高中學生和教師對於<普通高級中學英文科課程綱要>能力指標的看法

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文 Master Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 高中教師和學生對於 <普通高級中學英文科課程綱要> 能力指標的看法 Teachers’ and Student’s Perceptions of the Competence Indicators in National Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English. 指導老師：程玉秀博士 Advisor: Dr. Yuh-show Cheng. 研究生：陳其玲 Chi-Ling Chen 中華民國 101 年八月. August, 2012.

(2) 摘要九九高中英文課程綱要已頒布施行。為了要增進課程實施的效益，有必要研究利害關係人的對於課程改革的感知和接受度。其中，老師和學生對於課程目標的看法尤其重要，因為其看法會決定他們是否會完成目標能力的教學與學習。本研究目標就在於了解老師和學生對於課程綱要中，將課程目標概念化的分項能力指標的看法。來自台灣各區域的 1,422 位學生和 110 位老師參與了這次的問卷調查研究。老師和學生填寫兩種不同版本的問卷。在問卷中，他們在五點量表中填入他們認知裡每個分項能力指標的重要性，並且選擇是否會將該分項能力指標作為課程的教學或學習目標。研究者使用了描述性數據、t 檢定，以及卡方檢定來分析參與教師與學生的問卷填答。本研究發現老師和學生認為各分項能力指標相當重要，且大部分填答者願意將分項能力指標當作是教學或學習的目標；但參與本研究之師生對思考能力指標的重視程度較低。老師和學生對於閱讀、寫作、學習策略，以及學習興趣與態度的分項能力指標看法不一。根據研究結果，有關當局應更加強宣傳九九高中英文課程綱要的特色─思考能力，同時也應設法縮短老師和學生對能力指標認知上的差異。. 關鍵字：高中英文、課程綱要、能力指標. i.

(3) ABSTRACT. The 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English have been put into practice. In order to enhance the effectiveness of the curriculum implementation, it is necessary to investigate the stakeholders’ perceptions and acceptance of the mandated curriculum. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions and acceptance of the course objectives are especially important because they may determine whether teachers and students would take action to achieve the mandated goals. The present study thus aims to understand how teachers and students perceive the competence indicators in the Curriculum Guidelines, which conceptualize the course objectives. In total, 1,422 students and 110 teachers from senior high school in different parts of Taiwan were recruited to participate in the survey study. Teachers and students filled in two different versions of questionnaires. They were required to assign a perceived importance value to each competence indicator on a five-point Likert scale and choose whether they would take the indicator as teaching or learning goal. Descriptive statistics, t-test, and Chi-square analysis were used to analyze the data. Results of the study show that both teachers and students recognized the competence indicators as important, and most participants would take the indicators as their learning goals. However, less emphasis was put on the indicators for thinking skills, one of the curricular innovations in the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines. Most importantly, teachers and students differed in their views about competence indicators for reading, writing, learning strategy, and learning attitude. It is suggested that authorities concerned should put more emphasis on promoting the new feature of 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English, i.e. thinking skills. It is also necessary to bridge the gap between teachers’ and students perceived importance of abilities to be developed in the English course. Keywords: high school English, Curriculum Guidelines, competence indicator. ii.

(4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Yuh-show Cheng, who is an outstanding mentor for me. Whenever I encountered any difficulties, she always provided instructions patiently. Her remarkable expertise in the field of Teaching English as a Foreign Language also inspired me and enriched the depth of my thesis. I felt fairly indebted to her for her constant guidance throughout the process of composing and editing my thesis. Without her emotional and intellectual support, I could not reach so far in my academic career. Second, I want to express sincere gratitude to my honorable committee members, Dr. Hsi-nan Yeh and Dr. Ya-ming Dai. Their insightful comments and valuable opinions made the thesis more organized and informative. Their helpful advices are great assistance in improving my study. What’s more, my special thanks are sent to the high school teachers and students who participated in this survey. They were kind enough to go through the items in the questionnaires patiently. Without their cooperation, it is quite difficult to complete my thesis. Lastly, I really appreciate my friends in English Department in NTNU. Their encouragement and support make it possible for me to accomplish all the degree requirements.. iii.

(5) TABLE OF CONTENTS. page CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………... 1. Research Background ……………………………………............................. 1. Significance of Study ……………………………………………………….. 5. Research Questions …………………………………………………………. 7. Organization of the Study …………………………………………………... 7. CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………………. 8. 2010 National Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School ……………. 8. 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English. 10. Factors Related to Curriculum Implementation ……………......................... 14. The Influence of Stakeholders’ views on Curriculum Implementation ......... 16. The Role of Teachers’ Perceptions in Curriculum Implementation ..…... 18. The Role of Students’ Perceptions in Curriculum Implementation ........... 23. CHAPTER THREE. METHOD ……………………………………………... 26. Participants ……………………………………………………………….. 26. Background Information of Student Participants …………………….. 26. Background Information of Teacher Participants …………………….. 29. Instruments ……………………………………………………………….. 33. iv.

(6) Data Collection Procedures..……...………………...……………….…........ 34. Data Analysis Procedures ..…………………………………….………........ 34. CHAPTER FOUR. RESULTS ……………………………………………….. 36. Participants’ Views of Competence Indicators for Listening …………......... 36. Participants’ Views of Competence Indicators for Speaking ……………... 41. Participants’ Views of Competence Indicators for Reading ………………... 46. Participants’ Views of Competence Indicators for Writing……………........ 52. Participants’ Views of Competence Indicators for Four-Skill Integration..……... 58. Participants’ Views of Competence Indicators for Thinking Skills ………... 63. Participants’ Views of Competence Indicators for Learning Strategies. 67. Participants’ Views of Competence Indicators for Learning Attitudes and. 73. Motivation………………………………………………………………. Participants’ Views of Competence Indicators for Cultural Understanding. 79. and Global view ……………………………………………………… Summary …………………………………………………………………... CHAPTER FIVE. 84. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION …………………….. 91. Discussion of Major Findings ………………………………………………. 92. Teachers’ and Students’ Perceived Importance of Competence Indicators ………………………………………………………….. v. 92.

(7) Competence Indicators as Teachers’ and Students’ Teaching or. 96. Learning Objectives ……………………………………………. Implications of the Study ……………….…………………………………... 99. Limitations of the Study ….………………..………………………………... 101. Future Research Directions …………………………………………………. 101. References …………………………………………………………………………. 103. Appendixes ………………………………………………………………………… Appendix A Chinese and English versions of Competence Indicators in. 114. 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English Appendix B. Questionnaire for Students …………………………………... 125. Appendix C. Questionnaire for Teachers …………………………………... 134. vi.

