This chapter shows the results drawn from the questionnaires and the four open-ended questions. The questionnaire results are presented in two subsections. The first section reveals the means scores of teachers’ perceived importance and feasibility of learning performance items under each leaning category. The pair t-test results are also shown in the first subsection. The pair t-tests are used to see if there are significant differences in teachers’ perceived importance and feasibility of each learning performance item. The second section presents the ANOVA results. The ANOVA results are used to see whether groups of teachers with different backgrounds agree or disagree with each other in terms of the importance and feasibility of each learning performance item. The third section shows major themes identified from teachers’ responses to the open-ended questions.
Questionnaire Results
The first section presents teachers’ perceived importance and feasibility of learning performance items of each category in the following order: (a) Language Abilities (Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, and Integrated Skills s); (b) Interests in and Attitudes Toward Learning English; (c) Methods and Strategies in Learning English; (d) Cultural Understanding; and (e) Logical Thinking, Judgement, and Creativity. The results of the pair t-tests are also included.
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Learning Performance Items on Listening Table 4 presents the average scores of the importance and the feasibility of the learning performance items on listening. The t-test results on teachers’ perceived importance and feasibility of all learning performance items on listening are also presented in Table 4. P-values smaller than 0.01 are considered significant.
36
Table 4: T-test Results on Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Feasibility of Learning Performance Items on Listening
Learning
Performance Item
Importance Feasibility
t df p marked with an asterisk (＊) represent higher-level abilities, whereas those marked with a bullseye (◎) represent abilities that reappear throughout various learning stages.
In Table 4, a majority of these performance items on listening were assigned with importance values greater than 4 and feasibility values greater than 3, with a total mean of 4.11 for importance and 3.66 for feasibility. The research results indicate that
37
the importance and the feasibility of the learning performance items are recognized by teachers surveyed.
As displayed in Table 4, teachers consider the following three items the most important in Listening: Listening 1-V-2 (Can understand common daily English idioms and expressions, M = 4.68 for importance), Listening ◎1-V-1 (Can understand the English vocabulary learned in class, M = 4.60 for importance), and Listening ◎1-V-8 (Can understand any recorded English messages broadcast at the MRT, train stations, airports or any public places, M = 4.60 for importance). The following three items are placed with the least emphasis by teachers: Listening ◎1-V-14 ( Can understand on haring rhyming words and rhythms of songs, M = 3.26 for importance), Listening 1-V-7 (Can understand a short play spoken in English, M = 3.66 for importance), and Listening 1-V-5( Can understand the main contents of songs and poems in English, M = 3.67 for importance). The ranking order of perceived feasibility of the above items on listening seems slightly different from that of
perceived importance with a few overlaps. For the differences in the ranking between importance and feasibility, although Listening 1-V-4 was considered the most feasible (Can understand daily English conversations, M = 4.24 for feasibility), it was not among the top three in terms of importance. It suggests that teaching students the ability to understand daily English conversation might be practicable, but not the most important in teaching. For Listening ◎1-V-8 (Can understand any recorded English messages broadcast at the MRT, train stations, airports or any public places), although it was considered the third most importance item, it was not among the top three in terms of feasibility. It shows that what teaching Listening ◎1-V-8 was important, but not practicable in teaching.
Besides the differences in the ranking of perceived importance and feasibility, there are some similarity found in the following items. Listening 1-V-2 (Can
38
understand common daily English idioms and expressions) was ranked the most important and the third most feasible item (M = 4.68 for importance, M = 4.10 for feasibility). Listening ◎1-V-1 (Can understand the English vocabulary learned in class) was ranked the second most important and the second most feasible (M = 4.60 for importance, M = 4.20 for feasibility). It indicates that both Listening 1-V-2 and Listening ◎1-V-1 were considered the most important and the most feasible in teaching. These two items are of basic-level in terms of English proficiency and are closely related to the materials in the textbook. And Listening ◎1-V-14 (Can
understand rhyming words and rhythms of songs) was ranked the least important and the least feasible (M = 3.26 for importance, M = 3.09). Similar with the findings of Chuang’s study (2017), teachers put little emphasis on rhyming words and rhythms of songs. From the responses gathered from open-ended questions, “students’ low proficiency level” is one of the major concerns of teachers in teaching. Besides, teachers “reliance on textbooks” may also influence their perceived importance and feasibility of the learning performance items. “The lack of related materials in the textbooks” might account for their low ranking in both importance and feasibility value.
