LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS ON THE USE OF INDONESIAN (L1) IN THE ENGLISH (L2) INTENSIVE COURSE: IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSLANGUAGING PEDAGOGY

This study explores the use of Indonesian (L1) in an English class at an undergraduate program in a university in East Java, Indonesia. The English class was called Intensive Course (IC). In the class the students were expected to learn general English so that they could have the required competence to become English teachers. The students who passed the course in 2018-2019 (50 students) were asked to complete a questionnaire. Follow up interviews were conducted to four selected students representing positive and negative perceptions on the use of Indonesian. The findings of this study shows that L1 could be a potential resource to learn English but when the L1 was overused in the classroom, the learning opportunities and exposure to the target language diminished, limiting their learning opportunities and bringing about negative perceptions of the students. Implications from the findings are discussed in relation to translanguaging as pedagogy.


Introduction
The use of mother tongue (L1) in English (L2) language teaching is currently often framed in terms of translanguaging (García & Wei, 2014), which considers that the linguistic repertoires of both L1 and L2 are resources to bilingual competence. In this lens, the use of L1 in an L2 course is positive as it will help learners' master the L2.
While it is considered positive and can be empowering, the use of L1 in an L2 classroom is not without controversy. In fact, the perceptions of the L1 use in the classroom have been changing overtime. In the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) tradition, the use of L1 is common as it facilitates learning the target language (L2) because learners can compare and contrast the properties of L1 and L2 (Sapargul & Sartor, 2010). Various methods and techniques in English language teaching afterwards have criticized GTM as it is viewed to be too teacher-centered and to involve too much use of L1-depriving the use of L2 for real communication purposes. Opposing GTM, the Audiolingual Approach, for example, considered the use of L1 in the classroom as guilty as a sin and the proponents encourage the learners to practice the L2 as closely as possible to get rid of the foreign accents and to avoid fossilized errors. As Celce-Murcia (1991) explained, teachers who applied Audiolingual method should correct all errors, which "were the results of interference from the first language" (p. 460). Less strictly, the communicative language teaching (CLT) also encourages the use of the L2 as much as possible in the classroom and limiting the use of L1 to a minimum because learners need comprehensible inputs to be proficient language users (Krashen, 1989a(Krashen, , 1989bKrashen, Long, & Scarcella, 1979;Oxford, Lavine, & Crookall, 1989).
Recent discussions, however, support the use of L1 as a resource for translanguaging and developing bilingualism. The debate about the use of L1 in English classes continues and each camp has their own arguments on their positions about the use of L2 in English classroom (Almoayidi, 2018;Carson & Kashihara, 2012;Debreli, 2016;Shabir, 2017;Yavuz, 2012).
In shorts, other than GTM, most English language teaching methods are against the use of L1 and encourage the use of L2 (García & Wei, 2014). In their own words, Garcia and Wei suggested that, "all methods advocated against the use of translation and encouraged only the use of the 'target' language which was deemed as 'foreign'. (p. 53). Prior to Garcia and Wei's notion of translanguaging, the use of L1 in L2 classrooms has various purposes, from instructional ones such as providing translations, explaining grammatical features, and correcting errors, to classroom management such as disciplining the students and clarifying tasks (Atkinson, 1987;Harrod, 1992;Shin, Dixon, & Choi, 2019). These functions are especially useful for L2 learners at the beginning levels where their mastery of the L2 is still limited. In short, the L1 has an important facilitating roles in foreign language classrooms (Schweers, 1999).
Considering the current debate related to the use of L1, we explore students' perceptions on the use of Indonesian (L1) at English Intensive Course (IC) in an English teacher Education program at a private university in Indonesia. The main question central to this study is the perceptions of the students in the use of Indonesian (L1) in IC classes. The results of this study are expected to fill the gap of knowledge about how the students perceive the use of L1 in English classroom in Indonesia's contexts.

