School Level N=238
ES 16.3 0.0 15.2 33.7 27.2 7.6
JHS 8.9 1.4 10.3 49.3 21.2 8.9
Total 11.8 0.8 12.2 43.3 23.5 8.4
4.5 Current Situation of Teachers’ Implementation of Remedial Instruction Question 29: Other than the school-wide remedial instruction, are you implementing or have you implemented English remedial instruction for underachievers? When?
As illustrated in Table 4.19, the implementation of remedial instruction by the individual teachers was not quite popular. A total of 35.3% of the subjects reported current implementation of remedial instruction. Further comparison between the school-wide remedial programs (inquired in question 13) and the individual teachers’
remedial instructions (inquired in question 29) revealed that among the 83 subjects whose schools did not have school-wide remedial programs, 63 (75.9%) of whom were not conducting any remedial instruction either. In other words, it is very likely that these teachers were dealing with mixed-ability classes with certain classroom strategies, or with no any specific strategy.
Table 4.19 Current implementation of remedial instruction by individual teachers at different school levels
Teacher’s current implementation of remedial instruction
Academic year of starting remedial instruction
School Level N=238 N=58
ES 15.2 17.4 32.6 34.8 0.0 4.0 96.0
JHS 11.6 25.3 41.1 21.9 15.2 9.1 75.8
Total 13.0 22.3 37.8 26.9 8.6 6.9 84.5
Question 30~33: In terms of school administration, individual teachers, students, and parents, what are the factors that hinder your implementation of remedial instruction?
Table 4.20 showed the responses of 154 teachers who had implemented remedial instruction before but not in this year and those who had never done so regarding the factors that hindered their implementation of remedial instruction.
These factors were divided into four aspects—school administration, individual
teachers, students, and parents. Among the 154 teachers, a majority of 74.0%
considered the school administration factor to be “no specific hours were arranged for remedial instruction.” In terms of individual teachers, “heavy teaching work” was the major problem to most of the teachers (62.3%). As for the factors regarding the students, a majority of the subjects considered the reason to be “most underachievers have almost given up on English studies” (44.4%). Moreover, the Chi-square test found a significant difference between the two school levels (p=.021). In elementary schools, the proportion of the teachers who were concerned about the problem of
“negative labeling” on the underachievers (17.7%) was higher than that of in the junior high schools (7.7%). While in junior high schools, more teachers selected the factors, “most underachievers have almost given up on English studies” (53.8%) and
“most students have already taken private English courses” (22.0%). In terms of the parental factors, 58.4% pointed out that “parents do not pay enough attention to their children’s English learning.”
Table 4.20 Factors hinder the teacher’s implementation of remedial instruction School Level N=154
ES 14.5 71.0 3.2 11.3 0.0
JHS 18.5 76.1 1.1 3.3 1.1
Total 16.9 74.0 1.9 6.5 0.6
Individual teacher factors
% (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
School Level N=154
ES 3.2 14.5 1.6 0.0 11.3 0.0 66.1 3.2 0.0
School Level N=153
ES 29.0 3.2 19.4 17.7 30.6 0.0*
Parents do not pay enough attention to their children’s English learning
Parents are not satisfied with the effects of school-implemented remedial instruction
Others
School Level N=154
ES 43.5 48.4 8.1 0.0*
JHS 29.3 65.2 1.1 4.3
Total 35.1 58.4 3.9 2.6
*p<.05
Note: (1) No such factors; (2) Can take care of underachievers within English classrooms; (3)Limited effects from the past implementation of remedial instruction; (4) Lack effective diagnostic and assessment instrument ; (5) Not knowing how to implement remedial instruction effectively; (6) Insufficient teaching resources; (7) Heavy teaching work; (8) Heavy school administrative work; (9) Others
Question 34: What is your motivation for implementing remedial instruction?
