Research Design Trends in Studies on Language Instruction in EFL Classrooms

International Journal of Social Science and Human Research ISSN (print): 2644-0679, ISSN (online): 2644-0695 Volume 08 Issue 12 December 2025 DOI: 10.47191/ijsshr/v8-i12-23, Impact factor8.007 Page No: 9372-9378 IJSSHR, Volume 08 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshr.in Page 9372 Research Design Trends in Studies on Language Instruction in EFL Classrooms Siti Hayatun Nufus1, Maulina Maulina*2, Novita Purnamasari Rahayu3, Julianti Julianti4, Masnawati Masnawati5, Andi Anidya Yusfira6, Titin Rahmiatin Rahim7, Yuliyanah Sain8, Rahmat Nasrullah9 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Graduate Program of English Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Kendari, Indonesia 9Undergraduate Program of English Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Kendari, Indonesia ABSTRACT: This Systematic Literature Review (SLR) investigates research design trends in studies focusing on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction. Twenty-four peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2024 were analyzed to identify commonalities in methodological approaches, participant characteristics, instruments, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques. The review finds that while qualitative and quantitative designs remain prevalent, there is a growing trend toward mixed-methods, action research, and research and development (R&D) approaches, reflecting a pedagogical shift toward contextual and learner-centered practices. Most studies involved university-level participants, with commonly used instruments including questionnaires, interviews, tests, and classroom observations. The analysis also reveals a preference for statistical and thematic tools, such as SPSS and manual coding, indicating an effort to ensure both rigor and depth in data interpretation. Despite methodological richness, significant gaps persist, particularly in longitudinal studies and research in rural or underrepresented educational settings. These findings offer meaningful guidance for future investigations into EFL instruction, especially in broadening research settings, improving representativeness, and enhancing methodological integration to better address diverse learning needs and instructional environments. KEYWORD: Language Instruction, EFL Classrooms, Research Design Trends, Systematic Literature Review, ELT 1. INTRODUCTION The role of English as a global lingua franca has expanded significantly in the past few decades, shaping the way education systems design and deliver language instruction. As English becomes an essential tool for international communication, scientific advancement, and technological development countries where English is taught as a foreign language (EFL) have been striving to improve both language teaching methodologies and research practices. In these contexts, English language instruction is not only a linguistic goal but also a social and academic necessity (Jenkins, Baker & Dewey, 2018). EFL classrooms have evolved into complex learning environments that require adaptive and effective teaching strategies. Influenced by globalization, multiculturalism, digital innovation, and learner diversity, instructional approaches in EFL settings are becoming increasingly varied (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). These changes have prompted researchers to explore how different methods impact learner engagement, motivation, and achievement. While the volume of research on English language instruction in EFL contexts continues to grow, many studies focus narrowly on pedagogical techniques, instructional media, or student outcomes, without critically examining the research designs used to investigate these phenomena. Yet, as Dörnyei (2007) argued, the robustness and validity of findings in applied linguistics are highly dependent on the rigor of the underlying research methodology. Inadequate research design can lead to flawed interpretations, limiting the generalizability and practical utility of the findings. Moreover, in the increasingly data-driven academic landscape, systematic knowledge about how research is conducted in EFL instruction has become necessary. Research design determines how data are collected, interpreted, and contextualized. This includes the selection of participants, instruments, procedures, and data analysis techniques—all of which affect the quality and relevance of the research. Therefore, understanding trends in research design is not merely a methodological concern but a strategic component of advancing English language education as a discipline (Mackey & Gass, 2015). Despite its importance, relatively few systematic literature reviews have focused specifically on research design trends within the context of EFL instruction. Previous reviews have often concentrated on themes such as teaching strategies, learner autonomy, or technological integration (Sun et al., 2024; Yudha et al., 2024), rather than on how these areas are being investigated Research Design Trends in Studies on