(8) LIST of TABLES. page Table 1.. Number and Percentage of Student Participants by Areas and Schools.. 27. Table 2.. Number and Percentage of Student Participants by Grade Level …….. 28. Table 3.. Distribution of Student Participants by Start Learning Time ……..…... 28. Table 4. Distribution of Student Participants by Cram School Experience ……. 29. Table 5.. Distribution of Student Participants by Proficiency Test experience. ... 29. Table 6.. Distribution of Teacher Participants by Area.. 30. Table 7.. Distribution of Teachers by Age.. ….…………………………………. 30. Table 8.. Distribution of Teachers by Teaching Experience. ……………………. 31. Table 9.. Distribution of Teachers by English Teaching Experience. …………. 31. ………………………. Table 10. Distribution of Teachers by Perception of Students’ Academic Performance. ………………………………………………………….. 32. Table 11. Distribution of Teachers by Perception of Students’ English Proficiency. ………………………………………………………….. 32. Table 12. Teachers’ and Students’ Perceived Importance of Competence Indicators for Listening. …………………………………………….. 37. Table 13. Percentage of Participants Taking Each Competence Indicator for Listening as Teaching or Learning Goal. …………………………….. 39. Table 14. Teachers’ and Students’ Perceived Importance of Competence Indicators for Speaking ……………………………..………………. 42. Table 15. Percentage of Participants Taking Each Competence Indicator for Speaking as Teaching or Learning Goal. ……………………………... vii. 44.

(9) Table 16. Teachers’ and Students’ Perceived Importance of Competence Indicators for Reading ………………………………………………. 46. Table 17. Percentage of Participants Taking Each Competence Indicator for Reading as Teaching or Learning Goal. …………………………….. 50. Table 18. Teachers’ and Students’ Perceived Importance of Competence Indicators for Writing. ………………………………………………. 52. Table 19. Percentage of Participants Taking Each Competence Indicator for Writing as Teaching or Learning Goal ………………………………... 56. Table 20. Teachers’ and Students’ Perceived Importance of Competence Indicators for Four-skill Integration ……………………………….. 58. Table 21. Percentage of Participants Taking Each Competence Indicator for Four-skill Integration as Teaching or Learning Goal ….…………..….. 61. Table 22. Teachers’ and Students’ Perceived Importance of Competence Indicators for Thinking Skills ………………..……………………….. 63. Table 23. Percentage of Participants Taking Each Competence Indicator for Thinking Skills as Teaching or Learning Goal ………………………... 66. Table 24. Teachers’ and Students’ Perceived Importance of Competence Indicators for Learning Strategies ……………………………….. 68. Table 25. Percentage of Participants Taking Each Competence Indicator for Learning Strategies as Learning or Teaching Goal. ………………... 71. Table 26. Teachers’ and Students’ Perceived Importance of Competence Indicators for Learning Attitude and Motivation ……………….…. 73. Table 27. Percentage of Participants Taking Each Competence Indicator for Learning Attitude and Motivation as Teaching or Learning Goal. viii. 77.

(10) Table 28. Students’ Perceived Importance of Competence Indicators for Cultural Understanding and Global View. ……………….……….. 79. Table 29. Percentage of Participants Taking Each Competence Indicator for Cultural Understanding and Global View as Teaching or Learning Goal……………………………………………………………….. Table 30. Competence Indicators Assigned Higher Importance Values by Teachers. ix. 82 86.

(11) CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION. Research Background In an EFL (English as a foreign language) environment like Taiwan, learning English is usually considered a tool to connect individuals or the whole country with the international community. Good English is believed to bring citizens a better chance to obtain information from abroad and thus lead to prosperity of the country. Therefore, English has been included as a required course in the curricula of every educational level in Taiwan, including elementary schools, junior high schools, and senior high schools. From the perspective of language learners, learning English seems to guarantee access to various kinds of resources and better chances to pursue academic or career development. This high regard placed on English has not only led to increasing commercialized language programs in cram schools but also influenced the teaching of English at schools of different educational levels, especially at secondary schools. English subject is often considered one of the most important subjects at secondary schools. However, eagerness to display immediate outcome has brought the common scenarios of teaching to tests in the English classroom (Chang, 2006). Lack of immediate needs for applying this language to real life tasks has resulted in the phenomenon that students make efforts mostly to gain test scores. Few students regard communicative competence as important, and the most important goal for high school students seems to be to get high scores in this subject while taking the college entrance exam. Therefore, most teachers and students put high regard on English reading ability and vocabulary knowledge, the main language skill and knowledge accessed in the entrance exam. A traditional teaching method, which focuses on familiarizing students with grammar rules and vocabulary, has thus been commonly 1.

(12) practiced in secondary schools. On the other hand, educators and language policy makers are aware of the problems of Taiwanese students’ limited oral communication abilities in English. This awareness has brought about a series of innovations and various educational reforms in English teaching at secondary schools. Efforts to reform English teaching in Taiwan could be observed from three aspects. First, many workshops have been held to promote communicative language teaching (CLT). The introduction of CLT has inspired English teachers to include more authentic materials and creative teaching activities in their classes. Second, college entrance exam (CEE) has undergone many changes. For example, compared with the items twenty years ago, items in CEEs of recent years require thinking skills, such as the ability to synthesize or evaluate information, for the examinees to make a correct choice (Chian, et al., 2007). Thirdly, the modification of National Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English has also contributed to English teaching innovation in secondary schools. The current study focuses on the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English. In Taiwan, curriculum guidelines for high school English went through three stages and appeared in three versions: the 1995 version, the 2006 version, and the 2010 version. The latest (2010) version of National Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English was finalized and released in 2009, followed by workshops held to promote the new version of curriculum guidelines. A general assumption underlying the workshops is that this educational policy is within in-service teachers’ interest domain, and a good knowledge about the content of the curriculum guidelines benefits English teachers’ professional development and teaching practice. Another assumption may be that the content and the implementation of the new curriculum guidelines would bring some changes to the English teaching practice at present. National curriculum guidelines may have considerable influence on teaching. 2.

(13) For one thing, it determines the distribution of instruction hours of each academic subject. It also offers the principles of textbook compilation, which determines most of what students are to be taught in high school. Most importantly, it stipulates the abilities, “competence indicators”, which students are expected to achieve after they finish all the English courses in high school years. The competence indicators thus play an important role in the English curriculum at high schools for they not only specify the linguistic and affective goals of English learning but also serve as the reference for textbook compilation, forming the staple content which students will be studying during the course of learning. Successful implementation of a curriculum policy lies in practitioners’ full understanding of the policy, and a careful and comprehensive plan for its implementation (El-Okada, 2005; Kojima, 2003; Phipps & Borg, 2009). From this perspective, communication and cooperation among the authorities concerned, the school administrative personales, and classroom instructors, are very important when a new curriculum is launched. It is thus crucial to investigate how stakeholders perceive the policy. In particular, an understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives, including the perceptions of educational officials, administrators, teachers, and students, could help identify and then bridge the gap of understanding among them, which can lead to successful implementation of curriculum. Among the stakeholders concerned, teachers, as the major curriculum implementers, and students, as the curriculum receivers, should be the focus of an investigation that aims to achieve such understanding. Previous studies have illustrated that teachers’ and students’ thoughts play an important role in language classrooms (Bernat & Gvozdenk, 2005; Cohen& Fass, 2001; Feng, 2007; Hawkey, 2006; Kern, 1995; Liao, & Chian, 2003; Nishino, 2008; Peacock, 1998; Wang, 2008a; Wang, 2008b) In particular, teachers’ beliefs may affect 3.