Literature Review
Even though the use of the first language is perceived to be useful, the overuse of it can prevent effective learning of L2 as suggested by Atkinson (1987, p. 246). He outlined four disadvantages of the overuse of L1 in L2 classroom setting: (1) over-reliance on translation, (2) the use of crude word-byword translation, (3) avoiding the use of L2, (4) failure to realize the crucial use of L2 in the classroom. In this view, L2 should be used dominantly in the classroom, providing meaningful input to the students (Meyer, 2008). The views that L1 use in the L2 classroom may hinder effective learning can be trace back from the idea that learning L2 is the same as learning L1 as reflected in the Audiolingual Approach and the early conception of communicative language teaching (Oxford et al., 1989;Rodgers, 2001). In order to provide meaningful input of the L2, the L1 should be avoided because the interference of L1 can be the source of errors (Krashen, 1989a) .
In the contexts of Indonesia, where English is taught as a foreign language, the use of Indonesian and other indigenous languages (L1) in English classroom is pervasive, reflecting a controversial perspective about the use of L1 in L2 classes (Almoayidi, 2018). As seen from the perspective of translanguaging, the use of L1 can be beneficial as it encourages more engagement to classroom activities. This is especially useful for students who are at the beginning level. As Lie (2007) noted, the use of Indonesian also helps many English teachers, who barely speak the language, prepare the students for English tests.
The ideal situation as expected by the current national curriculum, however, is that English teachers speak L2 as much as possible so that the students can gain the communicative competence to use the language for various purposes (Agustien, 2004). In fact, the situation is similar to that of many other countries where English is taught as a foreign language. In the contexts of English taught as a foreign language, the students may have limited opportunity to use English outside the classroom. Consequently, the use of English in the classroom should be maximized (Polio & Duff, 1994).
In this debate, the division is clear. One camp goes for the use of L1 as it is considered as a resource for L2 mastery. The other camp goes against the use of L1 as it is considered as a hindrance to the L2 mastery. In the backdrop of the debate, various studies have been documented. In Kuwait, English teachers perceived negatively the use of L2 in English classroom (Alrabah, Wu, Alotaibi, & Aldaihani, 2015). In Japan, as reported by Bartlett (2017), the use of L1 in English classrooms was discouraged, but the students perceived the benefits of bilingualism in English classroom. Similarly in China, most students preferred bilingual in English classroom (Wang, 2016).
The situations in Kuwait, Japan, and China are similar to that in Indonesia. As a foreign language, English is taught at primary level as an optional content, and taught as a compulsory subject from junior high school to senior high school and to university as mandated in the national Indonesian curriculum (Lauder, 2008;Mistar, 2005;Nababan, 1991). This policy is aimed at enhancing students' competence in English as language of science and technology and as a means of international communication. Similarly, while L1 use in English classroom is discouraged, the use of Indonesian is pervasive, supported by the arguments that L1 is the resource and the law also mandated the use of Indonesian as classroom language in public school.
As discussed earlier in the introduction, the two extreme positions, the proponents of the L1 use and the proponents of L2-only have marked the development of foreign language teaching. The middle grounds, where both languages are valued and used to facilitate learning, have become the bridge on the gap. In the context where teachers can speak with the learners in the L1 and L2, the advantages of using L1 as drawn by (Atkinson, 1987;Harrod, 1992) are clear. L1 can facilitate communication, the relationship between teacher and students, and facilitate L2 learning. This early conception of bilingual education, however, is not considered translanguaging pedagogy as the practices are based on the perspective of using two or more linguistics systems stored in different parts of the brains.
Current practices of bilingualism and plurilingualism are mostly based on the idea of translanguaging and translingual pedagogy as suggested by (García & Wei, 2014). The main idea of translanguaging in the classroom is that the learners can freely access all the linguistic repertoires to enhance the learning of the L2 and to create supportive environment for learning (Canagarajah, 2011;García & Wei, 2014). Doing translanguaging, English learners can select linguistic features of their L1 to communicate effectively so that learning can take place better in the classroom. In this perspective, learning L2 will be facilitated with the use of L1 in the classroom as it can help learners to reduce their anxiety and to enhance their engagement in the classroom (Bartlett, 2017;Debreli, 2016;Shabir, 2017;Yildiz & Yesilyurt, 2016).