Language Instruction in EFL Classrooms IJSSHR, Volume 08 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshr.in Page 9373 methodologically. This results in a blind spot that leaves educators, researchers, and policy-makers without a clear understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and emerging patterns in language education research. Additionally, the growing adoption of mixed-methods, action research, and research and development (R&D) approaches has introduced new paradigms in how classroom research is designed and implemented. These approaches encourage contextually grounded, practitioner-led inquiry, moving beyond traditional empirical designs to more dynamic, participatory models (Campbell & Filimon, 2018). Capturing this methodological evolution is crucial for identifying gaps and informing the next generation of EFL research. Therefore, this systematic literature review (SLR) aims to fill that gap by providing a comprehensive analysis of research design trends in EFL instruction studies. It examines not only the frequency of various research designs but also the associated participant types, data collection tools, and analytical techniques. The study synthesizes evidence from 24 peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2024, selected through systematic criteria. This review is guided by the following research question: What are the dominant research design trends in studies of language instruction in EFL classrooms between 2010 and 2024? 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Language instruction in EFL settings refers to the structured and intentional teaching of English to learners in environments where English is not used as a primary medium of communication. It is shaped by multiple factors, including linguistic background, instructional goals, cultural contexts, and theoretical orientations that inform both pedagogy and research. Historically, language instruction was rooted in behaviorist theory, which emphasizes habit formation through drills, repetition, and reinforcement. This perspective gave rise to methods such as Grammar-Translation and the Audio-Lingual Method. While these are now considered outdated, they laid a foundation for understanding structured learning (Ellis, 2012). Cognitive and constructivist theories later shifted the focus toward internal mental processes and learner autonomy. Piaget and Vygotsky’s influence introduced the idea that language learning is a process of constructing knowledge through interaction, scaffolding, and problem-solving (Larsen-Freeman, 2023). Modern instruction is now heavily influenced by the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach, which prioritizes realworld language use, fluency, and learner-centered environments (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Sociocultural theory further supports this by emphasizing the role of interaction, community, and cultural tools in the development of language competence. These theoretical paradigms directly impact how research is designed. Qualitative research often reflects sociocultural and constructivist roots seen in ethnography, case studies, and action research. Meanwhile, quantitative research aligns with positivist and cognitive perspectives, valuing measurement and experimental control (Creswell, 2014). Newer approaches such as reflective practice, inquiry-based learning, and teacher-led research have encouraged methodologies like R&D and classroom action research. These not only connect theory to practice but also empower teachers to innovate and evaluate instructional strategies (Campbell & Filimon,2018). In the digital era, theories of digital literacy and multimodal learning are shaping how we teach and study language. Mobileassisted language learning (MALL), flipped classrooms, and AI-enhanced instruction reflect connectivist ideas—learning as networked, collaborative, and tech-driven. In summary, the theoretical foundations of EFL instruction are diverse and evolving. Understanding these paradigms helps researchers align their questions and methods meaningfully, ensuring both pedagogical relevance and methodological rigor. 3. METHOD The SLR followed a structured protocol for identifying and synthesizing empirical research on EFL instruction. A total of 24 studies were selected based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) published between 2010 and 2024; (2) focused on EFL teaching and learning practices; (3) explicitly stated the research design; (4) full-text availability; and (5) empirical or systematic. The studies were retrieved from reputable journals and academic conference proceedings in the fields of English language teaching, applied linguistics, and education. Each article was reviewed to extract key information regarding its research design, participant types, research instruments, data collection procedures, and analysis methods. Rather than listing the extracted data as bullet points, a narrative synthesis was developed to provide a cohesive overview of the trends. A literature matrix was also constructed to assist in comparison and ensure