In this section, questions were designed to elicit the participants’ viewpoints toward the following three issues: other help needed for students’ English learning, graduation requirement in English, and lecturing content courses in English.
Other Help Needed for Students’ English Learning
In this part, both the students and teachers were asked about the help, other than English courses, they expected the university to provide to doctoral students. Since this was an open-ended question, the participants were allowed to be free to write down their suggestions.
For the students’ comments, the suggestions can be roughly divided into the
following five categories:
1. Offering the service of paper proofreading and writing consultation (11 people):
All the demand for paper proofreading and writing consultation targeted at research paper writing. Some of the participants expected language teachers to help proofread the draft of their research reports, while some hoped that the teachers could provide them useful guidance in writing English papers.
2. Creating an effective language learning environment (7 people):
For some participants, the environment played an important role in learning English. They hoped that the university could create an environment in which English had a connection with their daily life on campus. In this way, they could have more opportunities to use and practice their English. For example:
(1) Create a good English learning environment, not just taking courses and exams.
(2) Provide a whole-English environment, courses, and websites.
(3) Create a whole-English environment where we can communicate with one another in English.
3. Providing more English courses and more financial support (7 people):
In this category, the quantity of the English courses and the charge of them were the two main concerns. Several students complained that English courses were so insufficient that it has always been difficult to register for wanted courses. In addition, they hoped that the university could offer more free courses or more financial support for English courses. One of them stressed that auditing should be allowed, in which way students could freely join part of a course according to their own needs.
(4) Provide more courses and meanwhile lift the ban on auditing—sometimes students merely want to attend part of a course which they are interested in.
Or maybe courses could be conducted as seminars which provide
speeches/presentations students could join freely.
4. Increasing the opportunities to interact with international students (6 people):
A number of the students also considered the communication and interaction with international students to be beneficial to their English learning. They hoped that the university could enroll more international students to increase their opportunity of English use. Moreover, it was suggested that the school could create proper environment, or regularly hold activities in which local and international students could interact and communicate with each other.
5. Providing more learning materials and resources (4 people):
Several students suggested that the school should provide more English learning resources, such as, free online English learning resources, English learning magazines, free learning materials, or other self-learning materials.
As for the teachers’ suggestions, the majority of them were related to academic writing (10 people). Similar to the opinions of the students, research paper proofreading and one-to-one writing consultation were also mentioned by the teachers.
One of them even suggested that there should be a writing center which helps students with the English grammar. In addition, since academic writing ability was deemed as critical for doctoral students, some teachers requested more English courses which provide training on writing skills as well as logical thinking strategies. Writing practice and feedback from language teachers were also regarded as helpful to doctoral students.
(5) A writing center providing help on the grammar of academic writing.
(6) Academic English writing courses. Technical writing is most important in this school for students’ publication.
(7) Lots of writing assignments and lots of feedback from the lecture in writing
classes will greatly help.
Only three teachers mentioned about the help other than academic writing.
These comments, similar to those of the students, were concerned about the language learning environment, opportunities to interact with international students, and the training on English presentation.
(8) An environment students can express their ideas or discuss with one another in English.
(9) The opportunities to interact and communicate with native English-speaking international students.
(10) Training on English presentation.
The Graduation Requirement in English
In this part, the author asked the student and teacher participants if the graduation requirement in English (such as, having a score higher than 200 on the TOEFL test, or taking extra English courses) could help to improve doctoral students’
English ability. The participants were required to answer this question by a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree (5 points) to strongly disagree (1 point), and give reasons for their answers.
Table 4.10
The Effect of Graduation Requirement on English Leaning
Doctoral students Faculty Item
N M SD N M SD
Graduation requirement 144 3.47 1.10 56 3.64 .96
As shown in Table 4.10, though the mean score is only between 3.00 and 4.00, the results are generally positive. Most of the participants regarded that the language
requirement policy should have a positive effect on English learning. Further analysis reveals that there were 54.9% of the students and 67.9% of the faculty who “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the language requirement should be helpful to doctoral students.
Opinions Supporting the Policy
As for the reasons for their answers, the student participants who held positive attitudes seemed mostly to regard the language requirement as a pressure, which could motivate themselves to polish their English (15 people). Many of them contended that progress occurred only when they were forced to learn English. It was the pressure or the goal that led them to make progress. One of the students even pointed out that tests worked better than merely taking courses since course instructors were always
“too kind to their students.” Taking English courses could barely help improve their English ability.
(11) The progress always comes from the pressure.
(12) It will force me to attain the goal, force me to learn English.
