五、研究方法與進行步驟 Method and Procedures
4. Reliability and Validity
The content of the questionnaire drew on relevant studies and conceptual frameworks in the literature (see above in ‘questionnaire survey” section for references) to ensure its
theoretical base. An ad hoc advisory committee of four local and international researchers/scholars in this area of expertise were formed to review the content of the questionnaire and to give comments for revisions. Before distribution, the questionnaire was pilot tested to further check the reliability and validity. Comments were invited from the ELT teachers in the pilot tests as important information for revising the questionnaire.
As for the interview, a semi-structured interview sheet was developed. The interviews were conducted based on the questionnaire responses, and extended to other issues of NETs and NNETs and professionalism. Recurring themes and concerns about ELT profession gleaned from the NNETs interview data were grouped into thematic patterns, validated through cross triangulation procedures, compared with relevant studies, and eventually built into an integrated framework for ELT professionalism.
5. Results and Discussions
(1) Survey: The On-line Questionnaire and its Descriptive Statistics
Altogether 56 ELT teachers filled out the on-line survey during the 6 weeks of time.
However, three of them did not indicate their status as NETs or as NNETs, so there were 53 in total valid questionnaires, with 31 of them as NETs and 22 as NNETs. There were 47 of them answered all the questions.
Section I. Background Information
Question #1-12 were concerned with the respondents’ background information.
The following tables display the descriptive statistics of the whole group and by NETs and NNETs.
1. Gender:
All Native Non-native
Answer Options Response
All Native Non-native
Answer Options Response
All Native Non-native
Answer Options Response
6. If you do not have a degree in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages), have you taken any TESOL-related courses?
All Native Non-native
Answer Options Response
7. Do you have a teaching certificate?
All Native Non-native
Answer Options Response
7a. For what age group(s) or level(s)?
All Native Non-native
Answer Options Response
8. What is your total number of years of teaching experience?
All Native Non-native
Answer Options Response
9. What is your total number of years teaching English?
All Native Non-native
Answer Options Response
10. Approximately how many hours per semester of language teaching-related in-service training (e.g., workshops, lectures, conferences, orientations, etc.) do you participate in?
All Native Non-native
Answer Options Response
11. What is the percentage of English as your language of instruction in class?
All Native Non-native
Answer Options Response
12. Have you had any native/non-native co-teaching experience?
All Native Non-native
Answer Options Response
Based on the tables above, it is clear that overall there are more female ELT
teachers than are male teachers in the sample. In the NNET group, only 2 out of 22 are
male; while in the NET group, 11 out of 31 are male. The sampled teachers are quite young, especially the NET group, 18 out of 31 are 24 years or under. In terms of the educational background, much more NNETs have higher degrees (14 out of 22, or 63.6% have master’s degrees) than NETs (27 out of 31, or 87.1% have bachelor’s degrees). Most NNETs (15 out of 22 or 83.3% vs. 11 out of 28 or 39.3% of NETs) have taken TESOL-related courses and have teaching certificates (17 out of 22 or 85%
vs. 15 out of 29 or 51.7% of NETs). More NNETs have higher average of years of teaching English (10.16 years) than NETs (7.68 years) do.
In comparison, NETs in the sample seem to spend more time on in-service training programs/workshops (22 out of 29, or 72.4% spend 16 to 31 hours per semester on average vs. 9 out of 20 or 45% in the NNET group). In terms of the language of instruction, it is obvious that NETs use more English in class (20 out of 29 or 68.9% use more than 75% of English in class) than do NNETs (8 out of 20 or 40% use more than 75% of English in class.