(14) their decision of instructional activities. For example, teachers’ self-perceived role in the instructional process and their beliefs about students’ roles would affect how they make immediate instructional decisions (Borg, 2003; Chang, 2004; Kuo, 2008; Orafi & Borg, 2009; Phipps & Borg, 2009; Shawer, 2010; Silva & Skuja-Steele, 2005; Yang & Huang, 2008; Yang, 2008). In addition, teachers’ recognition of the course objectives stipulated in the mandatory curriculum would determine whether the objectives, which were blueprinted by the officials and scholars are to be actualized at classroom level (Karim, 2004; Nkosana, 2008; Ramanathan & Morgan, 2007; Richards, Callo, & Renandyn, 2001; Tan, 2005; Wang & Lam, 2009). Students’ beliefs and thoughts also play an important role in curriculum implementation. Therefore, a great number of studies in L2 teaching and learning have focused on students’ beliefs and thoughts (Chang, 2004; Chen, 2004; Cheng, 2005; Gabillon, 2005; Lin, 2006; Nishino, 2008; Riley, 2006; Wan, 2008). The emphases on students’ beliefs correspond to the notion of “student-centeredness” promoted in current language teaching and in the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English as well. Previous studies mainly focused on two aspects of students’ beliefs in the context of curriculum implementation. On the one hand, students’ thoughts and perceptions about foreign language curriculum or teaching were examined through established questionnaires and then compared with those of teachers (Hawkey, 2006; Kern, 1995; Liao & Chian, 2003; Peacock, 1998; Shawer, Gilmore, & Banks-Joseph, 2008; Watanabe, 2006). On the other hand, students’ preference for classroom activities was investigated through questionnaires and interviews (Chen, 2004; Cheng, 2005; Chung & Huang, 2009; Savignon & Wang, 2003; Wu, 2006). Despite the considerable findings accumulated from previous studies, our understanding of teachers’ and students’ beliefs and thoughts about language learning 4.

(15) is far from complete. In particular, whether the students’ thoughts about the curriculum correspond to those of the policy makers or the teachers has not been sufficiently understood, not to mention bridging the gap, if any (Kikuchi & Browne, 2009; Wang, 2002). Indeed, policy makers’ lack of knowledge about real classroom instruction scenarios may cause curriculum guidelines to appear impracticable or incomprehensible to in-service teachers, leading to difficulties in or resistance to curriculum implementation. Educators’ insufficient knowledge about learners’ thoughts and needs may further lead to a failure to implement the mandatory curriculum in the classroom (Bray & Swan, 2008; Cotterall, 1999; El-Okda, 2005; Hsu, Wang, & Chen, 2005; Schwarts, 2002; Su, 2006; Wang, 2002). Therefore, investigating teachers’ and learners’ thoughts about the curriculum objectives listed in the 2010 National Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English is crucial for successful implementation of the new curriculum. Recognizing the important roles of teachers’ and learners’ thoughts in curriculum implementation, the current study explored their perceptions about the competence indicators in the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English, which function as the course objectives in the curriculum development process. It is hoped that this study could offer implications for curriculum developers and policy makers. It is also hoped to enhance teachers’ understanding of students’ thoughts.. Significance of the Study Among all the complex issues involved in the implementation of national curriculum guidelines, the present study focuses on the perceptions of the practitioners and learners about the competence indicators listed in the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English in Taiwan. Specifically, two 5.

(16) aspects of perceptions were investigated: teachers’ and students’ perceived importance of the competence indicators and their perceived willingness to choose the competence indicators as course objectives. These two aspects of perceptions were investigated because they were believed to represent different dimensions of receptiveness to the competence indicators. Perceived importance represents the participants’ recognition of the notion included in the competence indicators, whereas willingness to take a specific indicator as a course objective represents the participants’ personal acceptance of the notion as a goal to achieve during high school English course.. It is very likely that one may show positive attitude toward a certain. notion, but does not take the specific notion as learning or teaching goal for various reasons and constraints (Moroz & Waugh, 2000; Nishino, 2008; Ramanathan & Morgan, 2007; Yang & Huang, 2008). By distinguishing these two aspects of perceptions, we may draw a clearer picture of teachers’ and students’ receptiveness to the English language knowledge and skills promoted the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English. This study could provide some contributions to the teaching and curriculum development of English at senior high school in Taiwan. Firstly, the results of the study could uncover the extent that teachers’ and students’ views on English course objectives correspond to scholarly considerations which lie behind the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English. Besides, the results could provide implications for the implementation of the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English and even the revision of the Guidelines in the future. Moreover, the results may inform teachers and educators of students’ perceptions about the course objectives at senior high school English classes and contribute to a better understanding of students’ needs essential for designing course activities of interest and relevance to students. 6.

(17) Research Questions Two research questions are addressed in this study. They are listed as follows. 1. How do teachers and students perceive the importance of competence indicators? 1.1 How do teachers perceive the importance of competence indicators? 1.2 How do students perceive the importance of competence indicators? 1.3 How do teachers’ and students’ perceptions differ? 2. What competence indicators do teachers and students take as learning or teaching goals? 2.1 What competence indicators do teachers take as their teaching goals? 2.2 What competence indicators do students take as their learning goals? 2.3 What are the differences and similarities between teachers’ and students’ choices?. Organization of the thesis Organization of the thesis is as follows. The first chapter introduces the background, motivation, and significance of the current study. The second chapter contains a review of important issues related to the current study, including (a) development of curriculum guidelines in Taiwan, (b) the competence indicators listed in the 2010 National Curriculum Guidelines, and (c) factors related to curriculum implementation, and (d) how the beliefs of stakeholders, especially teachers’ and learners’ perceptions, influence language teaching and learning. Chapter three presents the method of the study, including the participants, instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis procedures. Chapter four reports the results. Chapter five summarizes the findings and provides implications for curriculum implementation, curriculum development, limitations of the current study, and directions for future study. 7.

