommended. If not done so, English classes in Pakistan will stay full of learners with poor English language skills and high affective filters. 

Use of the first language, i.e., Urdu, can be of great help; however, its use must be made occasional with the sole purpose of relaxing the students and bringing their affective filter down to maximize input comprehension. In this regard, a contrastive analysis of different linguistic points can help the teachers make their students understand the language better. Nevertheless, unnecessary and affluent Urdu use may bring more harm than good. The learners’ problems are masked as it reduces their exposure to English and makes them depend heavily on L1 for everyday conversation. In this way, the main purpose of being in an ESL classroom fails, and learners cannot achieve the required competence in L2. 

Besides, there are concerns related to bilingual teachers in a language class. These concerns are mainly about learners' exposure to the target language and the quality of linguistic input provided (special pronunciation and intonation). The Acquisition Hypothesis in the Natural Approach (Krashen & Terrell, 1983)  is that language acquisition, whether first or foreign, depends on the learner's subconscious internalization of the language received through listening and reading. Thus, the amount of language knowledge and skills the learners acquire directly depends on the amount of exposure to the language they have. Unnecessary use/mixing of Urdu in the English language class can affect the class environment by slowing down the acquisition process. 

In this regard, teacher training is an important recommendation. At the national level, it may not be easy; however, it must be made compulsory for every educational institution to upgrade their faculty’s teaching skills through in-service training/workshops. A question may be raised about the teachers' linguistic competence since they have been the product of the same system; it may be assumed that they, lacking linguistic skills in the English language, may not be effective input providers. However, the in-service training and continual professional development along with vigilant supervision and observation with an aim to reward the better competent teachers can not only bring a positive change in the quality of the teaching but also bring a good name and fame to the institution. The ultimate result would be linguistically competent English language speakers. “In a language class, the teacher has a significant role to play: the classroom activities have in their background a thought, a plan, and a belief that develops in the mind of the teacher? teacher cognition. It does not develop in isolation; it is influenced and shaped by various factors. Some important constructs are education, training, family, society, experience, and context” (Ahmed, Farid, & Hussain, 2021 p-382). 

 The teachers need to be analytical and well-versed in both languages to carry out an interesting, effective and absorbing analysis of both languages. As a result, the input the learners receive would be more comprehensible, and the affective filter would go drastically down. The learners would acquire L2 at a faster pace and more efficiently. Thus, removing the antagonism between L1 and the target language can do wonders in the domain of language learning/acquisition. 

The present study has tried to explore all the important angles for all the stakeholders involved in the English language teaching/learning process, particularly in Pakistan. The study shows English language teachers and learners the importance of comprehensible input and relaxing language teaching/learning techniques, with a special focus on using L1 to bring down the learners’ affective filter. It is significant for speeding up educational administrators’ policymaking and learning facilitation process. In line with recent research (Ahmad, Radzuan, & Hussain, 2018), the findings of this study also favour a well-planned use of the mother tongue, keeping in mind that excessive use of the mother tongue may prove to be counterproductive.

References

• Ahmed, I., Farid, A., & Hussain, M. S. (2021). Teacher Cognition and English as a Foreign Language Context: Potential Challenges. PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION (2021) 58(5), 382-395.
• Ahmad, I., Radzuan, N, R. M. , & Hussain, M.S. (2018). Use of First Language in the Classroom: Non-native EFL Teachers’ Beliefs in Teaching English to Adult Learners in Bilingual Context. Arab World English Journal, 9(2).
• Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching Monolingual Classes. London: Longman.
• Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English Only in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9.
• Ausubel, D. P. (1977). Developmental Psychology. New York: Grune and Stratton.
• Barnard, R. (1994). Research Methods In Anthropology. Qualitative And Quantitative. California: SAGE Publication.
• Freeman, D. L. (1986). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal, 46(4), 350–355.
• Krashen, S. D. (1981). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. English Language Teaching Series. London: Prentice-Hall International Ltd.
• Krashen, S. D. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
• Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• McCain, J. (2000). Language Acquisition and Affective Variables.
• Modica, G. (1994). Native Language in the Second Language Classroom. Bulletin of the Faculty of Commerce, Nagoya University of Commerce and Business Administration, 38(2), 283-311.
• Omaggio, H. A. (1993). Teaching Language in Context. (2nd Ed). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
• Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
• Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers’ Language Use in University Foreign Language Classrooms: A Qualitative Analysis of English and Target Language Alternation. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 313–326.
• Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Richards, J. C. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Sameen, S., Farid, A., & Hussain, M. S. (2021). A critical discourse analysis of impact of code-switching on modern adult language learners’ motivation in Pakistan. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 17(1), 109–121.
• Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Takahashi, T. (1996). Teachers' L1 Use in Classroom and Its Influence on the Students. Aston University, Birmingham:
• Weschler, R. (1997). Uses of Japanese in the English classroom: Introducing the Functional-Translation Method. The Internet TESL Journal (online) 3(2).
• Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Willis, J. (1981). Teaching English Through English. Essex: Longman.