The question, however, is whether the practices of bilingual or multilingual education can be transferred into the contexts of Indonesia-where English is considered as a foreign language. Can we say when an English teacher used indigenous language in the classroom to teach English and to help students understand the lesson better the translanguaging pedagogy? In this paper we would like to embrace Canagarajah's (2011) assertion that translanguaging does not only involve shared repertoires of different languages but also shuttle from one language to another in negotiating meaning. In this way, the practice of ELT in Indonesia, which may not always be in bilingual contexts, can be understood from the lens of translanguaging pedagogy (Cenoz, 2017a(Cenoz, , 2017bOtheguy, García, & Reid, 2019;Wang, 2016).
To summarize, the practice of teaching English as a foreign language in Indonesian context can be considered as translanguaging when the goal is for the students to be proficient in the L2 and L1 and they make use of both the linguistics repertoires as an integrated system to advance their acquisition of L2.

Methods
The participants of this study (N=50) were students who had taken IC in the academic year of 2018/2019, which were grouped in three classes. There were 13 male students and 37 female students. The students belonged to the first semester when they had their IC classes. Their English proficiency at the beginning of the semester varied as they came from different areas in Indonesia. Some of them had already good English and they were comfortable speaking in the target language. However, many students, especially from rural areas were still in their beginning level and they were not comfortable speaking and writing in English.
IC was a 12-credit course offered to new students enrolling to the English education study program. As they would be trained to become English teachers, they need to master English well. This 12-credit course provided the basic training on English language proficiency development. The course was designed as an integrative course, integrating all the language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) and components (grammar and vocabulary) in each meeting. The course consisted of two main sections, the regular classes to developed English proficiency and three interest groups (drama, public speaking, and storytelling) for the students to practice and use spoken English in a more meaningful ways. The classes for those sections were small classes and there were three classes for the batch of 2018/2019. There were seven instructors who taught the three IC classes as a teaching team. All the instructors were non-native speakers of English. However, they were highly qualified in teaching English. Their experience in teaching English varied, from 5 years to 20 years. As competent English teachers, they were comfortable speaking and writing in English for various purposes. They held EFL teacher licenses and they were graduated from English education program from various universities, both domestic and overseas universities.
As the regulation of the English education department, the classroom language was English and all instructors were encouraged to use English all the times. However, the use of L1 did occur in the classroom as the dynamic and needs of the students varied. The use of Indonesian (L1) was justified as far as it helped the students and the decisions on how much the L1 could be used were left to the instructors.
To get the data of the students' perceptions on the use of L1 in IC classes, we used questionnaire adapted from Permatasari (2014). The questionnaire consists of four sections: (1) statements related to the use of Indonesian in IC classes, (2) statements related to the use of English in IC classes, (3) statements related to the use of Indonesian as a pedagogical tool to facilitate learning, (4) one open-ended question asking for opinions about the use of Indonesian in IC classes. The questionnaire required the participants to indicate their agreement to each statement in a four-level scale: strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. The participants' responses were recorded, tallied, and summarized in terms of number of occurrences and percentage.
Follow up interviews were conducted to four participants who were selected based on their responses on the survey. Two students were selected to represent those who answered positively on the use of L1 and the other two students were selected to represent those who answered negatively to the use of L1. They were Anna, Barbara, Connie, and Diana (pseudonyms). Two participants (Anna and Barbara) indicated strong preferences in the use of L2 in IC class while Connie and Diana preferred more L1 in in the class. They were asked about the use of Indonesian in IC classes and the reasons behind their answers.

Findings and Discussion
There are two sections related to findings and discussion. The first section presents the results of the questionnaire and the second section reports the follow up interviews of the respondents.