(18) CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW. This section reviews literature related to the themes of the current study. The literature review is organized into four parts. The first part is an introduction to the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School, which is currently in practice. The second part introduces the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English. It provides a historical account and a summary of the current curriculum guidelines for the English subject at senior high school. The third part discusses factors that may influence curriculum implementation. The last part reviews studies on the influence of stakeholders in curriculum implementation, with a focus on the perceptions of two major groups of stakeholders, teachers and students.. 2010 National Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School According to Li (2007), the compilation of the latest version (2010) of senior high school curriculum guidelines was initiated in 2006, when Ministry of Education (MOE) assembled Committee of Senior High School Curriculum Development, Focus Group for Senior High School Curriculum Guidelines Compilation, and Focus Group of Senior High School Curriculum Guidelines for Each Academic Subject (p.108). The Curriculum Guidelines were drafted, scrutinized, and amended before an official version was published. The most important task among all accomplished by the committee was the generation of eight fundamental principles for senior high school curriculum. The first principle is to establish a foundation for students’ academic or professional development. The second is to put emphasis on humanistic education. The third principle is to facilitate students’ physical and mental development. The fourth is to cultivate students’ ability for autonomous learning. The fifth is to implement an electric course system. The sixth is to make stronger connection 8.

(19) between senior high school curriculums and the Grades 1 to 9 Curriculum. The seventh is to create stronger cohesion between senior high school curriculum and vocational high school curriculum. The eighth is to bridge high school curriculum to university courses with a vision to developing university general education. It is expected that the curriculum developed thereby could be implemented with such features as (a) cohesive and holistic curriculum development, (b) student-centered instruction, (c) respect for teachers’ professional competence, (d) contextualized decision making process, (e) democratic atmosphere, (f) general modification, (g) practicability, and (h) complete support of the stakeholders. Li (2007) further elaborated on the difference between the 2010 Senior High School Curriculum Guidelines and the previous 2006 version, the Senior High School Provisional Curriculum Guidelines. Both the 2006 and 2010 versions of Senior High School Curriculum Guidelines are mainly based on the 1995 Curriculum Standards. However, in the 2010 version of the curriculum guidelines, several improvements were made. First, it proposes ways to solve the conflict of teaching hours between different subjects. Second, it provides a more logical sequencing of knowledge and learning goals in teaching materials. Third, it offers guidelines that are referential, explanatory, supplementary, practical, and exemplary. Fourth, it suggests postponing the division between majors of social sciences and natural sciences by adjusting the class hours of subjects in the fields of social studies and natural sciences. Fifth, it promotes textbook compilation according to students’ aptitudes and proficiencies. Overall, the 2010 Guidelines allow schools more flexibility in arranging courses, and provide teachers with a more comprehensive reference in terms of course contents and teaching goals.. 9.

(20) 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English The evolution of the Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English could be traced back to the 1980s (Li, 2007). Since the 1980s, National Curriculum Standards started to be transformed into National Curriculum Guidelines as a way to deregulate and contextualize the curriculum of senior high school, so that schools can design a curriculum that caters to learners with different learning needs. Also, since then, communicative competence has been promoted as one core objective in the English course in secondary schools (Chang, 2006). In fact, in the 1995 Curriculum Standards for High School English Course, “communicative competence” was conceptualized as a list of twenty-five competence indicators. They described what abilities students should acquire and how well they should be performing on communicative tasks after they complete the English course requirements in high school. Later, the 2006 version of English Curriculum Guidelines include a list of seventy-nine competence indicators with greater semantic specification and sophistication (Chang, 2006). The latest version of Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English, launched in the academic year of 2010, is a revision from the 2006 version. The 2010 version features itself with an emphasis on adapting to students’ needs and cultivating students’ thinking skills (Yeh, 2008). It is structured as five parts, including course objectives, competence indicators, time allocation, principles for textbook compilation, and principles for implementation at the level of instructional context (MOE, 2008a; MOE, 2008b; MOE, 2008c). According to Yeh (2008), the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English were written based on eleven principles, including (a) to cultivate students’ thinking skills; (b) to regard students as the key participants of the curriculum, and promote applying teaching techniques in accordance with students’ 10.

(21) needs and classroom scenarios; (c) to level up the practicality of English language to students by employing it as a tool for acquisition of new knowledge; (d) to integrate English language learning with learning of other subjects in high school curriculum; (e) to arouse students’ awareness of the changing world as a gesture for developing “international cultural awareness;” (f) to strengthen students’ autonomous learning as a basis for life-long learning; (g) to develop students’ communicative competence rather than recitation of grammar rules; (h) to put emphasis on learning process; (i) to promote the integration of multimedia and Internet resources into teaching; and (j) to respect as well as elevate teachers’ professional competence. The competence indicators are the core of the curriculum guidelines. They specify ideally what language skills students could acquire after taking the English course in senior high school, and provide directions for the way practitioners, including textbook editors and teachers, to implement the curriculum. They also serve as a reference for designing classroom teaching activities and making pedagogical decisions at the classroom level. The competence indicators of 2010 Curriculum Guidelines are presented in nine categories: listening, speaking, reading, writing, four-skill integration, thinking skills, learning strategies, learning attitude and motivation, and cultural understanding and global view. In each of the nine parts, the competence indicators are labeled as basic or advanced (Appendix A). Practitioners can cater to students’ needs and decide on what indicators to adopt. Competence indicators for listening, speaking, reading, writing, and four-skill integration represent the language competence which students need in order to conduct communicative tasks within and beyond the classroom context. Competence indicators for thinking skills illustrate the logical thinking skills that English curriculum aims to equip students with at the end of the course. Students are expected to enhance effectiveness in language learning by applying thinking skills, including 11.

(22) “comparing”, “classifying”, “sequencing”, “attributing”, “patterning”, “webbing”, “reasoning”, “criticizing”, “forecasting”, “planning”, “hypothesizing”, and so on (MOE, 2008, p.6). Competence indicators for learning strategies refer to students’ cognitive and meta-cognitive approaches to making use of resources to benefit their language learning. Competence indicators for motivation specify learning attitudes such as actively initiating as well as sustaining authentic communication. The last part, competence indicators for cultural understanding and global view, lays down abilities needed to understand and appreciate different cultures as well as to develop a global vision. These indicators reflect the fundamental beliefs about English teaching underlying the 2010 National Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English. The announcement of the new curriculum guidelines was appended with a detailed explanation for the fundamental rationales and theoretical background of the Guidelines, which emphasize the development of thinking skills, communicative competence, and adaptive teaching and learning (MOE, 2007). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive skills is the theoretical basis for the competence indicators for thinking skills. According to the reviews in Forehand (2005) and Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), Bloom’s taxonomy is a system of thinking skills which are stratified according to their cognitive complexity. The system was originally constructed in six levels: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Each subordinated level is subsumed to the ability of higher level. Being a popular conceptualization model for curriculum planners, examination developers, and pedagogical researchers, the model was revised and updated at the beginning of the twenty-first century. In the revised version, there are six cognitive levels, including remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. The 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English mainly refers to the revised version. 12.