In all, the subjects’ motivation for implementing remedial instruction was consistent at the two school levels. As shown in Table 4.21, among the 85 subjects who were implementing remedial instruction this year, 35.3% claimed their motivation to be “promoting students’ learning interests and motivation,” 27.1% to be
“helping underachievers in time in case they will fall further behind in the future,”
and still 16.5% to be “narrowing the gap among students’ English ability for the convenience of classroom teaching.” The results were consistent with that of question 22 in that the students’ lack of learning interests and motivation were the leading factors to their underachievement, so whatever remedial strategies were adopted, the major intention of remedial instruction was to promote the students’ interests and motivation in English learning. Moreover, by providing timely help for the underachievers, the possibilities that these students would gradually lose their motivation and eventually give up on their English learning could be greatly eliminated.
Table 4.21 Teachers’ motivation for implementing remedial instruction Teachers’ motivation for implementing remedial instruction
% (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
School Level N=85
ES 13.3 0.0 43.3 6.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0
JHS 18.2 1.8 18.2 14.5 36.4 1.8 5.5 1.8 1.8
Total 16.5 1.2 27.1 11.8 35.3 1.2 3.5 2.4 1.2
Note: (1) Narrowing the gap among students’ English ability for the convenience of classroom teaching;
(2) Raising students’ scores on English tests; (3) Helping underachievers in time in case they will fall further behind in the future; (4) Offering students with more practice opportunity; (5) Promoting students’ learning interests and motivation; (6) Responding to students’ self-motivated request for remedial instruction; (7) The school’s promotion of the teachers’ implementation of remedial instruction; (8) Responding to parents’ request for remedial instruction; (9) Others
Question 35: How do you identify the target students for receiving remedial instruction?
As in Table 4.22, among the 85 subjects who were implementing remedial instruction in the present school year, 42.4% of whom claimed to identify the target students for receiving remedial instruction through students’ performance on quizzes and assignments, and 37.6% through observations of students’ classroom performance.
Besides, 21.8% of the junior high school teachers identified the target students through students’ performance on summative assessment, while no subjects in elementary schools used this method. The difference between the two groups of the teachers regarding their identification of the target students achieved the significant level (p=.041).
Table 4.22 Identification of the target students for receiving remedial instruction Identification of the target students for receiving remedial instruction
%
Question 36: How many times a week do you implement remedial instruction? How many students and for how long?
When asked the times, number of students, and hours of remedial instruction,
most teachers (73.3%) reported to provide less than two sessions of remedial instruction per week (Table 4.23). Most of the teachers (41.4%) had three to five underachievers for each session, and some (28.6%) had only one or two. As for the hours of remediation, a majority of 87.8% teachers conducted instruction for less than one hour.
Table 4.23 Numbers of times, students, and hours per week for remedial instruction
Numbers of times per week for remedial instruction
% Less than 2 times 3 to 5 times No fixed schedule
School Level N=75
ES 88.5 11.5 0.0
JHS 65.3 30.6 4.1
Total 73.3 24.0 2.7
Numbers of students per week for remedial instruction
% 1 to 2 students
3 to 5 students
6 to 7 students
8 to 10 students
11 students or more
No fixed number of students
School Level N=70
ES 28.0 40.0 8.0 4.0 20.0 0.0*
JHS 28.9 42.2 15.6 11.1 0.0 2.2
Total 28.6 41.4 12.9 8.6 7.1 1.4
Numbers of hours per week for remedial instruction
% Less than 1 hour 1 to 2 hours More than 2 hours Not fixed hour
School Level N=74
ES 84.6 15.4 0.0 0.0
JHS 89.6 6.3 0.0 4.2
Total 87.8 9.5 0.0 2.7
*p<.05
Question 37: What kind of remedial instruction programs are you implementing? (At most three answers can be selected)
Among the six given options, as indicated in Table 4.24, after class assistance (79.8%) and peer tutoring (45.2%) were the two most commonly adopted remedial instruction programs, and some (16.7%) of the teachers also claimed to design individualized learning material for underachievers. For the rest of the three programs, however, no case was reported in recruiting volunteers at college, only one (1.2%) was found in incorporating parents and community resources, and one (1.2%) in assisting students during summer or winter vacation.