As most of the p-values of the paired t-tests for the learning performance items on Listening are smaller than 0.01, the t-tests results in Table 4 indicate significant differences between the values of importance and feasibility assigned to these items.
The importance values are all significantly greater than the feasibility values except for Listening 1-V-4 and Listening ◎1-V-14, suggesting a gap between perceived importance and perceived feasibility in English teaching regarding students’ listening.
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Learning Performance Items on Speaking Table 5 presents the average scores of the importance and the feasibility of the
39
learning performance items on listening. The t-test results on teachers’ perceived importance and feasibility of each learning performance items on listening are also presented in Table 5. According to Table 5, most of the learning performance items on speaking were assigned importance values higher than 4 and feasibility values higher than 3, with a total mean of 4.16 for importance and 3.62 for feasibility. The results suggest that teachers recognize the importance of learning performance items on speaking and consider them probably feasible.
Table 5: T-test Results on Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Feasibility of Learning Performance Items on Speaking
Learning
Performance Items
Importance Feasibility
t df p
M SD M SD
Speaking ◎2-V-1 4.57
(T1) .54 4.18
(T1) .76 7.31 206 .000 Speaking 2-V-2 4.51
(T2) .56 3.96
(T2) .77 9.59 206 .000 Speaking 2-V-3 4.43
(T3) .63 3.84
(T3) .81 10.37 206 .000 Speaking 2-V-4 4.34 .68 3.69 .85 10.15 206 .000 Speaking 2-V-5 4.28 .69 3.72 .77 8.96 206 .000 Speaking 2-V-6 3.95
(B2) .79 3.45 .88 7.91 206 .000 Speaking ◎2-V-7 3.49
(B1) .80 3.22
(B1) .90 4.25 206 .000 Speaking 2-V-8 3.99
(B3) .79 3.41
(B3) .99 8.68 206 .000 Speaking ＊2-V-9 4.03 .79 3.43 .94 9.73 206 .000 Speaking＊2-V-10
4.01 .84 3.26
(B2) 1.01 10.63 206 .000
Total 4.16 .50 3.62 .67 11.77 206 .000
Note. T1 = Top 1; T2 = Top 2; T3 = Top 3; B1 = Bottom 1; B2 = Bottom 2; B3 = Bottom 3.
Performance Items marked with an asterisk (＊) are considered higher-level abilities. Performance Items marked with a bullseye (◎) are considered abilities that reappear throughout various learning stages.
Table 5 indicates that the top three ranking orders on importance and feasibility are identical. The ranking order of the least importance and the least feasibility of the
40
above items on listening seems similar with slightly differences in two items. For the differences in the ranking of perceived importance and feasibility, Speaking 2-V-6 (Can tell a story in English from a picture) was considered the second least important item but not one of the least feasible ones (M = 3.95 for importance, M = 3.45 for feasibility). Yet Speaking＊2-V-10 (Can delivers coherent and logical short speeches, reports or explanations) was considered the second least feasible item but not one of the least importance ones (M = 4.01 for importance, M = 3.26 for feasibility). Since Speaking＊2-V-10 is of higher-level ability, teachers’ concerns over “students’ low proficiency level” might account for its low feasibility value.