that each source was properly analyzed. All cited studies are included in the reference list following APA (7th edition) style. Search Strategy Databases searched included Scopus, ERIC, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate. Combinations of keywords were used, such as “EFL instruction,” “language teaching research design,” “ELT classroom research,” “mixed-methods in language instruction,” and “action research in ELT.” Boolean operators (AND, OR) and filters (date range, peer-reviewed) refined the search results. Research Design Trends in Studies on Language Instruction in EFL Classrooms IJSSHR, Volume 08 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshr.in Page 9374 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Articles were included if they: (1) were empirical studies or systematic reviews, (2) focused explicitly on EFL instruction, (3) stated the research design used, (4) were published between 2010 and 2024, and (5) were in English with full-text access. Excluded were opinion pieces, conference abstracts, non-academic sources, and studies with unclear methodology. Screening and Selection From over 250 initial results, duplicates were removed, and abstracts were screened. 78 full-text articles were read, and finally, 24 studies were selected for in-depth analysis. The selection process involved two reviewers for reliability and consistency. Data Extraction and Coding A matrix was developed to extract details from each study: title, author, year, country, research design, participants, instruments, data collection techniques, and analysis methods. Thematic coding was done to group studies by methodology and trends. Patterns in design frequency, participant types, and data strategies were visualized and interpreted. Validity and Reliability To ensure reliability, coding was cross-checked by two researchers. Triangulation of design types was done to verify patterns. Where needed, clarifications were drawn from the original full-text sources. The process was iterative, ensuring depth and clarity. This methodology enabled a structured synthesis of how EFL instruction research has evolved methodologically, revealing shifts in research culture, emerging designs, and underexplored areas 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The analysis of 24 peer-reviewed studies on EFL instruction revealed several noteworthy trends in research methodology. This section discusses the dominant research designs, participant demographics, data collection instruments, and analysis techniques employed in these studies. Types of Research Design Among the 24 studies, qualitative and quantitative research designs were the most frequently used, with 7 and 6 studies, respectively. Mixed-methods approaches were also prominent, appearing in 5 studies. Other methodologies included content or document analysis (3 studies), action research (1 study), research and development (R&D) (1 study), and systematic review (1 study). This distribution, shown in Figure 1, reflects a growing interest in integrative and classroom-based approaches that combine empirical rigor with contextual relevance. Figure 1. Distribution of Research Designs in EFL Instruction Studies (2010–2024) The figure illustrates the distribution of research designs across the 24 studies reviewed. Qualitative designs were the most prevalent, comprising approximately 29% of the studies, followed by quantitative designs at 25%. Mixed-methods accounted for 21%, content analysis for 13%, and both action research and research and development (R&D) were used in 4% each. One study (4%) applied a systematic literature review approach. This distribution underscores the dominance of traditional empirical approaches such as qualitative and quantitative research. However, it also indicates an ongoing shift toward methodological plurality. The emergence of mixed-methods designs reveals researchers’ intent to triangulate data and provide a more holistic understanding. Similarly, the use of action research and Research Design Trends in Studies on Language Instruction in EFL Classrooms IJSSHR, Volume 08 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshr.in Page 9375 R&D reflects the increasing involvement of teachers as practitioner-researchers, focusing on classroom-based inquiry.The inclusion of a systematic review in the dataset highlights a growing interest in synthesizing existing knowledge to guide future practice. Qualitative research was favored in studies seeking to explore the lived experiences, beliefs, and practices of both teachers and learners. For instance, Setyaningsih (2023) used narrative inquiry to examine students’ awareness of linguistic features, while Subekti (2018) investigated the self-efficacy of Indonesian EFL learners through interviews and reflection. These designs allowed for rich, contextual insights that quantitative studies may not fully capture. Quantitative research was commonly used in experimental and quasi-experimental designs that aimed to measure the impact of instructional interventions. Dinçer & Polat (2022), for example, conducted a flipped