Table 4.24 Remedial instruction programs adopted by the teachers at different school levels
Remedial instruction programs adopted by individual teachers Peer tutoring After class assistance
Designing learning materials for underachievers
%
No Yes No Yes No Yes
School Level N=84 N=84 N=84
ES 53.3 46.7 16.7 83.3 93.3 6.7
JHS 55.6 44.4 22.2 77.8 77.8 22.2
Total 54.8 45.2 20.2 79.8 83.3 16.7
Remedial instruction programs adopted by individual teachers Recruiting volunteers at
college to assist underachievers
Incorporating parents and community resources to help underachievers
Assisting students’
learning during
summer/winter vacation
%
No Yes No Yes No Yes
School Level N=84 N=84 N=84
ES 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
JHS 100.0 0.0 98.1 1.9 98.1 1.9
Total 100.0 0.0 98.8 1.2 98.8 1.2
Question 38: What are the major contents for the remedial instruction programs that you are implementing? (At most three answers can be selected)
In terms of the major contents, as illustrated in Table 4.25, over 90% of the
subjects (91.6%) used the students’ English textbooks. Besides, not a small number of the teachers, 16.7% in elementary schools and 39.6% in junior high schools, developed learning materials for underachievers. The responses in the use of teacher-designed learning materials between the two groups of the teachers achieved the significant level (p=.025) in that such materials was more commonly used in junior high schools than in elementary schools.
Table 4.25 Major contents for the remedial instruction Major contents for the remedial instruction
Textbooks
Question 39: What are the positive effects of the remedial instruction programs that you are implementing?
As in Table 4.26, the examination of the effects of the two most frequently adopted remedial instruction programs, after-class assistance and peer tutoring, revealed that both of the two programs helped students gain more sense of achievement and confidence in themselves (31.8% and 32.4%), and students’ English learning interests were also increased (24.2% and 29.7%). Other positive effects of the two programs such as students’ more classroom participation and their improvement in English test scores were also reported by some of the teachers.
Table 4.26 Positive effects of the two most frequently adopted remedial instruction by the teachers
Positive effects of remedial instruction by individual teachers
% No observable
Question 40: What are the negative effects of the remedial instruction programs that you are implementing?
As shown in Table 4.27, the majority of the teachers did not report any observable negative effects of the two remedial instruction programs. However, still not a small number of the teachers (28.8% and 24.3% for each program) reflected that students might have a stronger sense of inferiority due to the negative label. Furthermore, when comparing the responses of the teachers at the two school levels, as indicated in Table 4.28, a significant difference was found (p<.05) regarding the negative effects of remedial instruction in that the problem of negative labeling appeared to be more serious in junior high schools.
Table 4.27 Negative effects of the two most frequently adopted remedial instruction by the teachers
Negative effects of remedial instruction by individual teachers
% No observable
Table 4.28 Negative effects of the two most frequently adopted remedial instruction at different school levels
Negative effects of “after-class assistance”
% No observable
Negative effects of “peer tutoring”
% No observable
Question 41: Has the remedial instruction that you are implementing improved the learning of those underachievers?
On evaluating the general effects of the two programs aforementioned, more than half of the teachers (51.5% and 56.8% for each program) reported minor effects
of their remedial instruction on helping underachievers (Table 4.29). Besides, not a few teachers (22.7% and 18.9%) reported only short-term effects but not maintenance effects.
Table 4.29 General effects of the two most frequently adopted remedial instruction by the teachers in helping underachievers
General effects of remedial instruction by individual teachers
% Remarkab
le effects
Minor
effects No effects Only short-term effects
The effects are not yet evaluated
Negative effects N=83
After-class
assistance 13.6 51.5 3.0 22.7 9.1 0.0
N=83 Peer tutoring
10.8 56.8 5.4 18.9 8.1 0.0