國民中小學英語教師對「補救教學實施方案」之看法與實施現況調查

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩. 士. 論. 文. Master’s Thesis Department of English National Taiwan Normal University. 國民中小學英語教師對「補救教學實施方案」之看法與實施現況調查. A Study on English Teachers’ Perceptions of the “Project for the Implementation of Remedial Instruction”. 指導教授：程. 玉. 秀. Advisor: Dr. Yuh-Show Cheng 研究生：吳. 育. 庭. Yu-Ting Wu. 中華民國一百零四年七月 July 2015.

(2) ABSTRACT This study aims to investigate how English teachers understand and perceive the “Remedial Instruction Project.” A researcher-made questionnaire and in-depth interviews were adopted to investigate English teachers knowledge of the Project regulations and their perceptions of National Screening and Progress Tests, English Basic Learning Content, materials used in remedial classes, English remedial curriculum, effect of the Project, difficulties encountered, and support needed. The result can be summarized as follow. First, more than half of the English teachers’ scores on the goal and the content of the Project were below the average score. Second, teachers’ background such as education levels, teaching experience, positions, workshop experience, and remedial instruction programs experience had significant influence on teachers’ knowledge. Third, most English teachers considered the effect of the “Remedial Instruction Project” acceptable regarding improving students’ English scores, motivation, attitude, and confidence. Moreover, most teachers had positive attitude toward the National Screening and Progress Tests, English Basic Learning Content, and English remedial instruction materials designed by MOE. However, the top three difficulties, “students’ lack of willingness to attend remedial classes”, “large proficiency gap among students”, and “overload of administrative and teaching work”, bothered the teachers the most. And most teachers hoped that the MOE could reduce teachers’ teaching load, reduce teachers’ administrative workload, and implement ability grouping for remedial courses. In the end of the study, some insights and workable suggestions for future implementation of the English remedial instruction policies are offered.. Key words: Remedial Instruction Project, National Screening Test, National Progress Test, English Basic Learning Content i.

(3) 摘要本研究旨在調查英語教師對補救教學實施計畫的了解和看法。研究人員使用自製的問卷和深度訪談來收集英語老師的對補救教學計畫的了解以及他們對篩選測驗、成長測驗、英語基本學習內容、補救教學教材、補救教學課程、實施成效、困境與支援等看法。本研究結果分析如下：第一，超過半數的英文教師對補救教學計畫的目標和內容低於平均數。第二，最高學歷、服務年資、現任職務、補救教學研習經驗以及補救教學相關計畫經驗等教師的背景對教師的補救教學知識有顯著的影響。第三，大部分的教師認為補救教學計畫對提升英語成績、英語學習動機、英語學習態度、英語學習信心的成效尚可。此外，大部分的老師對全國篩選測驗、全國成長測驗、英語基本學習內容、英語補救教學教材有正面的態度。然而，讓英語教師最困擾的前三項為：學生參與意願不高、學生程度差異太大、行政或教學工作負荷重，而教師最希望教育部能減輕教師的教學負擔、減少教師的行政工作和依照學生程度編班。最後，根據研究發現及結論，對未來研究提出具體建議以作參考。. 關鍵字：補救教學實施方案、全國篩選測驗、全國成長測驗、英語基本學習內容. ii.

(4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I would like to show my gratitude to my dear advisor, Dr. Cheng Yuh-Show, who has given me constant supports and guidance. I would also like to give my sincere gratitude to my committee members, Dr. Chang Wu-Chang and Dr. Yeh Hsi-Nan, who provided me valuable comments. I also want to express my appreciation to my all my participants. With many peoples’ help, I could collect enough questionnaire data from almost all the cities and counties in Taiwan. Moreover, I enjoyed the time with my interviewees and I learned a lot from the experience they shared with me. Within the four years in TESOL program, I met many reliable friends who helped and supported me during the thesis-writing challenge. I have benefited from the discussion with one another, and I have gained plenty of previous experience from them. When I felt depressed while writing the thesis, they always knew how to cheer me up. I am really lucky to have these wonderful partners in my life. Finally, my loving parents supported and tolerated me during the thesis-writing process. No matter what difficulties I encounter, they are always there for me. Words fail to show how much I am grateful for being their child.. iii.