classroom experiment to assess grammar achievement, while Munawir et al. (2021) examined the use of authentic materials on vocabulary acquisition. Such studies typically employed pre-tests, post-tests, and statistical analysis to evaluate outcomes. Mixed-methods research emerged as a growing trend, demonstrating the field's shift toward integrative approaches. These studies combined numerical data with qualitative insights, providing a more holistic view of instructional impact. García-García et al. (2018) utilized surveys and interviews to examine teacher perceptions and classroom behaviors, offering both breadth and depth. Kasgari (2023) similarly implemented explanatory mixed-methods to assess writing motivation. Action research and R&D, though less frequent, were significant for their practitioner-oriented approach. Campbell & Filimon (2018) employed action research to refine writing instruction based on classroom feedback, while Hastini (2018) used the ADDIE model in R&D to develop technology-integrated instructional materials. These approaches empowered teachers as researchers, promoting reflective practice. The presence of a systematic literature review (Yudha et al., 2024) also reflected a maturing research culture, highlighting meta-analytical efforts to synthesize knowledge. Despite their diversity, these studies collectively reveal a trend toward more participatory and classroom-grounded methodologies. Participants The participant profiles in the reviewed studies were predominantly university students, featured in 15 out of the 24 studies. This demographic preference can be attributed to the accessibility and availability of university students for research purposes. However, it also reflects a bias that potentially limits the generalizability of findings to broader EFL populations. Secondary school students were the second most represented group. Studies by Makruf et al. (2021) and Munawir et al. (2021) involved junior and senior high school learners to assess speaking skills and vocabulary development respectively. These contexts allowed researchers to investigate pedagogical strategies suited to younger, less autonomous learners. Several studies also involved EFL teachers as primary participants. For instance, Imran et al. (2024) employed a phenomenological design to explore teachers’ perceptions of effective classroom practices at the elementary level. Similarly, Esmaeilee (2024) engaged Iranian teachers in a grounded theory study to understand their use of e-portfolios in speaking instruction. Mixed participant groups, comprising both teachers and students, were found in studies such as Sun & Zhang (2021), where teacher cognition and learner engagement were examined together. These designs provided a dual perspective on instructional dynamics, enriching the understanding of how practices unfold in real time. A major gap observed was the underrepresentation of participants from rural, remote, or socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. Research by Sidek (2010) and Yanto & Irwansyah (2022) highlighted the urban-centric focus of EFL research in Indonesia and Malaysia, calling for more inclusive studies. The lack of longitudinal participant tracking was another limitation. Most studies featured short-term interventions, making it difficult to assess the sustainability of instructional effects over time. Incorporating longitudinal elements could offer insights into how learner outcomes evolve. Instruments Used A variety of instruments were employed across the studies, tailored to their respective research designs. Quantitative studies primarily utilized standardized tests, structured questionnaires, and pre/post-test assessments. For example, Bouftira et al. (2022) used pragmatic competence tests to measure the impact of blended learning, while Dinçer & Polat (2022) applied achievement tests to evaluate grammar proficiency. Questionnaires were particularly common, used to gather large-scale data on learner attitudes, motivation, and teacher practices. These ranged from Likert-scale surveys to open-ended forms. In many cases, researchers adapted or validated existing instruments to ensure reliability and construct validity. Qualitative instruments included semi-structured interviews, reflective journals, lesson observations, and think-aloud protocols. Lasagabaster (2015) and Setyaningsih (2023) utilized interviews to explore learner perspectives and linguistic awareness. These tools facilitated in-depth narratives and participant-centered analysis. Mixed-methods studies combined both types. García-García et al. (2018) collected quantitative survey data alongside qualitative interviews, while Wibowo et al. (2023) combined performance tests with post-activity reflections in speaking classes. This blending of instruments enhanced the richness of the data. Research Design Trends in Studies on Language Instruction in EFL Classrooms IJSSHR, Volume 08 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshr.in Page 9376 Innovative instruments also appeared in more recent studies. Esmaeilee (2024) used e-portfolios as both pedagogical tools