Developing, validating, and piloting a MultiTeachViews questionnaire on L1 and translation use: Attitudes of Kazakhstani secondary school EFL teachers

Abstract

This study developed, validated, and piloted a MultiTeachViews questionnaire to investigate secondary school English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers' attitudes towards multilingual teaching practices such as L1 and translation use. Initially, a literature review and focus group interview with six in-service EFL teachers were conducted to capture prevailing attitudes and inform content areas for the questionnaire. Items were then crafted, followed by the adoption of a 5-point Likert scale. Validation involved assessing internal and content validity through a structured checklist and expert evaluation. The pilot phase included think-aloud protocols with two teachers and a reliability test across a broader cohort of 100 teachers. Reliability testing yielded satisfactory Cronbach's Alpha coefficients (α > .70) for all scales, affirming the instrument's internal consistency. Consequently, the instrument is found to be a reliable and valid measure of EFL teachers' attitudes towards L1 and translation use in the classroom, with significant implications for Applied Linguistic and Second Language Acquisition research.

• •Developed, validated, and piloted a MultiTeachViews questionnaire for investigating attitudes.
• •Employed mixed methods in the development, validation, and piloting phases.
• •Found MultiTeachViews to be a reliable and valid measure of EFL teachers' attitudes towards multilingual teaching practices, such as L1 and translation use.

Graphical abstract

The graphical abstract has been submitted as a separate file.

Specifications table

Subject area:	Psychology
More specific subject area:	Applied Linguistics; Second Language Acquisition; Language Pedagogy
Name of your method:	MultiTeachViews: An EFL teachers' attitudes questionnaire on multilingual teaching practices, such as L1 and translation use
Name and reference of original method:	NA
Resource availability:	NA

Background

The globalization of society has led to an increase in educational practices within bi- or multilingual settings, necessitating a re-evaluation of traditional target language (L2) only instruction to align with the contemporary needs of learners. This paradigm shift, often termed the “multilingual turn” [1,2], challenges the traditional monolingual assumption in foreign language teaching and has prompted substantial research within Applied Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (SLA). Advocates of multilingual turn call for pedagogical strategies that foster connections between the L2 and the learners' first language (L1) and their broader linguistic repertoire.

Despite the increased emphasis on multilingualism in educational research, its practical implementation in English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms remains substantially limited [3]. An analysis of EFL teachers' attitudes across different contexts, including Kazakhstan, shows a strong preference for English-only instruction [[4], [5], [6], [7], [8]]. This belief suggests that a monolingual bias and an adherence to 'native speaker' (NS) standards have heavily influenced English language teaching (ELT) practices globally [9].

A disparity exists between EFL teachers' attitudes and classroom practices. Despite the reported preference for monolingual instruction, there are instances where teachers inadvertently or occasionally incorporate the learners' L1 and translation tasks into their teaching [10]. This discrepancy has prompted a surge in empirical research to explore EFL teachers' attitudes and practices, seeking to understand the underlying reasons for this mismatch between attitudes and practices across various national contexts.

Recent literature reviews on teachers' multilingual teaching attitudes and practices within English classrooms globally and in Kazakhstan indicate a dominance of qualitative research methods. An analysis by Burner and Carlsen [3] of 56 global studies conducted between 2011 and 2021 shows that qualitative approaches, mainly interviews, are the most common, with 33 studies relying on this method. Typically, researchers interviewed fewer than ten teachers in one or more schools within a specified local area. In contrast, only eight studies employed a purely quantitative methodology, using surveys or questionnaires for data collection. Similarly, in the context of Kazakhstan, Goodman and Manan's [11] secondary analysis of 21 studies from 2017 to 2021 revealed that 90 % were interview-based, with only two studies adopting mixed methods, including questionnaires as part of their research tools.

The widespread reliance on qualitative methods in existing research has underscored the need for quantitative inquiry in this domain. Addressing this gap, the current method study develops and validates a MultiTeachViews questionnaire on EFL teachers' attitudes towards integrating learners' L1 and translation in ELT and the factors that shape these attitudes. This quantitative approach aims to provide a tool for generalizable insights into EFL teachers' attitudes in Kazakhstan and globally. The creation of MultiTeachViews questionnaire is expected to fill a significant gap in the research, offering a statistically supported understanding of EFL teachers’ attitudes towards L1 and translation tasks.