Section II. Question #13-40
Based on the 5-level scale, the scores were summed up for each of the 28 questions, and the result was presented in the following figures. Figure 1 was listed by a
descending order.
n Figure 1. Overall Scores (NETs + NNETs) of the Question #13 to 40 listed by a descending order
90 31. intercultural understanding, Chinese and English 32. assessment 34. help prepare tests and exam 37. beliefs and values learning 38. professional training credentials 16. linguistic knowledge 36. communicating with parents
Overall Scores (Native + Non-native)
Note: an=47; bAgree=2, Partly Agree=1, No Opinion=0, Partly Disagree= -1, Disagree= -2 Note: an=53; bAgree=2, Partly Agree=1, No Opinion=0,
Partly Disagree= -1, Disagree= -2
n Figure 2. Scores of the Question #13 to 40 listed by a descending order by NETs 31. intercultural understanding, Chinese and English 35. socio-economic family background 19. parent & society 27. drilling and practicing 17. language acquisition 25. local language explanations 37. beliefs and values learning 34. help prepare tests and exam 39. relevant research 16. linguistic knowledge 36. communicating with parents 38. professional training credentials
Native Scores
Note: an=31 bAgree=2, Partly Agree=1, No Opinion=0, Partly Disagree= -1, Disagree= -2
n Figure 3. Scores of the Question #13 to 40 listed by a descending order (NNETs) 31. intercultural understanding, Chinese and English 13. language proficiency/performance 34. help prepare tests and exam 35. socio-economic family background 37. beliefs and values learning 36. communicating with parents 16. linguistic knowledge
Non-native Scores
Note: an=22; bAgree=2, Partly Agree=1, No Opinion=0, Partly Disagree= -1, Disagree= -2
As presented by the three figures above, both NETs and NNETs believe that pedagogical knowledge, i.e., Question #20 “Good pedagogical knowledge of classroom teaching (e.g., able to present the subject matter in ways students can understand and learn in an effective way)” is the most important quality of a good English language teacher. However, starting from the second in rank based on the score sums, NETs and NNETs seem to have different views regarding other qualities. For NETs, Question
#29 “Enhancing students’ motivations for learning language” is second only to pedagogical knowledge, and Question #13 “Good English language proficiency (e.g., speaking, listening, reading, writing)” is ranked as three as well as Question #21
“Willing to try new and innovative methods, techniques, and technology in teaching”
and Question #24 “Enhancing participation through the use of the communicative approach.”
In contrast, NNETs believe that the following four qualities are equally important as good pedagogical knowledge (all five of them have the sum of 38):
Question #21 “Willing to try new and innovative methods, techniques, and technology in teaching”
Question #22 “Using teaching aids, resources, and technology effectively”
Question #29 “Enhancing students’ motivations for learning language”
Question #40 “Willing to collaborate with colleagues, researchers and other professionals”
Although seven questions are identical in the top ten list (shaded cells), the table below shows how NETs and NNETs place different qualities with different importance.
Table 2. Ten questions with the highest scores
Native Rank Non-native
20. pedagogical knowledge 54 1 38 20. pedagogical knowledge
29. motivations 50
2
38
21. innovative methods and technology
13. language proficiency/performance 49 3 38 22. teaching aids technology 21. innovative methods and technology 49 4 38 29. motivations
24. communicative approach 49 5
37 28. understanding students 28. understanding students 47
8
37
31. intercultural understanding, Chinese and English
22. teaching aids technology 46 9
36
13. language
proficiency/performance 23. pair/group work 45 10 36 17. language acquisition Note: Agree=2, Partly Agree=1, No Opinion=0, Partly Disagree=-1, Disagree=-2
Table 3. Ten questions with the lowest scores
Native Rank Non-native
19. parent & society 41 1 33 33. variety of assessment 27. drilling and practicing 40 2 30 26. order in classroom
17. language acquisition 38 3 36. communicating with parents 27 9 24 36. communicating with parents 38. professional training credentials 27 10 23 16. linguistic knowledge Note: Agree=2, Partly Agree=1, No Opinion=0, Partly Disagree=-1, Disagree=-2
A comparison of the ordinal numbers of the sum scores of the Question 13 to 40 by
NET vs. NNET is also presented in the following table (shaded cells show the questions with the same ordinal numbers) and a figure is drawn to see the similarities and
differences between native vs. non-native English speaking English language teachers.