and data sources. Yanto & Irwansyah (2022) implemented mobile applications to facilitate and assess speaking practice, reflecting the growing influence of educational technology. R&D studies often included prototype testing instruments, usability surveys, and feedback forms from pilot implementations. These tools were essential for iterative refinement of instructional products. Data Collection Techniques Researchers adopted a wide range of data collection methods to align with their research goals. Surveys and questionnaires were distributed both online and offline, enabling broader participant reach. Some studies leveraged platforms like Google Forms or institutional LMS for efficient dissemination. Classroom observations were a cornerstone in many qualitative and mixed-methods studies. Researchers often used structured observation checklists or open field notes to document teacher-student interactions. Campbell & Filimon (2018) and Imran et al. (2024) both incorporated observations to validate self-reported data. In-depth interviews, whether individual or focus group formats, were frequently used to uncover beliefs, experiences, and feedback. Esmaeilee (2024) and Sun, Yeh, & Huang (2024) conducted interviews to supplement survey findings and contextualize instructional strategies. Some studies integrated audiovisual recordings to capture real-time classroom dynamics, especially in speaking-focused interventions (Wibowo et al., 2023). This technique allowed for multimodal analysis, including gesture, tone, and timing. Document analysis was another method used, especially in content analysis studies. Sidek (2010) analyzed EFL curriculum documents to examine instructional alignment, while Subekti (2018) reviewed self-efficacy journals to trace learner development. Triangulation of data sources was a common strategy, particularly in mixed-methods designs. For example, Uzunboylu & Genc (2017) used mobile learning logs, teacher feedback, and learner surveys to examine digital trends in EFL learning. This approach bolstered credibility and depth. Data Analysis Techniques Quantitative data analysis was largely conducted using statistical software such as SPSS. Common tests included paired ttests, ANOVA, regression, and correlation analysis. Kasgari (2023) and Bouftira et al. (2022) applied inferential statistics to determine significance and generalizability. Some studies reported using descriptive statistics alone, particularly when presenting demographic data or frequency distributions. More advanced studies incorporated effect size, reliability coefficients, and multivariate analysis to deepen interpretation. Qualitative data were typically coded thematically. Researchers followed either inductive or deductive coding procedures, often supported by frameworks such as grounded theory or narrative analysis. Esmaeilee (2024) applied grounded theory coding, while Setyaningsih (2023) utilized narrative sequencing. Manual coding was the most common method, though a few studies used software like NVivo. This was especially helpful in managing large qualitative datasets, such as interview transcripts and journals. Mixed-methods studies often employed concurrent or sequential analysis models. García-García et al. (2018) first analyzed survey results, then conducted qualitative follow-up interviews to explain patterns. This sequencing added explanatory power. Finally, content analysis studies adopted systematic categorization approaches. Sidek (2010) identified recurring instructional themes in Malaysian curricula, while Yudha et al. (2024) synthesized themes from multiple review studies to identify research gaps. These analytic choices reflected growing methodological sophistication in EFL research. Discussion The analysis of 24 peer-reviewed articles on EFL instruction research designs reveals dynamic methodological diversity. Traditional designs, such as qualitative and quantitative approaches, still dominate the field. However, recent years have witnessed a significant rise in the use of mixed-methods, action research, and R&D frameworks. These trends signal a paradigm shift from researcher-centered studies to more participatory, reflective, and context-responsive approaches. Qualitative research remains indispensable for understanding complex classroom phenomena. Studies employing case studies, narrative inquiry, and ethnographic methods have been especially effective in capturing the lived experiences and perspectives of both teachers and learners (Setyaningsih, 2023; Subekti, 2018). These insights provide depth and contextual nuance that quantitative methods may overlook. They also allow for the exploration of sociocultural variables that influence language learning. Quantitative studies, on the other hand, maintain their relevance by offering statistical validation and generalizability. Quasi-experiments and cross-sectional surveys, such as those conducted by Dinçer & Polat (2022) and Bouftira et al. (2022), enable researchers to test hypotheses and measure outcomes reliably. The structured nature of these designs is particularly useful in evaluating the