Context of the study

This study aims to develop and validate the MultiTeachViews questionnaire, which assesses Kazakhstani secondary school EFL teachers' attitudes towards integrating learners' L1 and translation tasks in ELT. Therefore, the context of this study will focus on the Kazakhstani school system, specifically examining multilingual teaching practices with an emphasis on teaching English as a foreign language.

Kazakhstani school system

The school education system in Kazakhstan is structured into three main levels, aligned with the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011 scale: primary education (grades 1-4), basic secondary education (grades 5-9), and general secondary education (grades 10-12). These educational levels are mandatory and provided free of charge in public educational institutions. The system is centralized and governed by the Ministry of Education (MoE), which sets standards for curricula, admissions, student assessments, and the structure and content of textbooks across all levels [12].

According to the Statistics of the Education System of the Republic of Kazakhstan (NCESE) [13], approximately 95 % of schools in Kazakhstan are state-owned day schools. Private and international schools constitute a smaller percentage at 2.6 %, while the remaining 2.4 % includes evening schools, special correctional schools, and other specialized institutions.

Trilingualism in Kazakhstani secondary education

In Kazakhstan, the primary languages of instruction are predominantly Kazakh and Russian. According to the NCESE [13], 54 % of schools teach in Kazakh, 17 % in Russian, and the remaining 29 % use both languages. Additionally, the curriculum includes the study of a second language (Kazakh or Russian, depending on the primary language of instruction) and a third language (typically English) starting from the primary level [14].

Karabassova [15] highlights that while the teaching of Kazakh, Russian, and English as language arts was already well-established, the Kazakhstani government's adoption of the trilingual education policy in 2007, known as the “Trinity of Languages,” mandated the simultaneous use of Kazakh, Russian, and English as mediums of instruction for various subjects such as history, biology, or physics. This policy designates Kazakh as the state language, Russian as the language for interethnic communication, and English as the international language for global integration [16, p. 3], significantly shaping trilingualism in Kazakhstani secondary education.

To pilot trilingual education, the government designated specific institutions such as the Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS), Daryn (schools for gifted children), and the Education-Innovation Lyceum (EIL), along with hundreds of other pilot schools [15]. These institutions have actively implemented instruction in three languages, providing evidence and support for extensive trilingual reforms across Kazakhstani schools. Since 2013, this model has been increasingly adopted by other schools across Kazakhstan and recognized as a main trend in the education system [17].

Teaching English as a foreign language in Kazakhstani secondary schools

Despite the policy of using three languages simultaneously as mediums of instruction in Kazakhstani secondary schools, the approach to teaching English as a subject presents a contrasting scenario. Zhunussova et al. [16] observe that the country's multilingualism policy supports 'parallel monolingualism,' which promotes linguistic purism and discourages the mixing of languages. Consequently, English teachers are expected to use exclusively English, avoiding the integration of learners' L1 or their broader linguistic repertoire in English classes. Many educational institutions advocate for this monolingual approach, influencing teachers to avoid or outright reject the use of L1 [18]. As a result, many teachers feel guilty or view themselves as insufficiently proficient in English if they use learners' L1 [19].

In addition, the curriculum and textbooks reinforce this English-only approach. The MoE approves and enforces the standard curricula for general education subjects, including English, across all secondary education levels (for further details, see Order №399 of the MoE [20]). The standard curriculum for English language teaching is designed to develop specific language skills through meticulously organized sections that explicitly exclude the use of translation or L1 in the teaching process. Moreover, the structure and content of textbooks for secondary education are tightly regulated by the MoE [12]. These regulations specify activities within textbooks that engage learners in tasks such as reading, listening, pronunciation, and writing, fostering a thorough understanding of English. Notably, these tasks exclude translation or the use of L1, discouraging teachers from employing multilingual teaching practices, as textbooks often dictate classroom practices [21]. Teachers must strictly adhere to the content of these textbooks [22], further restricting their ability to deviate from the prescribed curriculum and explore beyond the tasks outlined in the textbooks.

