3. Sampling weight: The sampling weight is the number for restoring the original importance of each unit within the population segment. In each stage of sampling there is a different weight
3.4 Quantitative Results and Key Findings
3.4.1 Research Question One: To what extent and in what ways do key stakeholders believe the PNET Scheme helps to improve primary students’
learning of English?
The focus of this question is the impact of the PNET Scheme on students’ learning, which includes more than the contribution of an individual NET in the school (i.e., it includes the work of the LETs, the Advisory Teachers and the NET Section as a whole). One way in which the question was operationalised for stakeholders, however, was to focus on the impact of the individual NET on students’ learning. This is reflected in the results reported below and summarised in the first Survey Finding (SF) below.
SF1. The majority of stakeholders believe the PNET Scheme contributes to students’ English learning.
Based on the crosstab tables and Chi-square analysis of the perceived NET contribution to student learning by stakeholders, it was found that the majority of respondents (in most cases over 90%) from every group of stakeholders believed the PNET Scheme, in the form of the contribution of the individual NET in the school, had contributed to student learning. However, parents tended to have the highest level of agreement to most statements whereas School Heads tended to have the lowest level (except in relation to the NET’s contribution to “students’
improved proficiency in speaking”). The pie charts displayed in Figure 1 and the data in Table 1 are visual and statistical depictions respectively of the different perceptions of different stakeholders.
Figure 1. Stakeholders’ perceptions of the contributions of NETs to student learning.
Table 1
Chi-square analyses of ways in which NETs contribute to student English learning Stakeholder
Weighted Count Percentage
Chi-square p valuea
Disagree Agree Disagree Agree
The NET contributes to students’ view of the importance of English.
LET 29.50 362.04 7.53 92.47 <.0001
NET 3.14 62.59 4.78 95.22
Parent 28.53 2030.44 1.39 98.61
SH 5.90 48.11 10.92 89.08
The NET contributes to students’ motivation to learn English.
LET 24.40 374.87 6.11 93.89 <.0001
NET 0 66.53 0 100
Parent 32.37 2037.25 1.56 98.44
SH 3.87 50.13 7.17 92.83
The NET contributes to students’ improved proficiency in writing.
LET 60.93 332.73 15.48 84.52 <.0001
NET 7.92 56.39 12.32 87.68
Parent 83.22 1959.21 4.07 95.93
SH 11.32 41.69 21.36 78.64
The NET contributes to students’ improved proficiency in reading.
LET 24.63 373.14 6.19 93.81 <.0001
NET 0 66.53 0 100
Parent 94.38 1968.21 4.58 95.42
SH 2.86 50.15 5.39 94.61
The NET contributes to students’ improved proficiency in speaking.
LET 9.50 388.26 2.39 97.61 <.0001
NET 2.86 62.78 4.36 95.64
Parent 21.18 2057.47 1.02 98.98
SH 0 54.01 0 100
The NET contributes to students’ improved proficiency in listening.
LET 11.62 386.71 2.92 97.08 0.0004
NET 1.10 64.54 1.68 98.32
Parent 27.11 2050.66 1.30 98.70
SH 1.93 52.07 3.58 96.42
The NET contributes to students’ parent’s/guardian’s valuing of English.
LET 59.11 313.45 15.87 84.13 7.06 0.0293
NET 12.86 44.15 22.56 77.44
SH 15.46 35.68 30.23 69.77
The NET motivates students to use more English.
LET 7.88 399.76 1.93 98.07 <.0001
NET 0 67.52 0 100
SH 3.73 48.91 7.09 92.91
The NET contributes to students’ use of English in class.
LET 6.72 392.13 1.68 98.32 <.0001
NET 0 66.53 0 100
Parent 34.20 2024.66 1.66 98.34
SH 3.39 50.61 6.28 93.72
The NET contributes to students’ use of English at the school.
LET 31.68 367.02 7.95 92.05 <.0001
NET 5.02 61.52 7.54 92.46
Parent 90.97 1955.53 4.45 95.55
SH 8.89 44.12 16.77 83.23
The NET contributes to students’ use of English outside of school.
LET 107.33 263.65 28.93 71.07 70.79 <.0001
NET 20.91 35.85 36.85 63.15
Parent 305.37 1653.34 15.59 84.41
SH 22.19 28.96 43.38 56.62
Note. If 20% of cells have expected count less than 5, then the Fisher’s exact test is used and no Chi-square is
aIf Chi-square is missing, then the p value is yielded from the Fisher’s exact test. P values <0.05 are shown in bold.
SF2. Slightly more students in KS1 hold positive views toward English than their KS2 counterparts.