(23) In the revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy, each cognitive level can be conceptualized as the ability to perform different language learning tasks. The first level, remembering, refers to the ability to retrieve, recognize, and recall language knowledge from memory. Such language learning tasks would involve memory, including retelling a story or ideas in an article. The second level, understanding, represents the ability to display comprehension, including making interpretation, exemplification, summary, inference, comparison, and explanation. The third level, applying, refers to the application of procedural knowledge. Related language learning tasks include conducting an experiment by rules listed in the textbooks. The fourth level, analyzing, is a more advanced cognitive process. It involves inspecting the components and the connection between parts by making differentiation, organization, or attribution. Making comparison between two identities or subjects could be an example of realizing this competence. The fifth level, evaluating, refers to identifying or judging the value of a subject. Related language learning tasks include making judgment about a certain issue based on accessible information. The highest level of thinking skills, creating, involves the ability to innovate via synthesizing relevant information. Composing a literary work could be an example of this ability. By referring to Bloom’s taxonomy, the 2010 Guidelines attempt to promote higher order cognitive skills and to cultivate students’ ability of solving problem as well. Whether the notions in the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English can be actualized depends on social-cultural factors and the stakeholders’ perspectives, as described in the following section.. 13.

(24) Factors Related to Curriculum Implementation A variety of factors play a part in effective implementation of an innovative curriculum, including whether the theoretical underpinnings of the curriculum innovation are compatible to the social-cultural context, whether the curriculum policy is comprehensible to its stakeholders, and how the stakeholders perceived the innovative curriculum (Chang, 2006; Gorsuch, 2000; Schwarts, 2002; Wang, 2008; Weddle, 2003). This section gives a general review of these factors. Wang and Lam (2009) mentioned five crucial factors for successful implementation of a curriculum, which were originally proposed by Fullan and Pomfret in 1977. The first factor is teaching materials, in particular, the organization and presentation of course content that reflects the spirit of a curricular plan. The second factor is the administrative measures, including facilities, time allocation, and student grouping. The third factor involves teaching approach and the design of classroom activities. The fourth factor is related to practitioners’ knowledge and perception of the curricular plan. The fifth is about the teachers’ internalization of the new values, which plays a crucial role in carrying out the curriculum and making innovative measures sustainable. Several additional factors associated with the success of curriculum implementation have been pointed out in Yeh (2009), including the curriculum plan itself,. policy. makers,. supporting. policies,. school. contexts,. strategies. of. implementation, and textbooks. Stakeholders, including parents, teachers, students, administrative personnel, also play an important role. Similar ideas were mentioned in Wang (2004), who further claimed that a clear curricular plan is essential in the process of curriculum implementation. It should be well-organized and lucid enough for practitioners to follow. Vagueness and abstractness of course objectives may cause difficulty in curriculum implementation. 14.

(25) Carless (2003) discusses similar factors influencing the curriculum implementation, including preparation, the syllabus, textbook topics, time and resources available, teachers’ understanding and perceptions of the curriculum, and their perception of students’ language proficiency. Carless claimed that innovative ideas could be implemented successfully if these factors are identified and addressed. On the other hand, Wedell (2003) emphasized the importance of considering the contextual factors during the process of implementing curricular alternation. In particular, Weddell noted that curricular innovation should consider the degree of social/cultural change the new curriculum would bring to the existing pedagogical and instructional context, and the potential change that the innovative ideas would bring to the belief about language learning long held in the social context. Graves (2008) further identified two types of social-cultural contexts that should be considered in analysis of language curriculum enactment and planning: “target-language embedded context” and “target language removed context”. The former refers to “language learning context that is either within or closely connected with the context in which the target language is used,” whereas the latter consists of “contexts in which a language is learned in classrooms that are removed or separate from the contexts in which the target language is used.” (p. 155) Contextual factors at the school level are also important since schools are basic units that make direct connection between the nationally mandated curriculum and students’ learning experience (Wang, 2004). In line with Wang (2004), Hsu (2002) further argued that schools should be responsible for implementing the curricular plan and minimizing the gap between the ideals of the curricular plan and the realities of classroom activities. Weddle (2003) held a similar view and claimed that issues related to the school environment need to be inspected when a curricular change is initiated. The primary considerations should be the influence of innovative alternation 15.

(26) in curriculum on classroom level instruction, and the existing atmosphere in the educational institution (i.e., liberal or conservative). Specifically, the school culture may determine whether the innovated curriculum is applicable. Besides, teachers’ attitudes toward the curriculum innovation depend on whether the school authorities take the initiate to accept and adapt the innovative ideas. School resources, including financial supports, facilities, human resources, and time allocation, could also affect implementation of the curricular plan. Contextual factors at the classroom level may also play an important role in curriculum implementation (Chung & Huang, 2009; Gorsuch, 2000; Graves, 2008; Shawer, 2010). The classroom environment and atmosphere constitute the immediate social-cultural context where teachers’ and students’ roles determine the class dynamics as well as efficiency of implementing the new curriculum. In the community established by teachers and students, actualization of curricular changes relies on both groups’ acceptance of these changes. Similarly, the stakeholders’ perspectives, i.e., how the teachers, students, school administrative officers, and even parents perceive the curricular plan, may make a great difference in curriculum implementation. The following section will review the influence of the stakeholders’ views on curriculum implementation.. The Influence of Stakeholders’ Views on Curriculum Implementation Stakeholders’ views play a crucial role in curriculum implementation. Studies have showed that difficulties in curriculum implementation are often associated with the lack of support from the stakeholders. For example, in Wang (2008), some challenges to the implementation of Grades 1 to 9 Curriculum in Taiwan were discussed, including (a) complexity caused by too many versions of textbooks, (b) discrepancy in students’ language proficiency level, (c) unclear status of English 16.

(27) as a second or a foreign language in the curricular plan, (d) vague description of assessment procedure, and (e) weak coherence across different grade levels, and (f) teachers’ insufficient knowledge about the new curricular plan and lukewarm attitude toward the curricular policy. The last was considered the greatest challenge to the innovation of the curriculum. On the other hand, the importance of administrators’ role in curriculum implementation was illustrated in Nkosana’s (2008) study on Botswana MOE officials’ opinions toward including speaking assessment in ESL syllabus. The study indicated that a “layered curriculum” within the bureaucratic system may cause officials at different ranks to have different opinions upon an issue, which may cause problem in the process of innovation. Similarly, when there is a gap between the educational officials’ opinions and the teachers’ ideas, or when there is not proper communication across different levels of the bureaucratic system, curriculum implementation might not be effective. Wang’s (2006) study also reveals the importance of understanding the administrators’ point of view. In that study, Wang investigated the views of policy makers, departmental administrators, and teachers about an innovative curriculum in Chinese Tertiary Education. He took four steps for the study. First, he identified the intended curriculum. Second, he interviewed six departmental administrators to determine their perceptions of the national language policies and their own roles in ensuring the implementation. Then, he collected questionnaire responses from 284 teachers to reveal their perceptions of the intended curriculum and uncovered the factors affecting their implementation activities in the classroom. Lastly, classroom observation and follow-up interviews were used to examine how the language education policies were interpreted by the practitioners. The study revealed a discrepancy between the perspectives of the policy makers and the perceptions of the administrators and the teachers. Wang thus claimed that 17.