Yakavets et al. [23] note that despite minimal involvement in setting educational goals and developing curricula for their respective subjects, teachers retain autonomy in allocating instructional time across various topics and can choose forms, means, and teaching methods. This aspect of flexibility presents an intriguing area for further exploration to determine whether teachers use learners' L1 and incorporate translation tasks in classroom instruction and their attitudes towards these practices. The results of such research could be beneficial for curriculum developers and policymakers in deciding whether to amend or retain the existing curriculum. Therefore, developing the MultiTeachViews questionnaire on EFL teachers' attitudes towards integrating learners' L1 and translation in ELT is crucial. This tool is expected to provide generalizable insights into EFL teachers' attitudes in Kazakhstan, offering a statistically supported understanding of multilingual teaching attitudes.

Method details

The name of the questionnaire, MultiTeachViews, was inspired by Calafato's [24] instrument, MULTITEACH, which focuses on teacher multilingualism. This inspiration is purely nominal, reflecting the broader thematic focus of the study without influencing the structural or content-specific aspects of the questionnaire.

The MultiTeachViews questionnaire was created in three stages: identifying trends in attitudes towards L1 and translation use in the EFL classroom, developing the questionnaire, and validating and piloting it (see Fig. 1). The questionnaire's development, validation, and piloting phases were guided by the methodologies outlined by Dörnyei and Dewaele [25] and Iwaniec [26].

Fig. 1.

Visual representation of development and validation of MultiTeachViews questionnaire.

Identifying trends in attitudes to and practices of L1 and translation use in EFL classroom

Literature review

The literature review aimed to define the study's key terms and identify content areas for the questionnaire. It involved a comprehensive review of both scoping and state-of-the-art literature, including peer-reviewed articles, MA theses, and Ph.D. dissertations cited in those articles.

Focus group interview

A focus group interview was conducted with six in-service secondary school EFL teachers from Kazakhstan, selected through non-probability sampling to ensure diversity in experience, academic levels, and school type. The discussion began with broad questions about their use of L1 and translation in teaching, with follow-up inquiries becoming more specific, inspired by findings from the literature review. For example, questions explored correlations between L1 use and learners' English proficiency and sought teachers' opinions on practical techniques for incorporating L1 and translation into instruction. Participants were also encouraged to highlight any pertinent issues not previously addressed. Some insights from the focus group interview were incorporated into the MultiTeachViews questionnaire as items to ensure that Kazakhstani secondary school EFL teachers actively participated in its development. This participatory approach significantly strengthens the instrument.

Questionnaire development

Item writing

Questionnaire pool

The literature review and focus group interview identified four primary constructs for the questionnaire: Advocacy of L1 and Translation in Language Teaching (Advocacy), Opposition to L1 and Translation in Language Teaching (Opposition), L1 and Translation Practices (Practices), and Teacher Training and Institutional Influence (Influences).

The questionnaire pool predominantly consisted of newly written items based on insights from previous studies and the focus group discussion. Additionally, some items were adapted from Hall and Cook's global survey on teachers' perspectives regarding the use of learners' L1 in English teaching [27]. However, modifications were required to ensure their relevance and appropriateness within the specific research context of Kazakhstan (see Illustration 1).

Illustration 1

Item modifications

Original: Own-language use helps learners work together [27].

Modified: I think, L1 use helps learners work together.

Reason: Unfamiliar terminology that may lead to teacher misunderstandings should be avoided.

Original: English should be the main language used in the classroom [27].

Modified: In my opinion, English should be the only language used in the classroom.

Reason: Evident statements likely to be endorsed by almost everyone or almost no one should be avoided.

Designing the personal information section

In line with Dörnyei and Dewaele's [25] guidelines, the questionnaire strategically positions factual questions at the end, in the second section (see Fig. 2). This section includes six background queries about the teachers' academic levels, experience, proficiency, school type, class size, and learners' proficiency levels.

Fig. 2.

Personal information section.

It is advisable to provide ready-made response options for them to choose from to address potential respondent fatigue towards the end of the survey. However, it is crucial to meticulously investigate the context and population to ensure the options are relevant. For instance, given that secondary school EFL teachers in Kazakhstan typically hold a BA and may also possess an MA degree in teaching [28], the response options should reflect these academic levels (see Fig. 3). Additionally, including an “other” option allows respondents to provide answers outside the pre-defined categories, ensuring that their responses are not constrained.