(5) TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 Research Background ............................................................................................ 1 Research Rationale................................................................................................. 4 Research Questions ................................................................................................ 4 Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 5 Organization of the Thesis ..................................................................................... 5 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................ 6 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 9 Types of Underachievers ........................................................................................ 9 Underachievers with Average Capacity ....................................................... 10 Slow Learners .............................................................................................. 10 Bright Underachievers ................................................................................. 11 Reluctant Learners ....................................................................................... 11 Children with Limited Experiential Background ......................................... 11 Children with Limited Language Development .......................................... 12 Remedial Instruction in Taiwan ........................................................................... 13 Curriculum Design ....................................................................................... 15 Teaching Methods ........................................................................................ 17 Teaching Materials ....................................................................................... 18 Diagnosis and Evaluation ............................................................................ 20 Remedial Instruction Policies .............................................................................. 22 Definition of Education Policy .................................................................... 22 Education Policy Analysis ........................................................................... 22 Remedial Instruction Policies in the U.K. ................................................... 27 iv.

(6) Remedial Instruction Policies in the U.S. .................................................... 28 Remedial Instruction Policies in Singapore ................................................. 29 Remedial Instruction Policies in Hong Kong .............................................. 30 Remedial Instruction Policies in Taiwan ..................................................... 32 Studies on Remedial Instruction Policies in Taiwan .................................... 38 CHAPTER THREE METHOD ................................................................................... 45 Research Design................................................................................................... 45 Questionnaire ............................................................................................... 45 Interview ...................................................................................................... 46 Participants ........................................................................................................... 47 Data Analysis Procedures .................................................................................... 54 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS ...................................................................................... 55 Questionnaire Results .......................................................................................... 55 Teachers’ knowledge of the “Remedial Instruction Project” ....................... 56 Teachers’ knowledge of the “Remedial Instruction Project” and Teacher’ Backgrounds ................................................................................................ 57 Teachers’ Perceptions of the “Remedial Instruction Project” ...................... 63 Interview Results ............................................................................................... 129 Teachers’, Students’, and Parents’ Limited Understanding of the “Remedial Instruction Project” .................................................................................... 129 Problems in Teacher Training .................................................................... 131 Shortage of Project Teachers for Remedial Instruction ............................. 133 Lack of Coordination Between Administrative Staff and English Teachers .................................................................................................................... 138 Problems Involved in Implementing the National Screening and Progress Tests ........................................................................................................... 140 v.

(7) Englsih Basic Learning Content Merely as Reference of Instructional Materials..................................................................................................... 143 Materials Adopted in English Remedial Classes ........................................ 145 Ideal Number of Students in English Remedial Classes ............................ 148 Difficulties in Arranging Instruction Hours for English Remedial Class .. 149 Teaching Methods in English Remedial Instruction Class ........................ 150 Effects of English “Remedial Instruction Project” .................................... 151 Difficulty Encountered and Support Needed ............................................. 153 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ........................................... 158 Status Quo of the “Remedial Instruction Project” ............................................. 158 Teachers’ Knowledge of the “Remedial Instruction Project” .................... 158 Human Resources and Administrative Support ......................................... 159 National Screening and Progress Tests ...................................................... 161 English Basic Learning Content ................................................................ 162 Materials Used in English Remedial Instruction Class.............................. 163 Organization of English Remedial Classes ................................................ 164 Effects of the English “Remedial Instruction Project” .............................. 166 Implementation Difficulties and Needed Support ..................................... 167 Implications of the Findings .............................................................................. 169 Limitations of the Present Study and Recommendations for Future Research.. 170 ENGLISH REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 171 CHINESE REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 174 APPENDIXES ........................................................................................................... 181 Appendix A: Questionnaire................................................................................ 181 Appendix B: Interview Questions ...................................................................... 191 vi.

(8) LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Framework for Organizing Remedial Teaching in Primary Schools ............ 31 Table 2. Distribution of the Participants ..................................................................... 47 Table 3. Background Information of Questionnaire Participants ............................... 49 Table 4. Background Information of Interviewees ..................................................... 52 Table 5. English Teachers’ Knowledge of the “Remedial Instruction Project” by School Level ....................................................................................................... 57 Table 6. English Teachers’ Knowledge of the “Remedial Instruction Project” by Education Level .................................................................................................. 58 Table 7. English Teachers’ Knowledge of the “Remedial Instruction Project” by Professional Development Experience ............................................................... 58 Table 8. English Teachers’ Knowledge of the “Remedial Instruction Project” by Workshop Experience ......................................................................................... 59 Table 9. English Teachers’ Knowledge of the “Remedial Instruction Project” by Remedial Instruction Program Experience ......................................................... 59 Table 10. English Teachers’ Knowledge of the Remedial Instruction Project by Years of Teaching Experience ...................................................................................... 60 Table 11. Scheffe’s Post Hoc Comparison of English Teachers’ Knowledge of the “Remedial Instruction Project” by Years of Teaching Experience ..................... 60 Table 12. English Teachers’ Knowledge of the “Remedial Instruction Project” by Teachers’ Position ............................................................................................... 61 Table 13. Scheffe’s Post Hoc Comparison of English Teachers’ Understanding of the “Remedial Instruction Project” by Teachers’ Positions ...................................... 62 Table 14. English Teachers’ Knowledge of the “Remedial Instruction Project” by School Size ......................................................................................................... 62 Table 15. English Teachers’ Knowledge of the “Remedial Instruction Project” by vii.