(28) teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of the innovative curriculum play an important role in curriculum implementation, as illustrated by the studies in the next section.. The Role of Teachers’ Perceptions in Curriculum Implementation Teachers’ good understanding of, positive attitude toward, and active participation in curricular innovation are crucial for effective curriculum implementation (Kırkgöz, 2008; Muir, 2007; Phipps & Borg, 2009; Shawer, 2010; Su, 2006; Tan, 2005). Failures in curriculum implementation were often related to teachers’ lack of receptivity and understanding of the new curriculum. Therefore, it is often suggested that teachers’ opinions should be taken into consideration in curricular innovation, and their understanding of the innovation should be enhanced through in-service training programs (El-Okada, 2005; Kikuchi & Browne, 2009). Some studies have been devoted to investigating teachers’ opinions about curricular innovations. Kojima (2003), for example, provided an extensive review on teachers’ perceptions of the large scale top-down innovations in EFL education at elementary, secondary, and tertiary levels in Japan. The innovations throughout the educational system include (a) arousing and fostering students’ interest in learning English and (b) adapting communication-oriented and content-based language instruction, which are quite similar to the ideas promoted in the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English in Taiwan. Based on the review, the researcher considered the role of the teacher as well as that of learners as the most important factor in implementation of curricular innovation. Gorsuch’s (2000) survey study also investigated teachers’ perceptions, focusing on their views about the updated national syllabus of Japan, “The Course of Study,” as a way to evaluate the effectiveness of its implementation. The results revealed that teachers’ positive perceptions about “The Course of Study” were 18.

(29) associated with their approval of CLT. However, their acceptance and practice of Communicative Language Teaching would be negatively affected by college entrance exam, parents’ expectation, and insufficient understanding of The Course of Study. This survey concluded that it is necessary to understand teachers’ needs and their opinions when introducing a new curricular notion into existing contextual and pedagogical atmosphere. Teachers’ perspectives in the process of curriculum implementation were also a focus of Wang’s (2006) study on the national curriculum for college English in P.R.C., reviewed above. Classroom observation revealed that different from the objectives of the National Syllabus, teachers insisted on viewing grammar as the focus of English instruction, and they used Mandarin, instead of English, as the major medium in class. Interview data indicated that teachers still held a reluctant and resistant attitude toward the Syllabus. Their negative attitude hindered effectiveness of curriculum implementation. Therefore, Wang (2006) suggested that the authorities concerned should consider teachers’ features, including their conventional teaching methods, teaching experience, language proficiency, and professional development needs, at the initial stage of implementing a national curriculum. In Taiwan, Cheng, Yeh, and Su’s (2011) investigation on teachers’ perceptions focused on the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English, which is also the target of the present study. However, their study differs from the current study in that they examined teachers’ general perceptions about the Curriculum Guidelines and expected effectiveness of its implementation, whereas this study looked into teachers’ perceptions about the competence indicators listed in the Guidelines specifically. Their questionnaire data showed that senior high school English teachers in Taiwan had a basic understanding of the innovative notions in the Guidelines and showed positive attitude toward its theoretical basis. But they held 19.

(30) dubious attitudes toward the effectiveness of its implementation due to some contextual factors, including limited class hours and teaching resources, incompatible practice of learning assessment, and additional workload innovations in the curricular plan bring. They suggested that further investigations be conducted to seek solutions to the problems raised by the teachers. Weddle (2003) recognized teachers as the crucial personnel in curriculum implementation as well. They can give accurate decisions about how practicable the curricular change is and are the ones responsible for transferring theoretical rhetoric descriptions in the mandated curriculum into actual classroom activities. For example, Kırkgöz (2008) identified three types of teachers according to their understanding and interpretation of the communication-oriented national curriculum at Turkish elementary schools. The first type is “transmission-oriented teachers,” who had limited understanding of the Communicative Oriented Curriculum (COC) and conducted teaching in a way deviating from the spirit of COC. The second type is the “interpretation-oriented teachers,” who adapted COC principles and were less confined by contentions or exams. The third type is “eclectic-oriented teachers,” who may display features of both the COC and structural approach to language teaching. Kırkgöz pointed out the importance of identifying teachers’ attitude toward the mandated syllabus in the process of curriculum implementation. The above-mentioned studies illustrate the importance of teachers’ recognition and willingness to incorporate innovations in the mandated curriculum. Indeed, whether teachers’ instruction corresponds to their mandated curricular principles lies in their receptivity of the curriculum. Moraz and Waugh (2000) defined teacher receptivity to language curriculum as (a) overall feelings; (b) attitudes; (c) behavior intentions; and (d) behavior. Whether teachers would carry out the innovated curriculum depends on their behavior intention, which is influenced by several factors, 20.

(31) including non-monetary benefits, alleviation of concerns, significant other support, comparative perception with the previous system, shared goals, collaboration, and opportunities for in-service training. Moraz and Waugh found that “behavior intentions” toward the innovated course objectives were closely connected to the success in curriculum implementation. More importantly, they found that teachers’ behavior intentions were associated with non-monetary cost benefits, namely, the teachers’ expected outcome for their devotion, and their perceptions about the innovative curriculum compared with the previous program. Teachers’ knowledge about the promoted innovations in the innovated curriculum also influences their receptivity of the curricular plan. For example, Muir (2007) identified two potential obstacles for integrating culture-based instruction in the language curriculum. One was the source culture interference in perception and production of the target language. The other was teachers’ inadequate knowledge of the target cultures. Muir illustrated that teachers’ unfamiliarity with the innovated notion may cause problem to curriculum implementation. On the other hand, a correspondence between the principles set by scholars and governmental officials and those followed by the teachers is crucial for implementation of the intended curriculum. However, such a correspondence may not be common, as shown in Silvia and Skuja-Steele’s (2005) study on teachers teaching English at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels in China, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland, and U.S.. They gathered teachers’ thoughts through teaching logs and interviews. Their analysis of teachers’ reflective remarks demonstrated some awareness yet minimum emphasis on the nationally mandated syllabi. Teachers tended to adhere to the assigned teaching materials or textbooks and teach to the exams rather than to the national syllabi. It should be noted that actual classroom activities may not be consistent with 21.