Fig. 3.

Example of ready-made response options.

Designing rating scale

A 5-point Likert scale was selected for rating, allowing teachers to express their level of agreement or disagreement with statements regarding the use of L1 and translation in EFL classrooms. The decision to employ a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree” (refer to Fig. 4), was informed by literature suggesting that scales ranging from five to seven points tend to offer greater reliability and validity compared to shorter or longer alternatives [29]. This rating scale strikes a balance by providing sufficient granularity for respondents to convey their attitudes accurately. Moreover, the widespread use of a similar 5-point grading system in Kazakhstani schools, where ratings range from one (“very bad” or fail) to five (“very good” or excellent), ensures that respondents are already familiar with this format. This familiarity is anticipated to facilitate ease of understanding and contribute to more precise and efficient responses, leveraging teachers' accustomedness to interpreting and applying such scales in educational assessments.

Fig. 4.

Questionnaire rating scale.

Sample selection criteria

Opportunity sampling, a type of non-probability sampling commonly used in L2 research [25], was employed to select participants. The inclusion criteria specified that participants must be in-service secondary school EFL teachers from Kazakhstan to ensure diversity in experience, academic levels, school types, class sizes, and proficiency levels. Teachers who were not actively teaching EFL at the time of the study or who did not consent to participate were excluded.

Various types of secondary schools (state, private, international) across different regions of Kazakhstan were contacted to circulate the survey among their English language teachers to ensure wide coverage. Additionally, the Association for the Professional Development of English Teachers in Kazakhstan (KazELT) was contacted to distribute the survey among its members.

We made significant efforts to ensure a high return rate for the questionnaires, which was crucial for obtaining representative data. These efforts included making the questions directly relevant to the survey takers, providing participants with a concise description of the study and its purpose, ensuring anonymity, and maintaining a user-friendly layout of the questionnaires (see Appendix).

Statistical analysis procedures

Statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 26. We utilized descriptive statistics to profile the participants effectively and summarise the dataset.

A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean values of two comprehensive survey scales—Advocacy and Opposition, each consisting of eight statements. This choice is justified by its common use in research, particularly for measuring less concrete concepts such as attitude, motivation, and confidence, where a single survey item might not fully capture the concept being assessed [30].

A one-sample t-test was performed to determine the mean scores for survey items categorized under the Practices and Influences scales. Each item's mean was compared to the neutral value of 3, where scores below 3 indicate a negative orientation and above 3 indicate a positive one.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) explored the impact of various contextual variables (e.g., school type, class size, teachers' and learners' English language levels, teachers' experience, and academic levels) on the survey scales. A significant difference is generally indicated if the p-value of a variable is less than 0.05 [31]. Any significant differences among contextual variables were further analyzed using the Tukey post hoc test.

Table 1 provides a detailed overview of the types of statistical analyses conducted along with their specific purposes.

Table 1.

Overview of statistical analyses and their purposes.

Program	Statistical analysis	Purpose
SPSS	Descriptive statistics	To describe the sample and summarise the dataset.
	Inferential statistics ↓ t-tests: 1. one-sample t-test 2. paired-samples t-test ANOVA	→ To determine whether a mean of a single item significantly differs from the neutral value. → To compare the mean values of two scales, e.g., Advocacy vs. Opposition. → To assess the impact of contextual variables on survey scales.

Method validation

Validation

Validation by the questionnaire developer using a checklist

The questionnaire developer crafted a checklist based on the questionnaire development methodologies proposed by Dornyei and Dewaele [25] and Iwaniec [26]. This checklist was instrumental in ensuring the questionnaire met all critical stages of development. It proved especially useful in the detailed assessment of the questionnaire's internal and content validity, facilitated by a set of specific questions, as shown in Illustration 2.

Illustration 2

Sample questions from the checklist

Internal validity:

Have the constructs been verified?

Do they accurately represent the intended content areas?

Content validity:

Has it been confirmed which items correspond to each construct?

Is there a minimum of 4-6 items per construct?