(13) Tests are more effective for me. Since school teachers are too kind, I did not make progress by taking courses. Besides, courses can not cover all the English abilities.
There were still a small number of students who supported the language requirement due to the importance of basic English ability (5 people). The policy was believed to increase and ensure the basic English ability of doctoral students.
On the other hand, the teachers in favor of the language requirement held similar opinions with the students. The requirement was also regarded as a help which could urge students to work harder on English (2 people), and basic English ability was considered as important for doctoral students (2 people). However, it must be
further noted that although there were more teachers supporting this policy, comments from these teachers, compared with those of the opponents, were relatively quite few.
(14) It can push them to improve their English ability.
(15) I strongly agree, because it is a basic skill.
Among the teachers who held positive attitudes toward the policy, two of them stressed that setting a criterion on the TOEFL test should be more useful than taking extra English courses. It seemed that taking English courses was regarded as not very effective in improving students’ English ability.
(16) Having a score more than 200 on the TOEFL test should be the only criterion. Do not use taking English courses to be the criterion.
(17) Requiring a score more than 200 on the TOEFL test can force students to learn correct English diligently, but taking extra English courses is completely useless.
Opinions against the Policy
In contrast, the students who held negative attitudes toward the policy provided the following two main reasons. First, it was argued that a high score on tests does not guarantee sufficient English proficiency (7 people). Performance in tests and actual application were regarded as two different things. Several students stressed that the accumulation of English ability required a long period of time, while passing the language requirement could be achieved by short-term intensive training. One who gains good grades on TOFEL may still fail to use proper English in their study or research. In addition, since learning motivation aroused by pressure could not last for a long period of time, learning behavior might disappear right after students pass the language requirement.
(18) Tests and practical applications are two different things. The school should
let students learn what they want to learn (it is the needs that arouses learning motivation, not the tests), provide learning resources, but not set the criterion.
(19) The test content is different from the actual applications of English.
(20) English ability requires long-term uses and practices while the graduation requirement can be achieved by short-term efforts.
(21) Tests can be prepared in a short period of time. If students are not interested in English, their ability will decrease right after they pass the test.
Second, there were still several participants remarking that the graduation requirement may not meet the needs of everyone (5 people). In view of the fact that doctoral students in different disciplines may have different needs in English, it seems unreasonable to apply the same language requirement to all the students. Moreover, since different students must have different English proficiency, a language requirement suitable for some students might meanwhile be unattainable or overwhelming for others.
(22) It is not necessary for everyone to meet the requirement so there is no need to make it a policy. People should take courses according to their needs.
(23) Not everyone is good at English.
Finally, there are some comments which can not form a category but still offer some valuable information for us. As mentioned above, the increase of English ability should take a long period of time. One of the students pointed out the problem that it was too late to start working on English when they were doctoral students. Language training should be carried out since the college education. In addition, it was concerned that the language requirement might distract their attention to the research or expertise. In comparison to the content knowledge or the academic contribution, it seemed that language training was regarded as of minor importance.
(24) English ability should have been cultivated since the undergraduate period.
It is a bit late to start making efforts as a doctoral student.
(25) It is still useless if you have good English ability but little research contribution.
(26) It might distract the attention to research, delaying the graduation.
As for the teachers, those who held negative attitudes toward the language requirement reported the following two main reasons. Firstly, they also doubted the effect of the graduation requirement on students’ English performance (4 people).
Since the language requirement merely focuses on general English ability, it is questionable if it could meet doctoral students’ specific English needs. One of the teachers even questioned the efficacy of current English courses, given that his students did not make significant progress after taking the courses. In addition, if the language requirement could sustain long-term learning motivation was also regarded as problematic.
(27) Students are required to publish research papers, and English writing is very important. A score higher than 200 on the TOEFL test does not represent that a student is able to write research papers in English independently.
(28) My students who have finished your current English training for Ph.D.
students still perform unsatisfactory poor capability in general English understanding and writing.
(29) English is a tool for communication and a pleasure of culture learning.
What matters is the learning motivation. It has nothing to do with tests.
Secondly, some teachers were rather concerned about the extra loading the language requirement would bring to students’ learning, and its impact on the graduation (5 people). Since doctoral students were already busy in taking content
courses and doing research, the teachers worried that further adding the language requirement might be too overwhelming for them. Furthermore, it seemed not proper if students fail to graduate merely because of their deficiency in English.
(30) Doctoral students are busy in preparing for the qualify exam and research publication. They are too busy to take English courses.