Students' Perceptions as Reflected on the Questionnaire's Responses
The results of the questionnaire are presented in Table 1, 2, 3, and 4. The first three tables reflect the three sections requiring the participants to rate their agreement to each statement. Table 1 shows the participants' perceptions on the use of Indonesian as resources for learning and Table 2 shows their perceptions on the use of Indonesian as hindrances. Meanwhile, Table 3 shows their perceptions on the roles of Indonesian in the IC classes. Finally, Table 4 presents the summary of the students' responses to the open-ended question. On positive statements, overall the participants agreed and strongly agreed to all the eight statements related to the use of Indonesian in IC classes. The proportion for each statement, however, varied. More participants (34%, 17) disagreed to the use of Indonesian to improve lecturer-student interaction (see item 8, on Table 1). The second biggest (32%, 14) disagreement to the statement can also be seen on item number 1 "I felt more comfortable to learn the materials given when the lecturers used Indonesian during the learning process of IC." On the three negative statements (item number 9, 10, and 11 on Table 1), bigger portions of the participants disagreed and strongly disagreed to the statements, indicating their perceptions that the use of Indonesian did not hinder their use of English (L2). It is interesting that Table 2 shows the participants also indicate positive attitudes towards the use of English in the classroom. It seems that the use of Indonesian (see Table 1) and the use of English (see Table 2) were not contradictory situations. They perceived positively the use of Indonesian and they also appreciate and challenged by the use of English in IC classes. It is interesting to note, however, that a bigger portion of disagreement (agree and strongly disagree) on statement number 2 (Table 2) "When the lecturers used English all the time, I participated better in the classroom." This may indicate that some students may be discouraged to participate better in the classroom because the use of English all the time. For some students, especially those at the beginning level, speaking English all the time could be a great challenge. The perceptions that Indonesian could facilitate the process of teaching and learning in IC classes are generally positive as shown in Table 3. Although Indonesian could also improve the class atmosphere, the number of participants showing disagreement (disagree and strongly disagree) is bigger compared to other items in Table 3. For some participants, the use of Indonesian may not improve the atmosphere to learn English. helpful for students who still had low proficiency in English.  18% (9) of the respondents stated that the use of Indonesian could help them learning English. However, it was better if the lecturers and students use English as much as possible so that they could get more exposure to English.  6% (3) of the respondents stated that it could be better if the lecturers used mixed language so that more students understood what the lecturers wanted to say or to explain.  12% (6) of the respondents gave negative opinions on the use of Indonesian in IC classes. They stated that the use of Indonesian was less effective because it did not improve their English skills, especially listening and speaking skill.

Students' Perceptions as Reflected on the Follow up Interviews
The follow-up interviews were conducted to four participants. Four main questions were asked related to the use of Indonesian in IC class. The results, as seen in Table 5, in general confirm the results of the perception survey. They do not have objections to the use of Indonesian in class but for Anne and Barbara, who described themselves as having good English and having no difficulties in IC class, English was preferred. On the other hand, for Connie and Diana, who described themselves as having difficulties in the IC class and they were not fluent in English yet, the use of both, Indonesian and English could help them in the classroom. However, I rarely used it to the lecturers. I only used it when I could not explain words or phrases in English (Diana).

Questions Answers
In the IC class, did you need more explanation using Indonesian to explain complex ideas?
 Mostly, I did not need it. However, when I did not understand it, I asked the lecturers using English (Anne).  From my experience in IC last time, I did not need it. I could understand the explanation without being repeated in Indonesian (Barbara).  Yes, I did. It was because I was still a beginner in learning English. I did not know much about English vocabulary. It would be hard for me to understand when there was something complicated, for example complicated ide. Sometimes some lecturers were willing to repeat the explanation in Indonesian. So, it helped me to understand (Connie).  Yes, I needed it. Since English is not my mother language, so I needed Indonesian to understand their better (Diana). Did you need more explanation using Indonesian when the lecturers explained the English grammar or structure?