As for the items with identical ranking in perceived importance and feasibility, Speaking ◎2-V-1, Speaking 2-V-2, and Speaking 2-V-3 were considered the most important and the most feasible items. Speaking ◎2-V-1 (Can say the English words or phrases learned in the classroom) was ranked as the most important and the most feasible item (M = 4.57 for importance, M = 4.18 for feasibility). Speaking 2-V-2 (Can introduce or describe oneself, family, and friends in English given different topics or scenarios) was the second most important and the second most feasible item (M = 4.51 for importance, M = 3.96 for feasibility). Speaking 2-V-3 (Can describes events or answers questions in English given different topics or scenarios) was the third most important and the second most feasible item (M = 4.43 for importance, M = 3.84 for feasibility). The above three items are of basic level in terms English
proficiency, teachers’ concerns for “students’ low proficiency level” may be one of the influential factors of their perceived importance and feasibility. For the items with identical ranking for the three least important and the least feasible, Speaking ◎2-V-7 (Can participate in short plays with simple English) was the least important and the least feasible item (M = 3.49 for importance, M = 3.22 for feasibility). The result was consistent with Chuang’s finding (2017), “participating in drama performances” was
41
perceived to be most unimportant and infeasible. In Chuang’s study, “interviewees argued that little class time could be spent on dramas”. From the responses gathered in the open-ended questions in the present study, teachers argued that “element such as short play should be removed” from learning performance items because of “the lack of related materials in the textbook.” Speaking 2-V-8 (Can take part in guided discussion in simple English) was the third least important and the third least feasible item (M = 3.99 for importance, M = 3.41 for feasibility). Teachers’ concerns over
“limited class hours” might be one of the reasons for its low importance and feasibility ranking.
As shown in Table 5, p-values of the paired t-tests for all speaking-related learning performance items are smaller than 0.01, suggesting that significant
differences exist between perceived importance and perceived feasibility within each speaking item. Specifically, assigned importance values are significantly higher when compared to feasibility value in all the learning performance items on speaking, therein showing an existing gap between perceived importance and perceived feasibility in teaching with regards to learning performance items on speaking.
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Learning Performance Items on Reading
The importance and feasibility mean scores for learning performance items on reading are shown in Table 6. Table 6 also individually presents the t-test results of teachers’ perceived importance and feasibility for all reading items in which most were assigned importance values higher than 4, with the exception of Reading 3-V-9 (Can tell stories or experiences with plot development and details given a topic). As for feasibility value, eight of the learning performance items on reading were assigned feasibility values higher than 4, while seven of them were higher than 3. In terms of learning performance items on reading, the total mean of the importance values
42
assigned is 4.43, and that of feasibility values is 4.02. The results suggest that teachers consider these items important and feasible.
Table 6: T-test Results on Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Feasibility of Learning Performance Items on Reading
Learning
Performance Item
Importance Feasibility
t df p
Performance Items marked with an asterisk (＊) are considered higher-level abilities, whereas items marked with a bullseye (◎) are considered abilities that reappear throughout various learning stages.
According to Table 6, inconsistences in ranking order between importance and feasibility were found in Reading 10 and Reading 15. Although Reading 3-V-10 (Can identify the elements of an English story, such as background, characters,
43
events, and the ending) was considered the third least important item in Reading category, it was not ranked as one of the three least feasible items (M = 4.22 for importance, M = 3.95 for feasibility). As identifying the elements of an English story is not commonly seen in exams, though it is not infeasible in teaching, it isn’t valued by the teachers. It is possible that “exam-oriented atmosphere” might have an
influence on teachers’ perceived importance of Reading 3-V-10. In contrast, Reading 3-V-15 (Can analyze and judge the contents of English articles to understand the viewpoint, attitude, and purposes of the authors/narrators) was ranked the second least feasible item, but not considered as one of the three least important ones in this
category (M = 4.43 for importance, M = 3.77 for feasibility).