(9) School Location .................................................................................................. 63 Table 16. Positive Effect of the “Remedial Instruction Project” on Improving English Underachievers’ Basic Abilities.......................................................................... 65 Table 17. Positive Effect of the “Remedial Instruction Project” on Improving English Underachievers’ Basic Abilities at Different School Levels .............................. 66 Table 18. Teachers’ Sufficient Understanding of the “Remedial Instruction Project” ............................................................................................................................ 67 Table 19. Perceptions About Teachers’ Understanding of the “Remedial Instruction Project” by School Level .................................................................................... 67 Table 20. Students’ and Parents’ Sufficient Understanding of the “Remedial Instruction Project” ............................................................................................. 68 Table 21. Perceptions About Students’ and Parents’ Understanding of the “Remedial Instruction Project” by School Level ................................................................. 69 Table 22. Perceived Sufficiency of Human Resources for the “Remedial Instruction Project” ............................................................................................................... 70 Table 23. Perceived Sufficiency of Human Resources for the “Remedial Instruction Project” by School Level .................................................................................... 70 Table 24. Perceived Sufficiency of Administrative Support for the “Remedial Instruction Project” ............................................................................................. 71 Table 25. Perceived Sufficiency of Administrative Support for the “Remedial Instruction Project” by School Level ................................................................. 71 Table 26. Main Sources of English Remedial Instructors .......................................... 72 Table 27. Source of English Remedial Instructors at Different School Level ........... 73 Table 28. Perceptions of Teachers’ Remedial Instruction Knowledge ....................... 74 Table 29. Perceptions of Teachers’ Remedial Instruction Knowledge by School Level ............................................................................................................................ 74 viii.

(10) Table 30. Reported Frequency of English Remedial Instruction Meetings ................ 75 Table 31. Frequency of English Remedial Instruction Meetings at Different School Level ................................................................................................................... 75 Table 32. Teachers’ Awareness of the National Screening Test and the National Progress Test ...................................................................................................... 76 Table 33. Teachers’ Awareness of the National Screening Test and the National Progress Test by School Level ........................................................................... 77 Table 34. Perceived Ability of the National Screening Test to Identify Underachievers ................................................................................................... 77 Table 35. Perceived Capability of the National Screening Test to Screen Underachievers by School Level ........................................................................ 78 Table 36. Perceived Capability of the National Progress Test to Keep Track of Students’ Progress............................................................................................... 79 Table 37. Perceived Capability of the National Progress Test to Keep Track of Students’ Progress by School Level ................................................................... 80 Table 38. Perceived Difficulty of the Questions in the National Screening Test and the National Progress Test .................................................................................. 80 Table 39. Pairwise Comparisons for Difficulty of the National Screening Test and the National Evaluation Test .................................................................................... 81 Table 40. Perceived Difficulty of the Questions in the National Screening Test and the National Progress Test by School Level ....................................................... 82 Table 41. The Percentage of Teachers Who Had Listened to the Listening Sections of the Tests .............................................................................................................. 83 Table 42. The Proportion of Teachers Who Had Listened to the Listening Sections by School Level ....................................................................................................... 83 Table 43. Perceived Quality of the Recording in the Listening Sections of the Two ix.