Table 3. A comparison of the ordinal numbers of the sum scores of the Question 13 to 40 by native vs. non-native English speaking ELTs
Questions #13 to 40 native non-native
13. language proficiency/performance 3a 9
14. effective communication 6 13
15. grammar 14 6
16. linguistic knowledge 26 28
17. language acquisition 21 10
18. curriculum 15 14
19. parent & society 19 17
20. pedagogical knowledge 1 1
21. innovative methods and technology 4 2
22. teaching aids technology 9 3
23. pair/group work 10 15
24. communicative approach 5 11
25. local language explanations 22 16
26. order in classroom 16 20
27. drilling and practicing 20 23
28. understanding students 8 7
29. motivations 2 4
30. social cultural diversity 11 18
31. intercultural understanding, Chinese and
English 17 8
32. assessment 12 12
33. variety of assessment 13 19
34. help prepare tests and exam 24 24
35. socio-economic family background 18 25
36. communicating with parents 27 27
37. beliefs and values learning 23 26
38. professional training credentials 28 21
39. relevant research 25 22
40. collaborate, researchers professionals 7 5 Note. aThe number in the cell is the ordinal # of the score.
Figure 4. A comparison of the ordinal numbers of the sum scores of the Question 13 to 40 by native vs. non-native English speaking ELTs
0
In Summary, based on the results of Section II. Question#13 to 40, both NETs and NNETs rated good pedagogical knowledge as the most important quality of a
professional ELT. For NETs, enhancing students’ motivation in learning English comes as the second most important quality. English language teachers’ English language proficiency, willingness to try new and innovative teaching methods, techniques, and technology and the use of communicative approach are equally
important after pedagogical knowledge and English language proficiency. For NNETs, however, the patterns seem quite different. They believe that the following four
qualities are equally important as good pedagogical knowledge (all five of them have the sum of 38): (1) willingness to try new and innovative methods, techniques, and technology, (2) using teaching aids, resources, and technology effectively, (3) enhancing students’ motivations for learning language, (4) willingness to collaborate with
colleagues, researchers and other professionals. NNETs also pay more attention to the English grammar and its instruction, and intercultural understanding between Chinese and English. In contrast, NETs focus more on using the communicative approach and communicating effectively in English in the classroom than grammar instruction or local educational context and culture.
Both groups do not value too much on professional trainings and related credentials, but more so for NETs. They rated professional trainings and related credentials as well as communicating with parents and the linguistic knowledge of English as the least important qualities of a professional ELT. NNETs also rated the linguistic knowledge of English and communicating with parents as the least important qualities. It is unexpected to learn that NNETs rated three qualities in the contextual
and cultural domain as the least important: understanding students’ socio-economic status and cultural background, understanding the beliefs and values of learning in general, and communicating with parents, since NNETs are supposed to be quite
capable in these areas. An explanation may be that they are well immersed in the local contextual and cultural domain so that its importance no longer demands for serious recognition. While for NETs, understanding local culture and language and
communicating with parents, given their potential language and cultural barrier, may be too daunting a task for them to identify them as important.
Section III. What contributes most to the success of an ELT professional?
Section III is a ranking task of the following seven attributes of a good English language teacher and a table showing the overall count of the rank follows.
l Language proficiency and classroom performance (e.g., pronunciation, clarity, fluency, etc.)
l Linguistic knowledge of English l Pedagogical knowledge
l Related credentials, training, and commitment to teaching English as a profession l Understanding the curriculum and the demands of the educational system
l Understanding the native/local language and culture
l Understanding the students (e.g., special needs, learning styles or difficulties, etc.) Table 4. Frequency count of the ranking of the seven attributes of a good ELT
Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Language proficiency and classroom performance (e.g., pronunciation, clarity,
fluency, etc.) 14a 15b 4 1 5 1 2
Linguistic knowledge of English 0 2 3 7 5 12 11
Pedagogical knowledge 10 5 10 7 5 3 3
Related credentials, training, and commitment to teaching English as a
profession 6 4 5 4 7 6 8
Understanding the curriculum and the
demands of the educational system 0 3 6 11 10 4 8 Understanding the native/local language and
culture 1 3 6 8 6 10 8
Understanding the students (e.g., special
needs, learning styles or difficulties, etc.) 13 12 9 4 2 4 0
Note. a Frequency count of the ranking b Shaded cells indicate the highest frequency count of Rank #1 for the item.
