This chapter contains three sections. The first section discusses the findings of the present study regarding English teachers’ knowledge of the Project as well as their perceptions of the National Screening and Progress Tests, English Basic Learning Content, materials used in English remedial instruction, organization of English remedial classes, effects of the Project, implementation difficulties, and support needed. The second section provides implications and suggestions for the teachers, school administrators, and educational authorities. The last section presents limitations of this study and recommendation for future research.
Status Quo of the “Remedial Instruction Project”
As pointed out by Dye (2001), the main goals of policy analysis are to know the policies, evaluate the impact of the policies, and provide suggestions for future implementation. Therefore, in this section, discussion and suggestion regarding the implementation of the English “Remedial Instruction Project” are presented.
Teachers’ Knowledge of the “Remedial Instruction Project”
In the previous studies, many researchers explored teachers’ perceptions of the remedial instruction policies, but few of them focused on teachers’ knowledge of the policies. Their studies showed that the majority of the teachers understood the goals and content of the programs and had positive attitude toward the remedial programs (Chen, 2004; Chen, 2007; Cheng, 2007; Su, 2011; Sun, 2011; Wang, 2009). The result of this study also shows that most teachers thought that the English teachers in their
159
schools understood the purpose and the content of the “Remedial Instruction Project”
and believed that the Project could enhance students’ basic abilities. However, when the teachers’ knowledge of the “Remedial Instruction Project” was tested, the results of the test displayed that more than half of the English teachers’ scores on the goal and the content of the Project were below the average score and the median. That is, for a long time, a lot of teachers thought that they understood the remedial programs, but the test results showed otherwise. There seems to be a gap between what they believed they knew and what they actually knew.
In order to find out what factors influence teachers’ knowledge of the Project, the effects of teachers’ background was analyzed. T-test and one-way ANOVA results display that teachers who had a master degree, workshop experience, and remedial instruction policies experience scored higher on the test. Also teachers who were senior teachers or teachers with administrative duties had a better knowledge of the Project. On the other hand, school level, school size, school location as well as experience in professional development did not make a significant difference in teachers’ knowledge of the project. These findings suggest that holding remedial instruction workshops may be the most effective way to increase teachers’ knowledge of the Project.
Human Resources and Administrative Support
If we take a closer look at the regulations of the “Remedial Instruction Project”, we can see that the Project provides assistance to a lot of underachievers in schools.
With more and more underachievers benefit from the Project, however, the human resources have been insufficient (Chang, 2006). To solve this problem, Chen (2004) and Chen and Li (2006) recommended that retired teachers and college students could ease in-service teachers’ burden. The findings of the present study, nevertheless,
160
suggest that their recommendation is not practical. Though the retired teachers, college students, special education teachers, and community members with a bachelor degree can apply for the teaching jobs after they receive proper remedial instruction training, it is found that in-service teachers and substitute teachers have been the main sources of English remedial instructors for many years (Chen, 2004; Huang, 2011; Su, 2011). According to the interview results of this study, retired teachers had low willingness to teach underachievers, and teachers from the other sources were not effective because they were unfamiliar with the students and usually had poor classroom management. However, many English in-service teachers themselves also did not have willingness to offer remedial instruction because these classes increased their teaching load and their effects were not observable in short time. Moreover, teachers often had to take care of their own families after school. Therefore, increasing in-service teachers’ and retired teachers’ teaching willingness and improving college students’ teaching and classroom management skills are the primary steps to take to solve the problems of human resources.
Even though the human resources were not enough in schools, most teachers could feel that the administrative staff did their best to provide sufficient support for the teachers while implementing English remedial instruction. Unlike the outcome of Sun’s (2011) study, the interviewees in the present study revealed that the administrative staff in their schools helped them deal with problems outside the classrooms such as paperwork or students’ safety. Also the administrative staff were willing to provide what teachers need as much as possible so that the teachers could focus on the students and the materials. However, the complex and rigid regulations might turn teachers and administrative staff against each other. When the administrative staff encountered problems related to the regulations and reported them to the Project agents, specialists, or the authorities, very often these problems could
161
not be fixed immediately.
According to the interviewees, many teachers had reflected plenty of problems concerning the regulations during meetings with the education authorities. They suggested that in order to let the Project work more smoothly the authorities concerned should seriously re-evaluate and revise those problematic regulations.