(11) Tests .................................................................................................................... 84 Table 44. Perceived Quality of the Recording in Listening Sections by School Level ............................................................................................................................ 85 Table 45. Teachers’ Awareness of the English Basic Learning Content ..................... 86 Table 46. Teachers’ Awareness of the English Basic Learning Content by School Level ................................................................................................................... 87 Table 47. Perceptions About Amount of the Vocabulary in the English Basic Learning Content ............................................................................................................... 87 Table 48. Pairwise comparisons for Amount of the Vocabulary in the English Basic Learning Content ................................................................................................ 88 Table 49. Perceptions About Amount of the Vocabulary in the English Basic Learning Content by School Level .................................................................................... 89 Table 50. Perceptions about Amount of Sentence Patterns in English Basic Learning Content ............................................................................................................... 89 Table 51. Pairwise Comparisons for Amount of Sentence Patterns in English Basic Learning Content ................................................................................................ 90 Table 52. Perceptions About Amount of Sentence Patterns in English Basic Learning Content by School Level .................................................................................... 91 Table 53. Perceptions About Amount of the Idioms and Phrases in English Basic Learning Content ................................................................................................ 91 Table 54. Pairwise Comparisons for Amount of the Idioms and Phrases in English Basic Learning Content ...................................................................................... 92 Table 55. Perceptions About Amount of the Idioms and Phrases in English Basic Learning Content by School Level ..................................................................... 93 Table 56. Perceived Difficulty of the Vocabulary in English Basic Learning Content ............................................................................................................................ 93 x.

(12) Table 57. Pairwise Comparisons for Difficulty of the Vocabulary in English Basic Learning Content ................................................................................................ 94 Table 58. Perceived Difficulty of the Vocabulary in English Basic Learning Content by School Level .................................................................................................. 95 Table 59. Perceived Difficulty of Sentence Patterns in English Basic Learning Content ............................................................................................................... 95 Table 60. Pairwise Comparisons for Difficulty of Sentence Patterns in English Basic Learning Content ................................................................................................ 96 Table 61. Perceived Difficulty of Sentence Patterns in English Basic Learning Content by School Level .................................................................................... 97 Table 62. Perceived Difficulty of the Idioms and Phrases in English Basic Learning Content ............................................................................................................... 97 Table 63. Pairwise Comparisons for Difficulty of the Idioms and Phrases in English Basic Learning Content ...................................................................................... 98 Table 64. Perceived Difficulty of the Idioms and Phrases in English Basic Learning Content by School Level .................................................................................... 99 Table 65. Teacher’ Awareness of the MOE English Remedial Instruction Material 100 Table 66. Teacher’ Awareness of the MOE English Remedial Instruction Materials by School Level ..................................................................................................... 100 Table 67. Number of Teachers Who Had Adopted the MOE English Remedial Instruction Materials ......................................................................................... 101 Table 68. Number of Teachers Who Had Adopted the MOE English Remedial Instruction Materials by School Level ............................................................. 101 Table 69. Sources of Information Regarding English Remedial Instruction Materials .......................................................................................................................... 102 Table 70. Sources of Information Regarding English Remedial Instruction Materials xi.

(13) by School Level ................................................................................................ 103 Table 71. Perceived Amount of the English Remedial Instruction Materials .......... 103 Table 72. Pairwise Comparisons for Amount of the English Remedial Instruction Materials ........................................................................................................... 104 Table 73. Perceived Amount of the English Remedial Instruction Materials by School Level ..................................................................................................... 105 Table 74. Perceived Difficulty of the English Remedial Instruction Materials........ 106 Table 75. Pairwise Comparisons for Difficulty of the English Remedial Instruction Materials ........................................................................................................... 106 Table 76. Perceived Difficulty of the English Remedial Instruction Materials by School Level ..................................................................................................... 107 Table 77. Materials Used for English Remedial Instruction .................................... 108 Table 78. English Remedial Instruction Materials Used at Different School Level 109 Table 79. Remedial Instruction Implemented in Schools ......................................... 110 Table 80. Placement of Students Into Remedial Classes Based on Capabilities ...... 110 Table 81. Perceptions About the Number of Students in English Remedial Class .. 111 Table 82. Perceptions About the Number of Students in English Remedial Class by School Level ..................................................................................................... 111 Table 83. Perceptions About Instruction Hours for English Remedial Instruction .. 112 Table 84. Perceptions About Instruction Hours for English Remedial by School Level ................................................................................................................. 112 Table 85. Perceived Effect of the “Remedial Instruction Project” on Improving Students’ English Scores .................................................................................. 114 Table 86. Pairwise Comparisons for Effect of the “Remedial Instruction Project” on Students’ English Scores .................................................................................. 114 Table 87. Perceived Effect of the “Remedial Instruction Project” on Improving xii.