efficacy of instructional innovations across large sample sizes. Research Design Trends in Studies on Language Instruction in EFL Classrooms IJSSHR, Volume 08 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshr.in Page 9377 The increasing adoption of mixed-methods designs reflects a growing recognition of the complexity of language education. Studies by García-García et al. (2018) and Kasgari (2023) demonstrate how combining qualitative and quantitative data enhances the credibility and completeness of research findings. These integrative designs are well-suited for exploring not only what works, but also how and why instructional strategies succeed or fail in specific contexts. More notably, action research and R&D models are gaining momentum as teachers assume more active roles as researchers in their own classrooms (Campbell & Filimon 2018). These approaches emphasize cyclical reflection, collaboration, and real-time problem-solving. For example, Campbell & Filimon (2018) and Hastini (2018) illustrate how practitioner-led studies can generate relevant, practice-oriented solutions. Such designs contribute directly to professional development and pedagogical improvement. Despite these promising developments, several methodological gaps remain. First, there is a lack of longitudinal research that tracks instructional impact over extended periods. Most studies reviewed are short-term, limiting insights into sustained learning outcomes. Longitudinal designs could better capture learner development, instructional durability, and changes in teacher practice over time. Second, there is an overrepresentation of university-based participants, often from urban or semi-urban settings. This creates a skewed knowledge base that does not adequately reflect the diversity of EFL learning environments. Few studies, such as those by Sidek (2010) and Yanto & Irwansyah (2022), engage with rural or marginalized populations. Future research must prioritize inclusivity to ensure findings are representative and applicable across contexts. Third, the integration of technology as a variable in research design is growing but uneven. While some studies explore mobile learning (Uzunboylu & Genc, 2017; Yanto & Irwansyah, 2022), others overlook the role of digital tools in shaping instructional outcomes. As online and blended learning environments become the norm, research must evolve to address these changes. Finally, the alignment between research questions, methods, and instruments is not always clear. Some studies suffer from methodological inconsistencies or insufficient transparency in reporting procedures. Clear articulation of research frameworks, ethical considerations, and analytic strategies is necessary to improve the rigor and replicability of future studies. Overall, the findings of this SLR suggest a research community in transition—one that is experimenting with diverse designs, embracing teacher agency, and grappling with real-world classroom challenges. There is strong potential for methodological innovation, but also a pressing need for balance, rigor, and contextual sensitivity. 5. CONCLUSION This systematic literature review explored trends in research design within 24 studies focused on language instruction in EFL classrooms. The findings revealed a predominance of qualitative and quantitative research, with growing adoption of mixedmethods, action research, and R&D approaches. These shifts illustrate the field’s movement toward inclusive, practice-based, and integrative inquiry models. Participants were mostly university students, and instruments ranged from standardized tests to digital portfolios. Data collection methods included interviews, surveys, classroom observations, and document analysis, while data analysis techniques spanned thematic coding, descriptive statistics, and inferential modeling. The diversity of these elements demonstrates the complexity of researching language instruction in real-world settings. Despite the methodological breadth, several limitations persist. The lack of longitudinal designs hinders understanding of sustained instructional impact. The dominance of urban, university-level contexts raises concerns about representativeness. And while technological tools are increasingly featured, their integration into research frameworks remains inconsistent. To strengthen future research, scholars should aim for methodological transparency, context diversity, and theoretical alignment. Embracing inclusive populations, longer timeframes, and practitioner-driven approaches can deepen our understanding of what makes language instruction effective across settings. Ultimately, the trends identified in this review offer valuable guidance for researchers, educators, and policy-makers. By building on these insights, the EFL research community can continue to refine its practices, improve its outcomes, and respond more effectively to the needs of diverse learners around the world. REFERENCES 1) Bouftira, R., Meziani, R., & Mami, A. (2022). The effect of blended learning on learners’ pragmatic competence. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 13(1), 55–70. 