(32) teachers’ expressed perceptions about the curriculum reform. In Silvia and Skuja-Steele’s (2005) study, the interview data showed teachers’ recognition of student-centered instruction. Yet classroom observation revealed that students remain passive in class, taking linguistic knowledge given by the teacher using their mother tongue rather than the target language. The limited input and output of English was produced in mechanical pattern practice. It seems that English teachers’ prioritizing exams and focusing on grammar over mandated, national curricular principles could be observed across different cultures. The above-mentioned studies show that teachers can determine the actualization of curriculum innovations. Thus, El-Okada (2005) proposed that involvement of teachers in the curricular decision making process may be a way to bridge the gap between ideal and reality. They should participate in curricular planning at both local level and national level actively. El-Okada enumerated principles of a method that combined both top-down and bottom-up strategies in curricular decision making process. One of the principles is flexibility in national curriculum and school-based syllabi so that teachers could collaboratively evaluate the mandated syllabus and discuss about the assigned textbooks to develop a course compatible to the local context. In order to play an initiative role in the process of curricular innovation, teachers need to portrait themselves as “autonomous learners of teaching” and “reflective practitioners” (p.38). In addition, an understanding of curricular planning should be a major requirement for teachers’ expertise and one of the central components in teacher training program. Another principle is that teachers’ needs of support in administration and equipment should be attended. To sum up, the above review of research points to the necessity to investigate teachers’ perceptions of curricular innovation to ensure effective implementation although previous research reveals a general tendency for teachers 22.

(33) with some understanding about the changes in the mandated curriculum to disregard these innovations. One of the major reasons for teachers’ neglect of the innovations is the need for them to respond to their immediate instructional circumstances where students’ academic performance and exam scores are often the priorities. Next section will review studies on students’ perceptions in curriculum implementation.. The Role of Students’ Perceptions in Curriculum Implementation Much discussion of teachers’ role in curriculum-related literature has recognized teachers’ influence on curriculum development and execution. Similarly, students’ perceptions and their level of acceptance of the mandated curriculum may determine their learning processes and outcomes, an indicator for effectiveness of curriculum implementation (Savingnon & Wang, 2003; Shawer, et. al., 2008; Widdows & Voller, 1991). However, students’ perspectives seem to be considered peripheral in the decision making process of educational policies, curriculum designs, or evaluation of a course implementation although some studies have suggested that students play an important role in the process of curriculum implementation (Legar & Storch, 2009; Sakui & Gaies, 1999; Watanabe, 2006; Yang, 2006). Cohen and Fass (2001) investigated students’ perspectives about the incorporation of speaking instruction into a language course. The participants were a group of EFL adult learners in a Columbian university. Questionnaire, classroom observation, and semi-structured interview were employed. The learners’ perspectives about learning speaking were investigated in two aspects, including their perceived proportion of student talk in class, and their emphasis on fluency and accuracy. Interview data revealed that students’ perception about the proportion of student talk, which is 50%, corresponded to their ideal situation. However, students perceived meaning and fluency more important than their teachers did. The results revealed that 23.

(34) when curricular design or classroom teaching practice diverges from learners’ beliefs or fails to satisfy students’ needs, the instruction may not be effective. Similarly, Savingnon and Wang’s (2003) study on Taiwanese EFL learners’ attitudes and perceptions of classroom practices reveals that students’ perceptions of the meaning-based and form-focused activities in class would influence their learning outcomes. Students’ perceptions and acceptance of learning strategies, one major component of the competence indicators in the 2010 English Curriculum Guidelines, was investigated in Yang (2006). In that study, a survey was conducted to investigate students’ receptivity of learning strategies promoted in the language course and their learning outcome, which was seen as indicators for course implementation. Her study reveals that students’ perceived importance of learning strategies was connected with the frequency of using learning strategies, which may lead to different performances in the listening test at the end of the course. Discrepancies between students’ experienced curriculum and the mandatory curricular plan could be concerns in curriculum implementation. According to Kikuchi and Brown (2009), despite the emphasis on communicative competence in The Course of Study, students in Japan perceived a strong emphasis on grammar rules and reading proficiency in English classes, with the dominant goal of getting high scores in college entrance exam. The students reported that grammar translation, memorization, and use of difficult English passages remain the major instructional activities in the classroom. Communicative competence was absent or rare in English courses. Kikuchi and Brow proposed that the gap between the planned curriculum and the perceived curriculum and related causes may worth further investigation. The results of the present study may contribute to this line of research. Given limited studies on students’ perspectives, more research in this aspect 24.

(35) is needed to connect course planning and students’ perspective (Finch, 2008; Gabillon, 2005; Horwitz , 1985; Kikuchi & Browne, 2009; Wan, 2008). The success of curriculum implementation lies in the scenario where the objectives in the mandated curriculum are reflected in the courses content and classroom activities and in students’ acceptance of the mandatory course objectives. With a view to catering to students’ needs and achieving the mandatory course objectives at the same time, three possible modules for filtering out factors that may disturb the understanding of students’ needs were proposed in Li and Wang (2004). The first model, needs information, is to constantly review information available and information needed for reference of curriculum design. The information could be gathered through longitudinal data collection for national curriculum design or questionnaire survey for instructional decision-making at classroom level. The second model is data proceeding, which concerns different needs of students at collective level, group level, or individual level. Difficulty and necessity of certain instructional tasks, teaching activities, or assessments are focus of investigation in this model. The third module, data documentation, is to systemize the data at hand in order to make the priority among the information for instructional decision. As pointed out in Li and Wang’s article, students’ voices could emerge through these investigations on their views of the curriculum, which is one of the main goals of the current study.. 25.

(36) CHAPTER THREE. METHOD. The main goal of this study is to inspect high school students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the competence indicators in the 2010 National Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English. Specifically, the teachers’ and students’ perceived importance of each competence indicator was explored. At the same time, the study investigated whether the teachers and students took the competence indicators as course objectives. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions were compared, too. A questionnaire with Likert-scale items was used to collect data. The upcoming sections elaborate on the participants, instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis procedures of the current study.. Participants Participants in the current research include 1,422 students and 110 teachers. Background information of the participants is presented below.. Background Information of Student Participants Table 1 presents the numbers and percentages of the participants recruited from fifteen high schools. In total, 1,422 students were surveyed, including 765 (53.70%) students from northern Taiwan, 204 (14.40%) students from central Taiwan, 141 (9.90%) students from eastern Taiwan, and 312 (22.00%) students from southern Taiwan.. 26.