Additionally, the questionnaire developer employed the checklist to enhance the questionnaire's clarity and readability. It refined the language and presentation to ensure that respondents could understand the questions without difficulty. Creating a similar checklist, aligning with established questionnaire development methodologies, allows the survey developer to ensure the questionnaire's validity systematically.

Expert validation

The instrument was subjected to expert validation, drawing on the insights of four reviewers, each carefully selected for their specialised knowledge and experience relevant to the design of the questionnaire:

• •A Research Design and Statistics professor with extensive expertise in quantitative research methodologies and statistical analysis.
• •PhD colleagues specialising in survey development with practical knowledge of questionnaire design and implementation.
• •An academic supervisor with a deep understanding of academic language use, terminology, and clarity.

Their collective feedback prompted significant modifications that enhanced the questionnaire's clarity, relevance, and content validity. Adjustments included:

• •Paraphrasing certain items to improve comprehension.
• •Incorporating hedging in statements to reflect teachers' perceptions more accurately.
• •Avoiding technical terminology that may be unfamiliar to most school teachers.
• •Revising items originally phrased in negated positive mode to direct negative mode for more precise response options.
• •Eliminating brackets in questions to maintain reliability and content validity.
• •Eliminating the conjunction 'and' to prevent double-barreled questions, ensuring clarity and allowing for precise responses.

Table 2 presents an illustrative summary of some of these expert comments and the corresponding statement revisions. The table's structure—listing the original statement, expert comments, and the revised statement—follows the format suggested by Baliwati et al. [32]. Additionally, a “Type of Enhancement” category has been added to each entry, providing detailed insights by outlining the specific nature of the feedback and the adjustments implemented.

Table 2.

Expert feedback and revisions for questionnaire improvement.

Statement	Comments from experts	Statement revision	Type of enhancement
I feel that translation activities are not interesting for learners.	Enhance clarity and reduce cognitive load to minimize potential confusion and avoid redundancy associated with “not.”	I feel that translation activities are boring for learners.	Clarity
Translation use leads to negative transfer from the learner's first language into English.	EFL teachers might not be aware of technical terms like “negative transfer.”	L1 use has a negative impact on the learning process as L1 interferes with English.	Content validity
L1 use makes learners less anxious than English-only class.	Add some hedging to the statement as it does not directly relate to teachers’ perceptions.	I assume that L1 use makes learners less anxious than English-only class.	Relevance
Translating is a fifth skill (in addition to reading, writing, listening and speaking).	Refrain from using brackets as they make the question unreliable and lacking content validity.	Translating is a fifth skill, in addition to reading, writing, listening and speaking.	Content validity
L1 use reduces the opportunities for learners to speak and practice English.	Double-barreled question implied by original phrasing.	The use of L1 reduces opportunities to practice English in the classroom.	Content validity
L1 use makes learners less anxious.	Add hedging some hedging to the statement as it does not directly relate to teachers’ perceptions. Also, clarify comparative aspect: less anxious than what?	I assume that L1 use makes learners less anxious than English-only class.	Relevance Clarity

Piloting

Think-aloud sessions

Two think-aloud sessions were conducted with in-service EFL teachers in Kazakhstani secondary schools to verify that respondents understood the questions correctly and to identify any potential challenges in completing the MultiTeachViews questionnaire. Following the methodology of Ericsson and Simon [33], participants were asked to express their thoughts aloud as they navigated through the survey questions. The main objective of these sessions was to uncover items that might cause confusion or require an undue amount of time and effort to comprehend and answer. Each session, excluding subsequent discussion, lasted approximately 15 min, effectively aiding in the identification and resolution of issues and in estimating the survey's optimal completion time to be between 10–15 min (Table 3).

Table 3.

Feedback from think-aloud sessions.

Teacher 1	Teacher 2
Highlighted inaccuracies in the answer options regarding types of secondary schools, aiding in refining the terminology used.	Recommended avoiding the term “optional” in open-ended questions to prevent discouragement among respondents. Instead, she advised modifying the online form to deselect the “required” option for these questions, explaining that marking questions as optional might lead some respondents to skip them.