Table 5. Frequency count of the ranking of the seven attributes of a good ELT by NETs
Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Language proficiency and classroom performance
(e.g., pronunciation, clarity, fluency, etc.) 9 10 2 1 2 0 1
Linguistic knowledge of English 0 0 1 5 1 9 9
Pedagogical knowledge 6 4 6 2 4 2 1
Related credentials, training, and commitment to
teaching English as a profession 2 2 3 2 6 2 8
Understanding the curriculum and the demands of
the educational system 0 0 5 8 6 2 4
Understanding the native/local language and
culture 0 1 4 5 5 8 2
Understanding the students (e.g., special needs,
learning styles or difficulties, etc.) 8 8 4 2 1 2 0 Note. n=31
Table 6. Frequency count of the ranking of the seven attributes of a good ELT by NNETs
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Language proficiency and classroom performance
(e.g., pronunciation, clarity, fluency, etc.) 6 5 2 0 3 1 1
Linguistic knowledge of English 0 2 2 2 4 3 3
Pedagogical knowledge 4 1 5 5 1 1 2
Related credentials, training, and commitment to
teaching English as a profession 4 2 2 2 2 4 0
Understanding the curriculum and the demands of
the educational system 0 3 1 4 4 2 4
Understanding the native/local language and
culture 1 2 2 3 1 3 6
Understanding the students (e.g., special needs,
learning styles or difficulties, etc.) 5 5 5 2 1 2 0 Note. n=22
Table 7. A comparison of the frequency percentages of the seven attributes of a good ELT by NET and NNET
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Understanding the curriculum and the demands of the
educational system 13% 16% 5% 26% 18% 19% 18% 6% 9% 13% 18%
Understanding the native/local language and
culture 5% 3% 9% 13% 9% 16% 14% 16% 5% 26% 14% 6% 27%
Understanding the students (e.g., special needs, learning styles or
difficulties, etc.) 26% 23% 26% 23% 13% 23% 6% 9% 3% 5% 6% 9%
Ranked as the Most Important Attribute for an ESL Teacher
29%
0%
19%
6%
0% 0%
27% 26%
0%
18% 18%
0%
5%
23%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Language proficiency/performance Linguistic knowledge Pedagogical knowledge redentials, training, and commitment Understanding curriculum/educational system Understanding local language and culture Understanding students
Attributes
Percentages of Native vs. Non-native Teachers
native non-native
Ranked as the Least Important Attribute for an ESL Teacher
3%
29%
3%
26%
13%
6%
0%
5%
14%
9%
0%
18%
27%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Language proficiency/performance Linguistic knowledge Pedagogical knowledge redentials, training, and commitment Understanding curriculum/educational system Understanding local language and culture Understanding students
Attributes
Percentage of Native vs. Non-native Teachers
native non-native
native non-native
Language proficiency/performance 2 1
Linguistic knowledge 6 5
Pedagogical knowledge 2 3
Credentials, training, and commitment 7 3 Understanding curriculum/educational
system 4 4
Understanding local language and culture 6 7
Understanding students 1 2
Rankings by Native vs. Non-native Teachers
Language proficiency/performance Linguistic knowledge Pedagogical knowledge Credentials, training, and commitment Understanding curriculum/educational system Understanding local language and culture Understanding students
Qualifications
Ranked as the Most Important Attributes for an ELT
29%
Language proficiency/performance Linguistic knowledge Pedagogical knowledge Credentials, training, and commitment Understanding curriculum/educational system Understanding local language and culture Understanding students
Attributes
native non-native
Ranked as the Least Important Attributes for an ELT
3%
Language proficiency/performance Linguistic knowledge Pedagogical knowledge Credentials, training, and commitment Understanding curriculum/educational system Understanding local language and culture Understanding students
native non-native
The results of Section II do not entirely corroborate with Section III. the ranking task. In Section III, NETs ranked understanding the students as the most important attribute for a professional ELT, English language proficiency and
performance as well as pedagogical knowledge as the second. NNETs also valued the attributes of English language proficiency and performance and understanding students (ranked as 1st and 2nd respectively). NNETs ranked pedagogical
knowledge as important as credentials and trainings in Section III (both ranked as 3rd); however, credentials and trainings was rated by NNETs as one of the least important qualities in Section II. NETs, corresponding to their ratings in Section II, ranked credentials and trainings as the least important attribute (ranked as 7th) in this section. Both groups ranked understanding local language and culture as unimportant (NET ranked 6th and NNET ranked 7th) presumably for different reasons. In brief, NETs and NNETs, when asked to rank the summative attributes of a professional ELT, agree on almost all of them except teachers’ credentials, and trainings.