Analysis of the data related to this research question revealed discrepancies between the perceptions of students in Key Stage One (KS1) and Key Stage Two (KS2). In responding to statements expressing a liking for English lessons, for speaking English to the LETs, and for reading English and writing English, larger proportions of KS1 students agreed with the statements than did their KS2 counterparts. These discrepancies are clear from the pie charts for these survey items (Figure 2) and the Chi-square test results (Table 2). However, it is important to emphasise that this is a cross-sectional study, not a longitudinal one. In other words, we did not track the same students moving from KS1 to KS2 over time. Therefore, the results cannot be interpreted as the developing perceptions of the same students over time or as indicative of decreasing motivation in those students. At most we can conclude that concurrently KS1, as an independent group, appeared to be more positive about learning English than KS2. It is worth noting also that, in the negative statement (“I do not like to speak in English”), the proportions of agreement and disagreement between the two Key Stages are almost the same, in sharp contrast to the results for the positive statements. To further investigate this discrepancy, the original scale (1-4) of three items related to speaking English (“I like talking to the NET in English”, “I do NOT like to speak in English”, and “I like to speak English to the LETs”) was used for computing the Cronbach Alpha, a reliability measure of internal consistency. When all three items were taken into account, the Cronbach coefficient Alpha is .6658, which is below the acceptable threshold (.7). However, if the negative statement
“I do NOT like to speak in English” was removed, the Alpha surged to 0.722. This may result from a common human tendency to dislike agreeing to something negative. And this disposition leads to measurement errors. Hence, the result of the negatively stated item should be interpreted with caution.
Figure 2. Students’ likes and dislikes related to English learning (by Key Stage).
Table 2
Chi-square analysis of student likes and dislikes related to English learning (by Key Stage) Stakeholder
Weighted Count Percentage
p valuea
Disagree Agree Disagree Agree
I like talking to the NET in English.
Key Stage 1 780.26 3849.92 16.85 83.15 <.0001
Key Stage 2 1064.32 3256.66 24.63 75.37
I do NOT like to speak in English.
Key Stage 1 3200.61 1346.75 70.38 29.62 0.0514
Key Stage 2 3124.46 1200.24 72.25 27.75
I like to speak English to the LETs.
Key Stage 1 981.12 3590.99 21.46 78.54 <.0001
Key Stage 2 1522.81 2694.65 36.11 63.89
I like English lessons.
Key Stage 1 621.62 3991.87 13.47 86.53 <.0001
Key Stage 2 997.07 3253.73 23.46 76.54
I like to read English.
Key Stage 1 799.01 3767.18 17.50 82.50 <.0001
Key Stage 2 1257.37 3097.13 28.88 71.12
I like to write in English.
Key Stage 1 1108.63 3433.17 24.41 75.59 <.0001
Key Stage 2 1708.38 2609.03 39.57 60.43
SF3. The majority of students hold positive views of NET-LET collaboration.
Another way in which the impact of the PNET Scheme on students’ learning of English was operationalised in the surveys, was to explore stakeholders’ perceptions of the impact of collaboration, a key emphasis of the PNET Scheme. Students’ responses to statements expressing the effectiveness of NET-LET collaboration were overwhelmingly positive. Again, however, there was a difference between KS1 and KS2. Pertaining to their motivation in learning English with LETs and NETs, KS1 students tended to agree more than those in KS2.
A possible explanation is that NETs and LETs engage in more co-teaching with KS1 students than with KS2 students, and more KS1 students are exposed to NETs, so KS2 students might have disagreed more with statements extolling the value of NET-LET collaboration because such collaboration did not affect their learning as regularly. To corroborate this explanation, it was observed that NETs reported teaching students in KS1 roughly twice as frequently as teaching students in KS2. With increasing grade level, fewer and fewer NETs were assigned to teach KS2 students. Figure 3 and Table 3 display findings related to student opinions on NET-LET collaboration.
Figure 3. Student opinions on NET-LET collaboration (by Key Stage).
Table 3
Chi-square analysis of student opinions on NET-LET collaboration Stakeholder
Weighted Count Percentage p valuea
Disagree Agree Disagree Agree
I learn a lot of English when the LET and NET teach together.
Key Stage 1 205.00 4632.39 4.24 95.76 <.0001
Key Stage 2 419.27 3954.97 9.59 90.41
I like it when my LET and NET teach together.
Key Stage 1 321.35 4562.75 6.58 93.42 <.0001
Key Stage 2 692.64 3748.45 15.60 84.40
I have enough opportunities to read English when my LET and NET teach together.
Key Stage 1 328.50 4526.91 6.77 93.23 <.0001
Key Stage 2 592.87 3837.37 13.38 86.62
I get more support for learning English when my LET and NET teach together.
Key Stage 1 306.54 4522.25 6.35 93.65 <.0001
Key Stage 2 601.44 3749.04 13.84 86.18
I do NOT have enough opportunities to speak English when my LET and NET teach together.
Key Stage 1 3131.02 1557.16 66.79 33.21 <.0001
Key Stage 2 3265.60 989.93 76.74 23.26
I am motivated to learn English when my LET and NET teach together.
Key Stage 1 361.66 4380.14 7.63 92.37 <.0001
Key Stage 2 698.99 3572.23 16.37 83.63
I learn English well when the LET and NET teach together.
Key Stage 1 341.47 4362.98 7.26 92.74 <.0001
Key Stage 2 625.38 3666.08 14.57 85.43
3.4.2 Research Question Two: To what extent and in what ways does the PNET