Reliability analysis

The reliability of the MultiTeachViews questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach's alpha (α) through the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26. This evaluation was performed on responses from a sample of 100 secondary school EFL teachers, with teaching experience ranging from 1 to 40 years (M = 10, SD = 9.2). The sample's proficiency levels were as follows: 37 % upper-intermediate, 36 % advanced, 19 % intermediate, and 8 % native or near-native speakers. Regarding academic levels, 51 % of the teachers possessed a BA, 38 % an MA, and 11 % a PhD in the Foreign Language: Two Foreign Languages program.

The participants primarily worked in state schools (55 %), with the remainder in private (34 %) and international schools (11 %). The proficiency levels of the learners they most frequently taught were categorized as 38 % pre-intermediate, 28 % beginner, 28 % intermediate, and a combined 6 % for upper-intermediate and advanced levels. The average class size ranged from 10 to 15 students.

The main objective of the reliability analysis was to ascertain the internal consistency of the questionnaire's four primary scales. The analysis yielded acceptable reliability scores for each scale (see Table 4), with Cronbach's Alpha coefficients exceeding .70, indicating a substantial level of internal consistency [34]. Therefore, the MultiTeachViews questionnaire designed to evaluate teachers' attitudes towards the use of L1 and translation in EFL classrooms demonstrated significant reliability, confirming its suitability as a reliable instrument for further research.

Table 4.

Reliability analysis results for survey scales.

Scale name	Number of items	Cronbach's Alpha coefficient
Advocacy of L1 and Translation in Language Teaching	8	.86
Opposition to L1 and Translation in Language Teaching	8	.75
L1 and Translation Practices	7	.78
Teacher Training and Institutional Influence	8	.77

Practical implications of MultiTeachViews

MultiTeachViews have several practical implications for researchers, teachers, and policymakers:

Cross-cultural applications: The validated MultiTeachViews questionnaire can be adapted to other countries and educational contexts. This adaptation can help researchers globally explore and understand the role of L1 and translation tasks in language teaching.

Teaching practices: Teachers can gain valuable insights into their colleagues' opinions, which may inspire them to critically evaluate and refine their personal teaching attitudes. This reflection process may lead to adaptations in their teaching practices.

Policymaking: MultiTeachViews can benefit educational policymakers when deciding whether to amend or retain the existing monolingual curriculum. The insights provided by MultiTeachViews can inform policies that support a more multilingual approach to English language teaching.

Potential biases, limitations and recommendations

This method study represents a pioneering effort in developing and validating the MultiTeachViews questionnaire, designed to evaluate Kazakhstani secondary school EFL teachers' attitudes towards the use of L1 and translation in English language teaching. While MultiTeachViews, in its current state, demonstrates acceptable levels of reliability and cohesiveness, several limitations and potential biases must be acknowledged to further enhance its credibility and reliability.

Selection bias

Approximately 95 % of schools in Kazakhstan are state-owned day schools; private and international schools constitute a smaller percentage at 2.6 %, while the remaining 2.4 % include evening schools, special correctional schools, and other specialized institutions [13]. In our pilot study, the share of teachers was as follows: participants primarily worked in state schools (55 %), with the remainder in private (34 %) and international schools (11 %). While this represents Kazakhstani secondary school EFL teachers, it could be improved.

We employed opportunity sampling, like many SLA studies [25]. To mitigate selection bias, we made extensive efforts to ensure our sample was as representative of the population as possible. The measures included contacting numerous schools and enlisting the KazELT to distribute our survey among its members. Despite these efforts, we acknowledge that we had difficulties in controlling the selection process.

Therefore, future studies should account for this disproportion within the teacher population to ensure a more representative sample. If the study receives financial grants, more rigorous sampling techniques, such as stratified random sampling [25], can be employed to enhance the sample's representativeness.

Response bias

As discussed earlier, contemporary language teaching is dominated by the monolingual or English-only view, which claims that English is best taught and learned without using learners' L1. Moreover, Kazakhstani English language teaching policy, curriculum, and textbooks reinforce this English-only approach. There is no doubt that this monolingual view influences teachers. As a result, social desirability bias might occur when participants respond in a way they think is expected or socially acceptable rather than how they truly feel [25]. Teachers might advocate for English-only teaching to meet the social expectations of the so-called “ideal English language classroom.”