(2) Interviews
Altogether 15 NETs and 6 NNETs were interviewed face-to-face, each lasted from 15 to 30 minutes. Among the 15 NETs, four were from the Hsinchu City and the rest were from the Yilan County. All the NNETs were from the Yilan County.
The interviews expanded some of the questions in our questionnaire on
professionalism in teaching but also covered co-teaching issues not included in the questionnaire.
In the Yilan Program, one of the goals of the training course there was to help NNETs learn to integrate NETs into their classes and find a role for them. NNETs felt that the NET was an authentic model especially for pronunciation, and a good source of vocabulary and cultural knowledge, “the NET is a dictionary,” said one.
The NETs also brings fresh input and new ideas into the class. NNETs benefit also through the contact with native speakers, before some NNET had felt shy with foreigners, although others working at cram schools had already encountered them professionally.
The NETs reported how they were challenged by working in a Taiwanese classroom. Firstly most reported feeling inadequate because of their lack of Chinese, one said “without Chinese it cannot work” Apart from this, they felt they did not know the students, “they all look the same”; also they did not know how far to push pupils. One said she lacked inadequate knowledge of “the school, the students and the structure.” Some felt their lack of experience compared to their co-teacher, while those who had developed their own pedagogical approach were frustrated if it could not be used in the Taiwanese classroom.
For their part the Taiwanese teachers appreciated the difficulties the young Americans were facing and valued their idealism. They noted the culture shock the NETs faced in a new country and in a new educational system. They observed them groping for a role in the classroom. One local teacher sympathized, “My lesson plan is usually in my head, it’s hard for me to share it.” This appreciation did not blind them to real or perceived failings of the student teachers. They saw at first hand the lack of experience of the Americans, how the class became more chaotic when the NET took charge and how they often overestimated the abilities of the local children.
One local teacher complained that ‘the NETs care a lot about things that are not the main point’ another that they are impractical, they wait for over ten seconds for a student to answer a question, when in real life there is not enough classroom time for that.
Both groups had their own concepts of what constitutes good and bad teaching.
There differences between the two groups may be due partly to educational culture and partly to experience. There were a fair number of discrepancies between the two.
Nevertheless, we must make it clear at the outset, that part of the success of this program is that differences in opinion between native and non-native teachers from completely different educational cultures does not constitute a obstacle to co-teaching, as one young American said, “I don’t agree with my present Taiwanese co-teacher but we can still have a good relationship.”
The Americans complained that the local teachers tended to stick too closely to the textbook and syllabus, even if the material was manifestly unsuitable, e.g. too easy. The teaching method involved a lot of recitation and repetition. Some NETs felt classes were too regimented and teachers seemed intolerant of on-task noise. A common complaint was that the NET suggestions were not valued; there was never enough time for their suggested activities and no real place for creative input. Or they were not properly integrated into the class; at one point the teacher might turn to them and ask “What do you want to do?” our correspondent said she felt put on the spot when suddenly asked that question.
Discipline and punishments: NETs generally reported admiration for the kindness with which NNETs dealt with pupils. However, they considered some of
Discipline and punishments: NETs generally reported admiration for the kindness with which NNETs dealt with pupils. However, they considered some of