(37) Table 1 Number and Percentage of Student Participants by Areas and Schools Area Northern Taiwan. Central Taiwan. Eastern Taiwan. Southern Taiwan. School. Frequency. Percentage. School A School B School C School D School E School F School G School H. 57 100 53 119 103 99 104 130. 4.00% 7.00% 3.70% 8.40% 7.20% 7.00% 7.30% 9.10%. Subtotal. 765. 53.70%. School I School J. 99 105. 7.00% 7.40%. Subtotal. 204. 14.40%. School K School L. 67 74. 4.70% 5.20%. Subtotal. 141. 9.90%. School M School N School O. 104 102 106. 7.30% 7.20% 7.50%. Subtotal. 312. 22.00%. Total. 1,422. 100.00%. The participants were all high school students taking the English course in senior high schools in Taiwan. Students from three grade levels were recruited. Table 2 shows the number and percentage of the student participants from each of the three grade levels, including 563 (39.60%) first-year students, 470 (33.10%) second-year students, and 389 (27.40%) third-year students.. 27.

(38) Table 2 Number and Percentage of Student Participants by Grade Level Grade. Frequency. Percentage. 1 2 3. 563 470 389. 39.60% 33.10% 27.40%. Total. 1422. 100.0%. Tables 3, 4, and 5 summarize student participants’ English learning experiences. Table 3 shows that more than half (54.40%) of the student participants started to learn English in the third and fourth year of elementary school, while some student participants started to study English during the first two years (22.80%) or the last two years (20.30%) of the elementary school. A small portion (0.7%) of the student participants started to study English after they got into junior high school. Twenty-six (1.80%) students left the question unanswered. Table 3 Distribution of Student Participants by Start Learning Time Start learning time Valid. 1st to 2nd grade 3rd to 4th grade 5th to 6th grade Junior high Total. Frequency. Percentage. Missing. 324 773 289 10 1396 26. 22.80% 54.40% 20.30% 0.70% 98.20% 1.80%. Total. 1,422. 100.0%. Table 4 shows that among the 1,422 student respondents, the majority (87.50%) had the experience of attending English classes in cram schools, while 170 (12.00%) students claimed that they had not attended English classes in the cram schools before.. 28.

(39) Seven (0.50%) students left this question unanswered. Table 4 Distribution of Student Participants by Cram School Experience Cram school experience No Yes Total. Frequency. Percentage. Missing. 171 1244 1415 7. 12.00% 87.50% 99.50% 0.50%. Total. 1422. 100.00%. Table 5 shows that 799 (56.2%) student participants had the experience of taking English proficiency tests, while the other 616 (43.3%) student participants had not taken such tests before. Table 5 Distribution of Student Participants by Proficiency Test Experience Proficiency test experience Yes No Total. Frequency. Percentage. Missing. 799 616 1415 7. 56.20% 43.30% 99.50% 0.50%. Total. 1422. 100.00%. Background Information of Teacher Participants Table 6 shows the number and percentage of teacher participants by area. This study recruited 110 teacher participants, including 35 (31.80%) teachers from northern Taiwan, fifteen (13.16%) teachers form central Taiwan, six (5.50%) teachers from eastern Taiwan, and 54 (49.10%) teachers from southern Taiwan.. 29.

(40) Table 6 Distribution of Teacher Participants by Area Area. Frequency. Percentage. Northern part Central part Eastern part Southern part. 35 15 6 54. 31.80% 13.60% 5.50% 49.10%. Total. 110. 100.00%. Table 7 shows the distribution of teacher participants by age. Fifty-one (46.40%) of the teacher participants were aged between 30 to 39. Thirty-nine (36.80%) of the teacher participants were in their forties. Fourteen (12.70%) teacher participants were aged between 20 to 29. Two (1.8 %) participants were above fifty. Four teachers (3.60%) left the question unanswered. Table 7 Distribution of Teachers by Age Age. Frequency. Percentage. Missing. 14 51 39 2 106 4. 12.70% 46.40% 35.50% 1.80% 96.40% 3.60%. Total. 110. 100.00%. Valid. 20~29 years old 30~39 years old 40~49 years old 50~ years old Total. Table 8 shows the teaching experience of the teacher participants. Eighteen (16.40%) teachers had been teaching for fewer than 5 years. Twenty-seven (24.50%) teachers had been school teachers for more than five years but fewer than ten years. Twenty-one (19.10%) teachers had been teaching for more than ten years but fewer than 15 years. Twenty-seven (24.50%) teachers had been teaching for 15 to 20 years. Seventeen (15.50%) teachers had been teaching for more than twenty years. 30.

(41) Table 8 Distribution of Teachers by Teaching Experience Teaching experience. Frequency. Percentage. < 5years 5~10 years 10~15 years 15~20 years > 20 years. 18 27 21 27 17. 16.40% 24.50% 19.10% 24.50% 15.50%. Total. 110. 100.00%. Table 9 shows the distribution of teacher participants according to their English teaching experience. Seventeen (15.5%) teachers had been teaching English for fewer than five years. Twenty-eight (25.5%) of the teacher participants had been teaching English for five to fifteen years. Twenty-three (20.9%) teacher participants had been teaching English for more than ten years but less than fifteen years. Twenty-five (22.7%) teacher participants had been teaching English for more than fifteen years but less than twenty years. The remaining seventeen (15.5%) teachers had been teaching English for more than twenty years.. Table 9 Distribution of Teachers by English Teaching Experience English Teaching Experience. Frequency. Percent. < 5years. 17. 15.5%. 5~10 years 10~15 years 15~20 years > 20 years. 28 23 25 17. 25.5% 20.9% 22.7% 15.5%. Total. 110. 100.0%. Teachers’ perceptions of students’ academic performance and language proficiency form a part of teaching beliefs and can influence teachers’ decision. 31.

(42) making in teaching (Wang, 2003). Tables 10 and 11 summarize the teachers’ perceptions of their students’ academic performance and English proficiency.. Table 10 Distribution of Teachers by Perception of Students’ Academic Performance Perception of Student Academic Performance Excellent Above average Average Below average Poor. Frequency. Percentage. 1 35 59 15 0. 0.90% 31.80% 53.60% 13.60% 0.00%. 110. 100.00%. According to Table 10, more than half (53.60%) of the teachers considered that their students had average academic performance. Thirty-five (31.80%) teachers considered their students’ academic performance above average. Fifteen (13.60%) teachers thought their students’ academic performance was below average. Only one (0.90%) teacher viewed the students’ academic performance as excellent. Table 11 Distribution of Teachers by Perception of Students’ English Proficiency Perception of Student English Performance. Frequency. Percentage. Excellent Above average Average Below average Poor. 1 22 65 22 0. 0.90% 20.00% 59.10% 20.00% 0.00%. Total. 110. 100.00%. Based on Table 11, more than half (59.10%) of the teacher participants regarded their students’ English proficiency as average. Twenty-two (20.00%) 32.