(31) The requirement could be used in the entrance exam. It is not proper if students cannot graduate merely because of the graduation requirement but not their deficiency in expertise. I agree that English is important, but students can still do research in our country. Besides, currently students are required to write their thesis in English.
Lecturing Content Courses in English
In this part, the teacher and student participants were asked if lecturing content courses in English could help improve the English ability of doctoral students. They were required to comment on this issue by firstly rating it according to a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree (5 points) to strongly disagree (1 point), and secondly giving their reasons.
As shown in Table 4.11, overall, both the student and teacher participants agreed that lecturing content courses in English should help improve doctoral students’ English ability. However, the average rating was merely slightly above 3.00, with 3.55 by the students, and 3.27 by the teachers. Further analysis reveals that among the student participants, 62.5% “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that lecturing courses in English is helpful, while there were only 43.7% of the teacher participants who held positive attitudes toward it. There were still 34.5% of the teacher participants hedging on the question, and 21.8% of them who “strongly disagreed” or
“disagreed.”
Table 4.11
The Effect of English Lecturing on English Learning
Doctoral students Faculty Item
N M SD N M SD Lecturing in English 144 3.55 1.05 55 3.27 .93
According to the given reasons, a number of the student participants held positive attitudes because of the increased opportunity for them to practice English listening (15 people). In addition, some students alluded to the help with vocabulary and oral expression. English lecturing was regarded to provide an environment where students could learn not only the proper English usages in their disciplines but also how to think in English. The way content teachers use English could become a model for students to follow or imitate.
(32) Learning English in context not only improves the listening ability, but also helps us to learn English expressions from teachers.
(33) It helps to develop the ability to think in English.
(34) It helps to understand the English vocabulary or phrases in our discipline.
On the other hand, the students against the policy were mainly concerned that the English lecturing in content courses might hinder the acquiring of content knowledge, and decrease the learning motivation. The problem was believed to be caused by the following two reasons. Firstly, it is doubtful if NNS teachers’ English oral ability is good enough to impart knowledge to students (10 people). Teachers’
poor oral expression was regarded as a great obstacle to English lecturing. However, the students also noted that if the class was conducted by NS teachers or NNS teachers with qualified oral ability, English lecturing should be helpful for them.
(35) Teachers’ oral ability is poor. Even their Chinese is not good, not to mention
English (English native-speaking teachers can lecture in English).
(36) Teachers’ expression ability is not always good. Some of them even have poor pronunciation, which is a torture to both teachers and students (exception: teachers who just returned from abroad generally have good English ability).
(37) Whether teachers’ English proficiency parallels the international standard is a big problem. I have seen that some teachers lectured very well in Chinese but in a complete mess in English (of course, some teachers’ English is better than their Chinese)
Secondly, students’ listening ability was another problem. For students with poor English listening ability, English lecturing could turn into a complete nightmare (9 people). Since the expertise knowledge is already rather profound and complicated, lecturing in English could make it even more difficult for students to comprehend.
(38) Courses have been already rather difficult, whereas more obstacles are caused by English. English ability should not be improved in this kind of contexts. It is a loss to students in that those with poor English ability but good expertise knowledge might not be able to catch on.
(39) Content courses should focus on comprehension. Lecturing in English makes it more difficult for students to acquire the knowledge. If teachers are not native speakers of English, English lecturing will barely contribute to the English competence of students
As for the opinions of the teachers, their worries were similar to those of the students. Both those supporting and against the English lecturing policy were concerned about teachers’ oral expression (5 people), students’ listening ability (4 people), and their impact on content knowledge learning. English lecturing was reckoned to decrease learning efficiency and efficacy. It was also believed that the
simple English used by NNS teachers would do little help to students’ listening ability.
(40) It is helpful in management courses, but in science or engineering courses, it might be difficult for students to understand the lecture material.
(41) The oral ability of teachers should have a critical impact on students’
learning. More contact with English must be helpful, but it usually decreases the learning efficiency.
(42) Given that Chinese teachers often use simple English, it brings little help to students’ English ability, unless courses are conducted by English native-speaking teachers.
In sum, for the opponents, the aim of content courses should be the imparting of expertise knowledge rather than the training of English comprehension. If the training on English listening would interfere with the acquisition of content knowledge, it should be removed from the class.
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the author conducted a needs analysis to determine the English needs of doctoral students in a research-oriented university. Both students’ and teachers’ opinions were collected to better describe doctoral students’ language needs.
In this chapter, the findings of the present research were summarized. Pedagogical implications entailed from the research findings were also addressed. Finally, the limitations of the present study and the suggestions for future research were discussed.