2) Campbell, M., & Filimon, C. (2018). Exploring argumentative writing instruction in diverse classrooms: Action research. English Journal of Language and Literature, 9(2), 45–57. 3) Dinçer, S., & Polat, M. (2022). The effect of flipped grammar instruction on Turkish EFL learners’ achievement. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(3), 912–929. 4) Esmaeilee, M. (2024). Iranian EFL teachers' perceptions of the use of e-portfolios in speaking classes: A grounded theory approach. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 99–118. Research Design Trends in Studies on Language Instruction in EFL Classrooms IJSSHR, Volume 08 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshr.in Page 9378 5) García-García, M., Rosas-Vargas, H., & Molina-López, J. (2018). General education teachers as facilitators of EFL instruction: A mixed-method study. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 20(2), 45–58. 6) Hastini. (2018). Design and development of English instructional material based on CAI model at economics faculty. The 65th TEFLIN International Conference, Universitas Negeri Makassar, 15–21. 7) Hidayanti, I., Rahmawati, S., & Yunita, R. (2020). Teaching listening through strategy-based instruction. J-SHMIC: Journal of English for Academic, 7(1), 55–63. 8) Husni, A., Syamsuddin, S., & Anwar, K. (2024). The effect of repeated reading on EFL students’ reading fluency. Indonesian EFL Journal, 10(1), 1–10. 9) Imran, M., Almusharraf, N., Abdellatif, M. S., & Ghaffar, A. (2024). Teachers’ perspectives on effective English language teaching practices at the elementary level: A phenomenological study. Heliyon, 10, e29175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29175 10) Jenkins, J., Baker, W., & Dewey, M. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca (pp. xix-620). London: Routledge. 11) Kasgari, Z. A. (2023). The effect of quantum teaching method on writing motivation: An explanatory mixed-methods investigation. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 15(31), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.22034/elt.2023.56417.2538 12) Larsen-Freeman, D. (2023). Conceptualizing language education: Theories and practices. In The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 7-26). Routledge. 13) Lasagabaster, D. (2015). The relationship between motivation, gender, L1, and EFL learners’ linguistic competence in a CLIL context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 204–225. 14) Makruf, I., Widyastuti, W., & Maulidiyah, I. (2021). The effectiveness of flipped classroom strategy in improving students’ speaking skills. Journal of English Language Teaching and Literature (JELTL), 6(2), 123–134. 15) Munawir, M., Arifin, Z., & Hidayat, A. (2021). The effect of using authentic material on students’ vocabulary achievement. JELLT, 5(1), 22–31. 16) Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge university press. 17) Setyaningsih, R. (2023). Unveiling linguistic awareness in EFL classrooms: A narrative inquiry. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 18(1), 1–13. 18) Siagian, K. A. (2023). Survey research trends on English language teaching in Indonesia: Compare to mathematics teaching. Edukatif: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 5(6), 2783–2793. https://doi.org/10.31004/edukatif.v5i6.5996 19) Sidek, H. M. (2010). An analysis of EFL curriculum and reading instructional practices in Malaysian secondary schools. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 10(1), 51–68. 20) Subekti, A. S. (2018). Investigating self-efficacy and speaking performance of Indonesian EFL learners. Indonesian Journal of English Education, 5(2), 167–180. 21) Sun, P. P., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). EFL teachers’ cognitions about form-focused instruction. System, 99, 102487. 22) Sun, Y. C., Yeh, H. C., & Huang, Y. C. (2024). Literature-based instruction and learner autonomy in EFL college writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 68, 101232. 23) Uzunboylu, H., & Genc, Z. (2017). Analysis of foreign language learning trends via mobile learning. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 23(2), 249–263. 24) Wibowo, F. S., Kusuma, I. D., & Prasetyo, T. H. (2023). Integrating digital book in speaking class: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English Language Studies, 8(1), 44–55. 25) Yanto, H., & Irwansyah, D. (2022). Mobile application-based learning to enhance speaking skills. Journal of English Language and Teaching, 12(2), 98–109. 26) Yudha, E. K., Rudiyanto, & Rohman. (2024). Integrating creativity and technology in English language teaching: A systematic review. ELT Worldwide, 11(2), 302–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.26858/eltww.v11i2.65575 27) Zhang, W., & Pramoolsook, I. (2022). Ethnographic insights into genre-based writing instruction in Chinese EFL classrooms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 57, 101093. There is an Open Access article, distributed under the term of the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.