As for the top three and the bottom three ranking orders of the items for
importance and feasibility, the researcher found the two ranking orders mostly similar with some slight differences. Reading 3-V-2 (Can read and understand signs in
English) was considered the most important and the second most feasible item (M = 4.64 for importance, M = 4.28 for feasibility). Reading ◎3-V-1 (Can identify English words and phrases learned in class when reading a text) was ranked the second most important and the most feasible item (M = 4.62 for importance, M = 4.31 for
feasibility). Reading 3-V-4 (Can read and understand common, daily English
expressions) was the third most important and the third most feasible item (M = 4.62 for importance, M = 4.26 for feasibility). The above three items are of the basic level in terms of English skills. And the ranking orders of these three items are similar to the results of Chuang’s study (2017). The junior high school teachers in Chuang’s study also ranked Reading-IV-2 (Can identify English vocabulary learned in class when reading) the most important and the most feasible, Reading-IV-5 (Can read and comprehend simple daily English expressions) the second most important and the third most feasible. As for the ranking of the least important and least feasible reading
44
items, Reading 3-V-9 (Can understand the content and plotline of a short English play) was considered the least important and the least feasible item (M = 3.94 for importance, M = 3.61 for feasibility). As mentioned in the previous sections, “the lack of related materials in the textbook”, especially “short play,” accounted for its low ranking of importance and feasibility. Reading 3-V-11 (Can read articles in English across different genres and subjects) also received the second lowest mean score for its importance and the third lowest mean score for its feasibility (M = 4.18 for importance, M = 3.82 for feasibility). Although reading articles in English across different genres and subjects were seen as the trend for the development of
examination, teachers seemed to put more emphasis on the most basic and textbook-related items.
As presented in Table 6, the p-values of the paired t-tests for each learning performance item for reading are all .000. There is a significant difference between perceived importance and perceived feasibility regarding the learning performance items on reading. The results show that teachers gave significantly higher scores for importance when compared to feasibility for all reading-related items.
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Learning Performance Items on Writing Table 7 reveals the mean scores of the importance and feasibility of all the learning performance items on writing. The table also shows the t-test results of each learning performance item on writing.
45
Table 7: T-test Results on Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Feasibility of Learning Performance Items on Writing
Learning
Performance Item
Importance Feasibility
t df p
M SD M SD
Writing 4-V-1 4.53
(T1) .60 4.07
(T1) .84 8.76 206 .000 Writing 4-V-2 4.33
(T3) .68 3.76
(T2) .87 9.04 206 .000 Writing 4-V-3
4.22 .75 3.71
(T3) .844 8.09 206 .000 Writing 4-V-4 4.36
(T2) .67 3.63 .86 12.43 206 .000 Writing 4-V-5 4.17
(B3) .75 3.57 .90 9.57 205 .000 Writing 4-V-6 4.15
(B2) .73 3.50
(B3) .90 10.46 206 .000 Writing＊4-V-7 4.11
(B1) .76 3.47
(B2) .92 9.68 206 .000 Writing ＊4-V-8
4.25 .71 3.44
(B1) .97 11.92 206 .000
Total 4.26 .56 3.65 .76 12.17 205 .000
Note. T1 = Top 1; T2 = Top 2; T3 = Top 3; B1 = Bottom 1; B2 = Bottom 2; B3 = Bottom 3.
Performance Items marked with an asterisk (＊) are considered higher-level abilities.
As shown in Table 7, all of the learning performance items on writing were assigned importance values higher than 4 and all but one item (Writing 4-V-1) were assigned feasibility values higher than 3. The exception was assigned a feasibility value higher than 4. With a total mean of 4.26 for importance and 3.65 for feasibility, such results indicate that teachers consider the learning performance items on writing to be quite important and probably feasible.
According to Table 7, inconsistences in ranking order between importance and feasibility were found in the following four items: Writing 4-V-3, Writing 4-V-4, Writing 4-V-5 and Writing *4-V-8. Writing 4-V-3 (Can use correct English writing styles and formats in notes, letters, e-mails, etc.) was considered the third most
46
feasible item but was not among the top three in terms of importance. Writing 4-V-4 (Can write grammatical and descriptive sentences given different topics and
scenarios) was considered the second most important item, but was not among the top three in terms of feasibility. Writing 4-V-5 (Can accurately translate Chinese sentences into English) was ranked the third least important item (M = 4.17 for importance), but was not among the bottom three in terms of feasibility. Writing *4-V-8 (Can coherent and well-organized paragraphs or expository essays given prompts on various topics) was the least feasible item (M = 3.44 for feasibility) but was not among the bottom three in terms of importance. Writing *4-V-8 is about higher-level abilities, which is probably why teachers with concerns over “students’ low proficiency” considered it the least feasible item.