(14) Students’ English Scores by School Level ....................................................... 115 Table 88. Perceived Effect of the “Remedial Instruction Project” on Improving Students’ English Learning Motivation............................................................ 116 Table 89. Pairwise Comparisons for the Effect of the “Remedial Instruction Project” on Students’ English Learning Motivation....................................................... 117 Table 90. Perceived Effect of the “Remedial Instruction Project” on Improving Students’ English Learning Motivation by School Level ................................ 118 Table 91. Perceived Effect of the “Remedial Instruction Project” on Improving Students’ English Learning Attitude ................................................................ 119 Table 92. Pairwise Comparisons for the Effect of the “Remedial Instruction Project” on Students’ English Learning Attitude ........................................................... 119 Table 93. Perceived Effect of the “Remedial Instruction Project” on Improving Students’ English Learning Attitude by School Level ..................................... 120 Table 94. Perceived Effect of the “Remedial Instruction Project” on Improving Students’ English Learning Confidence ........................................................... 121 Table 95. Pairwise Comparisons for Effect of the “Remedial Instruction Project” on Improving Students’ English Learning Confidence ......................................... 122 Table 96. Perceived Effect of the “Remedial Instruction Project” on Improving Students’ English Learning Confidence by School Level ................................ 123 Table 97. Difficulties in Implementing the “Remedial Instruction Project” ............ 124 Table 98. Difficulties in Implementing “Remedial Instruction Project” by School level .................................................................................................................. 125 Table 99. Support Needed in the “Remedial Instruction Project” ............................ 127 Table 100. Support Needed in the “Remedial Instruction Project” by School Level .......................................................................................................................... 128 xiii.

(15) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Process of Remedial Instruction ................................................................. 14 Figure 2. Two-stage Remedial Instruction Model ...................................................... 14 Figure 3. The Policy Cycle ......................................................................................... 24 Figure 4. Results of English Teachers’ Knowledge of the “Remedial Instruction Program”............................................................................................................. 56. xiv.

(16) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Research Background With the rapid development of technology, the world has become a global village where English, a lingua franca, enables people to have wider conversation among people around the world. Though Taiwan is an EFL environment, English has been greatly valued by the government and the public. In the past, students in Taiwan had to receive at least six years of formal English instruction from junior high schools to senior high schools. In 2001, because of the Nine-Year-Integrated Educational Reform, formal English learning were extended to the fifth grade in elementary and to the third grade in 2005. Under the influence of extended English learning, many Taiwanese parents believe that children should “pick up English very early to gain an edge” (Chen, 2004), so that send their children to learn English as early as possible for fear that their children may be left behind their peers. However, the differences among students’ starting points of English learning and learning backgrounds have caused challenges to teachers in mixed-ability classes. Students who have rich English learning resources and English learning experiences are more likely to learn English easily and faster in formal instruction while the true beginners acquire the language slowly and laboriously (Hess, 2001). Without additional assistance from teachers, these true beginners are more likely to be labeled as “slower learners,” “disadvantaged students” or “underachievers” (Chang, 2001). The wide gap among students’ prior learning experiences and knowledge of English is noted by many English teachers ( Lin, 2003; Tsou, 2002). The bi-modal distribution in English has become obvious after students enter junior high school. Junior high 1.

(17) school teachers in Chou’s articile (2002, July 8) indicated that English underachievers had reached about one third and in some areas as much as one half of students in one class. The results corresponded to Chen’s (2004) interview with in-service teachers, who perceived that the number of students needing remedial instruction increased with students’ grade levels. Generalizing from the data collected, she argued that teachers should take necessary actions to help the underachievers, or the problems would worsen to the extent that they felt too frustrated to learn English. Many teachers recognized this problem and used various methods to assist those who were left behind. Studies have shown that methods such as computer assisted language learning (Wang, 2003), cooperative learning (Lu, 2009), English story books (Jiang, 2004; Wu, 2005), English chants (Wu, 2011), nursery rhymes (Lan, 2007), English cartoons (Chen, 2008), and readers’ theater (Lee, 2009; Zou & Hsu, 2009) not only improved students’ English learning but also aroused students’ interest. Moreover, researchers also proved that volunteer tutoring (Qiu, 2010), peer tutoring (Chang, 2006; Hsu, 2009; Tsai, 2009), and college student tutoring (Li & Lien, 2010) also helped students at lower levels of English proficiency made great progress in English learning and changed their attitudes towards English. However, English teachers still faced several problems while implementing remedial instruction. Chen (2004) interviewed both elementary and junior high school teachers and found that the problems most teachers met included no additional hours for remedial instruction, students with low English learning motivation, and little support from parents. As Wang (2005) pointed out, curriculum in school was mainly designed for regular students, and hardly provided enough assistance for underachievers. Therefore, she recommended that the government should place remedial instruction into formal education systems. In fact, in 1996 the Education Reform Committee of the Executive Yuan 2.