We ensured anonymity and confidentiality to mitigate this response bias, encouraging teachers to share their attitudes. Moreover, the survey questions focus on teachers' views of classroom practices involving learners' L1 and translation rather than their own practices. To compare teachers' self-reported attitudes with the EFL classroom reality, classroom observation as a research method is recommended for future studies to confirm the survey findings.

Context-specific limitation

A primary limitation identified is the study's focus on the Kazakhstani secondary education context. This focus may limit the immediate applicability of the questionnaire across different national or educational settings without subsequent validation. While the first part of the questionnaire is universal, the second part—background data of the survey takers—might differ from context to context. Therefore, cross-cultural validation is advocated to ascertain the questionnaire's reliability and adaptability within various linguistic and educational landscapes. We recommend following Illustration 1 to adapt our instrument to other contexts if necessary.

Reliability assessment limitation

As Sijtsma [35] points out, researchers tend to rely on a single reliability assessment as the sole indicator of reliability, which is the case in the current study. This methodological limitation might not fully capture the reliability of the survey scales. Including multiple reliability estimates might reflect better practice and provide a more comprehensive picture of the survey scales' reliability [35]. Therefore, it is recommended to use multiple reliability estimates, such as McDonald's Omega, Guttman's Lambda, and others.

Future research directions

This study lays the groundwork for further research in several areas. To extend the findings and enhance the generalizability of the MultiTeachViews questionnaire, future research should consider the following:

Cross-cultural validation

Replicate the study in different national and educational settings to validate the questionnaire's reliability and adaptability across various linguistic and educational contexts. The replication studies help ascertain whether the attitudes towards the use of L1 and translation in English language teaching are consistent or vary significantly in different environments.

For instance, MultiTeachViews can be adapted for tertiary education EFL teachers. Items related to school should be substituted by university, and background questions should include types of higher education institutions. Other tertiary education setting nuances should also be taken into account.

In addition, since MultiTeachViews's primary focus is on multilingual teaching practices, it can also be adapted for other foreign language teachers, thereby broadening the instrument's scope and applicability. The adaptation could involve translating the questionnaire and modifying questions to fit the specific language teaching context. In the adaptation process, English should be substituted with the corresponding language, for example, using Kazakh to teach Russian or vice versa.

Lastly, future research is encouraged to utilize the methodology outlined in this study to create a companion questionnaire that evaluates learners' attitudes towards L1 and translation use in the EFL classroom. This initiative promises to enrich the understanding of instructional dynamics in EFL classrooms, offering a more detailed view of the pedagogical interactions and processes involved. EFL learners' insights are expected to contribute significantly to the discourse on language pedagogy, revealing the multifaceted nature of teaching and learning within multilingual contexts.

Mixed-methods research

Combine MultiTeachViews with qualitative methods, such as interviews, focus groups, and classroom observations, to gain deeper insights into teachers' attitudes and the contextual factors influencing their views.

Interviews allow for a more comprehensive analysis by exploring what EFL teachers think about L1 and translation use in the class and why they hold certain attitudes.

Focus groups can generate rich, interactive dialogue that reveals collective attitudes and shared experiences among EFL teachers.

Classroom observations enable researchers to compare EFL teachers' self-reported attitudes with their teaching practices. Observations can provide concrete examples of how and when L1 and translation tasks are used in the classroom, highlighting any discrepancies between what teachers say they do and what they actually do.

Ethics statements

This study received approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE) Doctoral School of Linguistics—Doctoral Programme in Language Pedagogy and English Applied Linguistics, under the reference AS-REAP-230522. It was conducted in strict adherence to internationally recognized ethical standards, including ethical guidelines for educational research by the British Educational Research Association. Detailed information about the study's purpose and the nature of the questionnaire was provided to participants, who voluntarily agreed to participate by providing informed consent. Rigorous measures were implemented to ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of participants, including encrypted data storage and anonymization of identifiable information before analysis. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any time without repercussions, and efforts were made to ensure the secure handling and privacy of all collected data used solely for research purposes.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Aidana Smagul: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix. Supplementary materials

Supplementary material and/or additional information [OPTIONAL]

MultiTeachViews questionnaire

Data availability

• Data will be made available on request.