National Screening and Progress Tests
National Screening and Progress Tests play an important role in the “Remedial Instruction Project.” The findings of the present study showed that most teachers knew the National Screening Test and National Progress Test, and among these teachers who knew the two tests, 69.9% of them had positive attitude toward the screening effect of the National Screening Test, and 79.6% of the teachers thought the National Progress Test could help keep track of the students’ progress. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the two school levels regarding the effect of the National Screening Test. But elementary school teachers had more positive attitude toward the effect of the National Progress Test than junior high school teachers. The results show that National Screening Test is believed to be able to screen underachievers in elementary and junior high schools, but the National Progress Test is believed to be able to evaluate elementary school students’ progress but not junior high school students’. Note that the results also show that significantly more junior high teachers considered the test difficult than elementary school teachers, while more elementary school teachers considered the test simple than the junior high school teachers. Greater difficulty of the progress test for junior high school students might make it more difficult for students to pass the test, leading junior high school teachers to doubt its capability to evaluate students’ progress. So far, the amount and difficulty of the two tests have been examined and revised for future implementation.
162
Problems in implementing and utilizing the test results may also affect the perceived effects of the two tests. According to the interviews, the content and operation of the online Screening and Progress Tests have made a lot of progress, but there is still room for improvement. For example, according to the interviews, some teachers faced some technical problems when they implemented the tests. These problems may lead to invalid test results or postpone the implementation of the Project. Another problem in screening and evaluation tests is that some teachers and students ignored the results of the tests. According to the regulations, students who do not pass the test will be classified into a case list, but not all of the students in the case list are required to attend remedial classes. Therefore, lots of teachers and students do not pay attention to the scores of the tests. To solve the problems, the MOE should try to perfect the online Screening and Progress system and help teachers solve the technical problems. The second problem, on the other hand, is difficult to solve since teachers can not force students to attend remedial classes if they fail the National Screening Test. Therefore, more promotion of the Project is needed to make sure that teachers, target students, and parents know the functions and the benefits of the remedial classes.
English Basic Learning Content
In order to provide English teachers guidelines in teaching English remedial class, English Basic Learning Content was published and implemented in 2013. The present study found out that the number of the teachers who knew the English Basic Learning Content was greater than those who did not. Among the teachers who knew the English Basic Learning Content, more teachers felt that the vocabulary, sentence patterns, and idioms and phrases in English Basic Learning Content are in moderate amount and of moderate difficulty for English underachievers.
163
If we look at the results of different school levels, the comparisons regarding vocabulary and idioms and phrases show no significant differences in amount and difficulty, while the proportion of the junior high school teachers who thought the sentence patterns in English Basic Learning Content were too much was greater than the elementary school teachers. Some of the interviewees in junior high also mentioned that the English Basic Learning Content was a little bit difficult for their students, especially the sentence patterns, because the sentence patterns become harder and harder in junior high schools. The remedial instructors solved the problem by adjusting the amount and the difficulty of the learning content based on students’
needs and proficiency levels. And the MOE has been working on evaluation and revision of the amount and difficulty of the sentence patterns in elementary and junior high schools English Basic Learning Content.
Materials Used in English Remedial Instruction Class
Before the English Remedial Instruction Materials were released, there were many English remedial instruction materials designed by the local governments, educational organizations, and teachers. However, few materials were designed in a systematic way. The English Remedial Instruction Materials designed based on the English Basic Learning Content were published on the “Remedial Instruction Project”
Online Platform. The findings of the present study demonstrate that the majority of the teachers knew the English Remedial Instruction Materials mainly from the Remedial instruction workshops, but only around a third of the teachers had actually used them in the English remedial class. Most teachers thought the materials in moderate amount and of moderate difficulty. However, comparisons between different school levels display that the proportion of the junior high school teachers who found the Materials too much and too difficult was greater than that of the elementary school
164
teachers. Since the Materials are written based on the English Basic Learning Content, the results were similar. Fortunately, to the researcher’s knowledge, the MOE is aware of the problems, and so far the education authorities have re-evaluated and revised the English Basic Learning Content and the MOE Materials of different school levels.
The investigation of the teaching materials used in English remedial class demonstrated that self-made materials and textbooks were still the popular choices of teachers; only some of the teachers used the English Remedial Instruction Materials as their main teaching materials in remedial class. This result corresponds to the findings of the studies carried out by Chen (2004) and Chen (2007). In their studies, school textbooks and self-made materials were adopted by a majority of the remedial instructors.
In fact, it was hard for teachers to decide whether they should use textbooks or self-designed materials since there were different purposes behind them. For example, some teachers preferred using regular textbooks in English remedial instruction because they believed that students could make instant progress on monthly exams, which could give students a sense of achievement and increase their learning confidence and motivation. Other teachers designed their own materials for their students because they believed self-made materials were able to remedy students’
English weaknesses As a reuslt, in order to improve students’ basic English abilities and increase students’ sense of achievement, it is suggested that teachers combine textbooks and self-designed materials in remedial classes. That is, teachers can use half of the instruction hours remedy what studnets do not understand and teach the simplified regular textbook content in the other half class.
Organization of English Remedial Classes
The “Remedial Instruction Project” regulates that the number of the students in
165
one remedial instruction class ranges from six to twelve. Most teachers who filled in the questionnaire thought that the number of the students was appropriate, and there are no significant differences in teachers’ responses across the two school levels.
