The main focus of the current study is to investigate teachers’ perceptions of the learning performance items in 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English. A questionnaire survey was conducted to gather teachers’
perceptions. The questionnaires were further divided into three parts. The first and second parts of the questionnaires gathered quantitative data that produced more generalizable findings while the open-ended questions of the third part provided deeper understanding of participants’ view. Teachers’ perceived importance and feasibility of each learning performance item was examined through questionnaire with five-point Likert scale. Teachers’ general acceptance of the curriculum, expected challenges of fulfilling the new curriculum based on the learning performance items, and recommendations to the authorities concerned were gathered through open-ended questions. The following sections elaborate on the participants, instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis procedures.
Participants
A total of 207 senior high school English teachers from fifteen cities and counties in Taiwan were involved in the study. Table 2 shows the distribution of the participants. Most of the participants came from Tainan city (19.3%), New Taipei city (15.9%), Taichung City (10.1%), Taipei City (9.7 %), and Kaohsiung City (9.2%).
31
Table 2: Distribution of the Participants
Area Number of Participants Percentage
Taipei City 20 9.7%
New Taipei City 33 15.9%
Taoyuan City 14 6.8%
Taichung City 22 10.6%
Tainan City 40 19.3%
Kaohsiung City 19 9.2%
Keelung City 2 1.0%
Hsinchu City 3 1.4%
Chiayi City 4 1.9%
Miaoli County 9 4.3%
Changhua County 16 7.7%
Nantou County 4 1.9%
Yunlin County 2 1.0%
Chiayi County 1 .5%
Pingtung County 12 5.8%
Yilan County 4 1.9%
Hualien County 2 1.0%
Total 207 100.0%
Table 3 shows the detailed background information of the participants. The majorities of the participants’ years of teaching experience were eleven to twenty years (34.3%), followed by six to ten years (20.3%), over twenty years (18.8%), three to five years (14.5%), and one to two years (12.1%). The participants consisted of fifty-five English subject teachers (26.6%), ninety-five English homeroom teachers (45.9%), twenty-four English teachers with administration duties (11.6%), thirty-two English substitute teachers (15.5%), and one teacher with other positions (.5%). Sixty participants held a bachelor’s degree (29.0%), a hundred and forty-six of them held a master’s degree (70.5%), and only one participant held a doctoral degree.
As for teacher education background, one hundred participants were English majors in normal universities or teachers’ colleges (48.3%), ninety-seven participants were English majors in domestic universities/colleges (46.9), five participants were
32
non-English majors in normal universities or teachers’ colleges (2.4%), and three participants were Non-English majors in domestic universities/colleges (1.4%).
In terms of school location, one hundred and sixteen participants (56.0%) were English teachers from schools located in cities, eighty-seven participants (42.0%) were English teachers from schools located in towns, and four of the participants (1.9%) were English teachers from schools located in remote areas.
Table 3: Background Information of Participants
Years of Teaching Experience (N=207) Frequency Percent
1-2 years 25 12.1%
3-5 years 30 14.5%
6-10 years 42 20.3%
11-20 years 71 34.3%
Over 20 years 39 18.8%
Current Position(N=207) Frequency Percent
English subject teachers 55 26.6%
English homeroom teachers 95 45.9%
English teachers with administration duties 24 11.6%
English substitute teachers 32 15.5%
Others 1 .5%
Highest Level of Education(N=207) Frequency Percent
Bachelor 60 29.0%
Master 146 70.5%
Doctor 1 .5%
Teacher Education Background (N=207) Frequency Percent English majors in normal universities or teachers’ colleges 100 48.3%
English majors in domestic universities/colleges 97 46.9%
Non-English majors in normal universities or teachers’
colleges 5 2.4%
Non-English majors in domestic universities/colleges 3 1.4%
Other 2 1.0%
School Location(N=207) Frequency Percent
Cities 116 56.0%
Towns 87 42.0%
Remote areas 4 1.9%
33
Instruments
The instrument consisted of a questionnaire with a list of items scored on a five-point Likert scale, several multiple-choice items, and some open-ended questions (see Appendix A). The questionnaire is divided into three parts. The first part aims to collect demographic information of the participants, such as age, gender, years of teaching experience, current position at school, highest level of education, school location, and school size. The data extracted from the first part was used to examine the relationship between the demographic variables and teachers’ perceptions of the learning performance items. The second part of the questionnaire includes a list of all the learning performance items in the 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English. Teachers were asked to rate the importance and feasibility of each learning performance indicator on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“not important at all” or “definitely not feasible”) to 5 (“most important” or
“definitely feasible”). The third part comprises four open-ended questions that elicit the participants’ opinions about the learning performance items. All the participants received a small gift as a token of appreciation for their support. For the details of the whole questionnaire, please refer to Appendix A.
Data Collection Procedures
The researcher first looked for information of several large-scale workshops held in northern, eastern, central, and southern Taiwan from March, 2020 to June, 2020.
After contacting the personnel in charge of the workshops and gaining their approval, the questionnaires were distributed at the end of the workshops. In addition to
attending workshops, the researcher also contacted different high schools by phone and asked for permission to distribute and collect questionnaires. Meanwhile, the researcher also asked help from acquaintances, teachers, friends, and schoolmates in
34
National Taiwan Normal University and National Chengchi University.
Data Analysis Procedures
To answer the first set of research questions, the data collected through questionnaires were analyzed through descriptive statistics, t-test, and ANOVA.
Firstly, the descriptive statistics were computed by using SPSS program to show the average importance and feasibility scores of each learning performance item. Then, a dependent (paired) t-test was carried out to determine if there was a significant difference between the perceived importance and feasibility of each learning performance item. The effects of teachers’ background variables on perceived importance and feasibility of the learning performance items were analyzed by ANOVA. The background variables that were investigated include years of teaching experience, position, teacher education background, and school size. As for the second set of research questions, they were answered by qualitatively analyzing the participants’ responses to the open-ended questions. Text analysis procedures were taken as the means to analyze the data (Popping, 2015). Firstly, the researcher repeatedly read all of the data to get a general idea. Then, the researcher developed a coding system by reading the data in details and meanwhile generating concept categories/codes.
35