 No, I did need it too. Sometimes, some lecturers realized that most of the students did not get the explanation then, they were willing to repeat the explanation in Bahasa Indonesia, and so it would be easier to understand. Otherwise, some students would just ask their friends (Anne).  No, I did not need it too. The lecturers would repeat the explanation in order to make the students understand what they were explained about and they wanted us to be more familiar with English. However, if we still did not get their explanation, we would ask our friends to explain it again using Indonesian (Barbara).  Yes, I needed it. If I did not understand well, it would become interference or me to understand the further material (Connie).  Not always. Sometimes, I just needed it when I got confused with lecturers' explanation (Diana). In general, what do you think about the use of Indonesian in IC class?
 I think both are fine for me. But Indonesian can become a barrier for me. In my opinion, to be able to speak in English fluently, we need to use and speak English more often. It would help me improve my speaking and listening skill (Anne).  I liked "English-only" more. It was because it would practice me to use and hear English more often, so I could get out from my comfort zone (Barbara).  I like English-only better. It made me more motivated and got used to English vocabulary (Connie).  I liked mixed language better. I liked it better than English only because I am still not fluent in English (Diana).
While the students' opinions indicate some contrasting ideas regarding the use of L1 in the classroom, in general L1 use was perceived positive as far as it did not overuse. With this perspective, we can draw the following important points: 1. For more advanced students or students who had already mastered L2 in some degree, L1 use in the classroom was perceived as not beneficial as they wanted more exposure of L2 from the teachers and from their friends. 2. For weak students or students with novice level of L2, the use of L1 was perceived beneficial to speed up their learning progress.
In fact the two points regarding the use of L1 and L2 are in line with the previous studies in which L1 is used to facilitate learning, especially at the early level of L2. This especially true in the contexts where the L2 is not widely used in daily activities such as in Indonesia.

Discussion
The findings show that both the use of Indonesian and English in the IC classes was perceived positive by the students and it could facilitate their learning. The use of L1, however, will facilitate those who were in the initial stage of the L2 competence. These findings support the current literature on the use of L1 in L2 classroom (Bartlett, 2017;Debreli, 2016;Shabir, 2017;Yildiz & Yesilyurt, 2016). The perceptions of the students who took the IC class implied the important of L1 for the beginning learners to engage and to accelerate their L2 learning. The questions "how much L1 are allowed to be used in the classroom to facilitate maximum learning," however, still persists and it is not easily answered based on the students' perceptions (Campa & Nassaji, 2009). The lesson from the students' perceptions on this matter can be drawn at least in two aspects: (1) the use of L1 should not be avoided or discouraged to enhance students engagement and the linguistics repertoire integration, (2) the gradual increase in the use of the L2 in line with the students' progress.
The fact that the IC lecturers were encouraged to use English most of the times might also influence the participants' perceptions on the use of L1 as it was used as the last resort by the lecturers. This ideology, which is very close to the "English only" ideology, may not serve all the students well in terms of engagement and the expected progress in learning especially when the class members are of different levels of L2 proficiency. Those who started at the beginning level of English might not be able to catch up fast enough to succeed in the course. In fact, some of those disadvantaged students failed the IC class and they should repeat it the next semester to meet the minimum requirements to pass. As suggested by Atkinson (Atkinson, 1987), L1 can be a good resource of both teacher and learners to learn the target language but there is no method supporting this L1 use except the Grammar Translation.