Teachers in the interviews, on the other hand, expressed that the ideal number of students should be no more than six because underachievers needed more teachers’
attention and individualized instructions. The results correspond to the findings of Chen’s (2007) study, in which most teachers (55.8%) thought the proper number of students in one remedial class was no more than five.
Nonetheless, some teachers argued during the interviews that it was not the number of students but the wide range of students’ proficiencies that mattered.
Although the responses from the questionnaire showed that most teachers agreed that the students were placed based on their abilities, but the interviews revealed that the proficiency gap among students was still large, and the gap would be larger when they entered junior high schools. For example, some students might be able to catch up with other students in their original classes if they had more practice, but some students did not even learn the alphabets and the phonics well. Moreover, naughty students, students who needed special education and underachievers were likely to be placed into one English remedial instruction class, which took remedial instruction teachers more time and effort to deal with their different needs. To solve the mix-ability problems, remedial instruction teachers, first, should be equipped with great classroom management skills and adopt differentiated instruction. Second, decreasing the number of students in one class may also be an alternative.
As to the instruction hours, although more teachers who filled in the questionnaire thought that the instruction hours were sufficient than the teachers who did not, many interviewees expressed the urge for more instruction hours. The conflicting result may be because all the teachers in the interviews were English
166
remedial instruction teachers when they were interviewed, but not all the teachers that filled in the questionnaire had the experience in teaching English remedial classes.
According to the interviewees, nevertheless, it was not easy to arrange the English remedial instruction periods. In Chen’s study (2007), the morning self-study periods (56.3%) and the lunch break (13.5%) were appropriate remedial instruction time;
however, the teachers in the present study were not allowed to implement remedial instruction during lunch breaks because of the regulations, and the students might have tests or other affairs in the morning self-study periods. Since each school has their own arrangements and needs, it is difficult to regulate specific periods of time for remedial classes. Therefore, it requires more discussion and negotiation in schools among administrative staff, English teachers, and teachers of other subjects to arrange the remedial instruction periods for each subject.
Effects of the English “Remedial Instruction Project”
The questionnaire results demonstrate that most teachers who filled in the questionnaire thought that the enhancing effects of the English “Remedial Instruction Project” on English scores were acceptable. As to the comparison between two school levels, it shows that more elementary school teachers felt that the effects on English scores were acceptable than junior high school teachers, while more junior high school teachers regarded the effects to be poor than the elementary school teachers.
As stated by the junior high school interviewees, some underachievers who were willing to put effort in their study made progress in their English abilities slowly.
Sadly, even though they were able to pass the National Progress Test, the materials taught in their original English class became harder and harder each year, so when they went back to their original classes, it was difficult for them to catch up with other students. These findings correspond to those of Chen’s (2007) study, which showed
167
that the effect of early remedial instruction is more promising. What students learn in elementary schools is basic, so it is easier for underachievers to catch up with their classmates. Therefore, more emphasis should be put on English remedial instruction in early stage before it is too late.
In comparison to English scores, most teachers had more positive attitude toward the effects of the Project on students’ learning motivation, attitude, and confidence. As to comparisons between two school levels, the effects of the Project were better on elementary school students. According to the interviewees, the English remedial instruction changed students a lot in affective domain. Without the learning pressure as they experienced in their original classes, the students were more willing to participate in the activities, and the simplified learning materials made them feel that learning English was no longer a painful process. Most teachers believed that once the students no longer detested English, they might learn something in the classroom or in the future. These findings provide evidence for the effectiveness of the pull-out remedial instruction classes in helping underachievers develop their confidence and interest in English to some extent.
Implementation Difficulties and Needed Support
It is found in the present study that the common difficulties encountered by most of the teachers is (1) students’ lack of willingness to attend remedial class, (2) limited progress in students’ English ability, and (3) teachers’ overloaded administrative and teaching work. In response to the implementation difficulties discussed above, most teachers wished to reduce their teaching load, or hoped that the school could include remedial instruction hours into their regular teaching hours. And half of them wanted to reduce their administrative workload so that they could pay more attention to the remedial curriculum and the students. Other than these support, implementing ability
168
grouping for remedial courses was identified by 47% of the teachers as shown in Table 99. As reported by the interviewees, the number of the students was not the main problem; the problem was a large English proficiency gap.
If we take a closer look at different school level, we will find that the rankings are slightly different. In addition to the three implementation difficulties discussed above. A lot of elementary school teachers concerned about large students’
proficiency gap. According to the elementary school interviewees, some schools, for the convenience, required students to attend all three subjects’ remedial instruction classes (i.e., Chinese, math, and English) even though they failed only one subject or
proficiency gap. According to the elementary school interviewees, some schools, for the convenience, required students to attend all three subjects’ remedial instruction classes (i.e., Chinese, math, and English) even though they failed only one subject or