As for the items with consistent or similar rankings in importance and feasibility, the researcher found one item with consistent ranking orders and three items with some slight differences. Writing 4-V-1 (Can write down basic English words commonly used at the senior high school level) was considered the most important and the most feasible item (M = 4.53 for importance, M = 4.07 for feasibility). Writing 4-V-2 (Can use correct formats when writing English paragraphs) was the third most important and the second most feasible item (M = 4.33 for importance, M = 3.76 for feasibility). The above two items are about basic writing skills; it is thus not
surprising that teachers with concerns over students’ proficiency level tend to assign higher scores for its importance and feasibility value. In contrast, Writing 4-V-6 (Can write stories or personal experiences with plot development and details given
prompts) was considered the second least important and the third least feasible item (M = 4.15 for importance, M = 3.50 for feasibility). Writing stories is more
challenging than writing sentences, let alone writing stories or personal experiences with plot development and details. Hence, even though teachers considered it the
47
second most important to teach Writing 4-V-4 (Can write grammatical and descriptive sentences given different topics and scenarios), they considered it the second least important and the third least feasible to teach Writing 4-V-6 (Can write stories or personal experiences with plot development and details given prompts). For Writing
*4-V-7 (Can accurately translate a Chinese paragraph into English), it was considered the least important and the second least feasible (M = 4.11 for importance, M = 3.47 for feasibility). A similar finding on translation ability is reported in Chen’s study (2012), where senior high school teachers also put the least emphasis on Writing-advanced-5 (To translate Chinese sentences or paragraphs into English; M = 4.16 for teachers’ perceived importance). Similarly, in Chuang’s study (2017), junior high school teachers considered “the ability to translate and writing paragraphs to be challenging” and not feasible because of “time constraint” and “students’ low proficiency level.” It is highly possible that teachers assigning rather low scores for the importance and feasibility value to Writing *4-V-7 because of “students’ low proficiency.”
As illustrated in Table 7, the p-values of all paired t-tests for writing-related learning performance items are .000. The t-test results suggest that teachers gave significantly higher scores to importance over feasibility for all learning performance items on writing.
Teachers’ Perception of the Learning Performance Items for Integrated Skills Table 8 presents the mean scores of the importance and feasibility of the learning performance items on Integrated Skills. T-test results on teachers’ perceived
importance and feasibility of each learning performance item on Integrated Skills s are also included in Table 8.
48
Table 8 : T-test Results on Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Feasibility of Learning Performance Items for Integrated Skills
Learning
Performance Item
Importance Feasibility
t df p
M SD M SD
Integrated Skills 5-V-1
4.48
(T1) .62 3.76 .83 12.40 206 .000 Integrated Skills
5-V-2 4.41 .63 3.63 .85 13.00 206 .000
Integrated Skills
5-V-3 4.07 .75 3.38
Performance Items marked with an asterisk (＊) are considered higher-level abilities.
According to Table 8, almost all of the learning performance items on Integrated Skills were assigned importance values higher than 4, with the exception of Integrated Skills *5-V-13 (Can understand and appreciate articles across various genres and
49
subjects, and then able to express thoughts and opinions), which was assigned an importance value of 3.91. All learning performance items on Integrated Skills were assigned feasibility values higher than 3. For the learning performance items on Integrated Skills, the total mean score is 4.02 for importance and 3.61 for feasibility. It is suggested that teachers consider the Integrated Skills items to be quite important and probably feasible.
As presented in Table 8, inconsistences in ranking order between importance and
As presented in Table 8, inconsistences in ranking order between importance and