While the hegemonic ideology of the L2-only was pervasive as reflected in the students' perceptions, the awareness of the function and double roles of the L1 as both facilitating language to learn a foreign language as well as an empowering tool for the disadvantaged groups of learners could bring about better learning environment for various groups of students. These findings support the idea of moderate translanguaging (Brevik & Rindal, 2020;Cenoz, 2017aCenoz, , 2017b, in which L1 and L2 are used as resources to facilitate learning and the use of both languages are encouraged to encourage bilingualism, with equal respect to both languages. The moderate translanguaging in this perspective assumes that in the contexts of learners, L1 is dominantly used in the society and L2 is used in specific communicative events such as ones in social media and in the internet. Translanguaging, as conceptualized by García and Wei (2014) is related to the use of all linguistics repertoires in one system, not in two separate linguistics systems. The final goal is not the mastery of L1 but the mastery of both L1 and L2-full bilingual learners. This conception of full translanguaging can be ideal in the contexts where English is taught as a second language and there are equal opportunities of using both L1 and L2 outside the class. However, in the contexts of Indonesia where English is taught as a foreign language, full translanguaging pedagogy may not be realistic as learners will not have equal opportunities to use both languages in and outside the classroom. In this way, the moderate translanguaging with its transformative power for enhancing both local and global identity can be practiced in the classroom to create better learning environment and to empower disadvantaged group in the classroom.
The transformative power of moderate translanguaging as discussed above can be seen from the difference between the goals of translanguaging and the traditional foreign language pedagogy. The differences can be captured in two folds. The first one is the importance of L1 for the learners and the second one is the learners' identity transformation. In the traditional L2 pedagogy, the goal of L2 learning is the mastery of the target language, ignoring the importance of L1. It does not matter if the learners, then, have negative attitudes towards L1, considering it as inferior language. The translanguaging movement, however, see learning L2 is for the mastery of L1 and L2, a movement towards bilingualism or multilingualism. The attitudes enhanced in translanguaging practices are appreciating all languages as equal, deconstructing the very foundation of the colonized mind of the learners (Bhabha, 1994)-creating the third space or contact zone for transformative experiences (Yumarnamto, 2017).
In this way, the conception of translanguaging in the contexts of English taught as a foreign language can be understood as creating the third space for learners. Moderate translanguaging practices, then, will allow L1 in the classroom to help disadvantaged groups of students to progress in their L2 mastery as well as to empower them by providing the third space for L2 learning. In the dominant ideology of L2-only pedagogy, the translanguaging practices can be "subversive" for teachers as they act out their agency to empower the powerless. The role of teachers, then, is expanded not only as a teacher facilitator but also as a teacher activist who pushes for empowerment and transformational changes on learners.

Conclusion
The students' perceptions on the use of L1 in English (L2) IC classes were generally positive on the use of both languages. For the majority of the respondents, Indonesian (L1) was helpful for them when they encounter difficult concepts about the L2 and it was very effective to introduce new vocabulary. The caveat, however, it was mostly needed for those who were at the beginning level of the L2, in which they still had difficulties in using the language to communicate. These findings are consistent with previous studies on the use of L1 in L2 classrooms (Almoayidi, 2018;Alrabah et al., 2015;Bartlett, 2017;Bruen & Kelly, 2014;Öz & Karaazmak, 2019;Shabir, 2017;Shin et al., 2019;Yildiz & Yesilyurt, 2016).
The students' perceptions might also reflect the ideology in which English was taught as a foreign language. In the IC classes, the general policy was that L2 should be used at all times. The use of L1 should be limited. This perspective could be a reflection of the English policy in Indonesia. In Indonesia English is valued more and it provides a prestige for those who speak it (Lauder, 2008;Lowenberg, 1991;Mistar, 2005). Those who do not speak it well may be stigmatized at school such as experienced by Yumarnamto (2016Yumarnamto ( , 2017 who was called as having a cassava tongue by his English teacher. The students' perceptions on the use of L1 in IC classes, then, could shed light on the English teaching practices, which may not meet the demand of translingual pedagogy as described by (García & Wei, 2014). In the IC classes, L1 was used in limited conditions as the last resort by the instructors. It was not yet a conscious effort to include all the linguistic repertoires of Indonesian and English as one linguistic system. Therefore, the transformational values inherent in translingual pedagogy, the formation of bilingual identity and valuing both L1 and L2 equally might not take place effectively in the classroom. More importantly, in the contexts of English taught as a foreign language like in Indonesia, the moderate translanguaging pedagogy may fit to the learners need as the pedagogy could provide the third space for the disadvantaged group in the classroom to progress and empower.