(18) suggested developing a remedial instruction system that covers the development of diagnostic instruments, teacher training programs, curriculum designs, and teaching materials. Since then, the Ministry of Education (MOE) had developed several policies related to remedial instructions for all subjects in schools, especially Chinese, Math, and English. Starting from 1996, the MOE implemented “Education Priority Areas Program” to assist students with disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds in remote areas. In 2003, the MOE implemented a similar program, but the target students were not limited to those in the remote areas but covered almost all the disadvantaged underachievers in Taiwan. Experienced retired teachers and qualified college students were recruited to support the remedial program. After years of adjustment and improvement, the program was named “Hand-in-Hand Afterschool Alternative Program” (short for “Hand-in-Hand Program”) in 2006. Seeing that once Twelve-Year Public Education Reform is implemented, students no longer need to take any entrance exams before college, remedial instruction programs play an even more important role in ensuring that underachievers are equipped with core knowledge and skills required for each level before they enter the next level. After collecting and organizing comments and suggestions from teachers in the previous remedial programs, the MOE combined two remedial programs into one new plan called “Project for the Implementation of Remedial Instruction” which was short for the “Remedial Instruction Project” in this study. The new remedial Project includes many adjustments suggested by the previous studies. For example, English Basic Learning Content was developed so as to provide teachers guidelines for what underachievers need to learn before they move to the next level. And based on the Basic Learning Content, English Remedial Instruction Materials and test items were also developed and uploaded to the Remedial Instruction Online Platform. As to the assessment, an online screening and evaluation 3.

(19) system including reading and listening tests of English skills are now used to screen underachievers and evaluate their progress every year. Research Rationale Since the government has put much effort to implement remedial instruction for underachievers in elementary and junior high schools, it is essential to know how it has been implemented. So far, many empirical studies have explored teachers’ perceptions of the remedial instruction programs. Since teachers are the major agents in the classroom, their beliefs and perceptions tend to influence students’ learning outcomes (Nien, 2002; Su, 2001). Therefore, how teachers perceive remedial programs and practice remedial instruction may affect what and how students learn. Few studies, however, investigated how different subject teachers perceived the remedial instruction policies. The existing studies mostly targeted at all subject teachers in elementary and junior high schools. Since different subjects have different contents, studies on specific subjects are needed. Therefore, this study focused on English subject in the “Remedial Instruction Project.” A researcher-made questionnaire and in-depth interviews were adopted to investigate English teachers’ perceptions of the project, the implementation status quo, and the problems they encountered. It was hoped that by analyzing the data, we could not only find out English teachers’ opinions of the project and its implementation but also identify its problems so that concrete suggestions could be offered. Research Questions The following research questions are used to guide the study. 1.. How much do English teachers understand about the “Remedial Instruction Project”? 4.

(20) 2.. Do English teachers’ backgrounds make a difference in their knowledge of the Project?. 3.. How do English teachers perceive the implementation of the Project? Significance of the Study Many studies explored the curriculum design, teaching methods, and materials of. English remedial instruction (Chang, 2006; Chen, 2008; Chen, 2013; Hsu, 2009; Jiang, 2004; Lan, 2007; Lee, 2009; Li & Lian, 2010; Lu, 2009; Tsai, 2009; Wang, 2003; Wu, 2005; Wu, 2011; Qiu, 2009; Qiu, 2010). Few studies, however, investigated English remedial instruction policies. Therefore, it is hoped that by collecting teachers’ opinions of the new project and its implementation, the pros and cons of the new project can be detected. And in the end of the study, some insights and workable suggestions for future implementation of the English remedial instruction policies can be offered. Organization of the Thesis The first chapter introduces the background, research rationale, research questions and significance of the thesis. The second chapter reviews remedial instruction, research on English remedial instruction and history of remedial instruction policies in Taiwan. In the third chapter, research design, participants, instruments, and data analysis procedures are revealed. The data collected from questionnaires and teacher interviews are presented in Chapter Four. Chapter Five discusses the results from the questionnaires and interviews as well as the previous studies and concludes with suggestions for teachers, school administrators, and education authorities. The limitations of the present study are also addressed in the last chapter. 5.

(21) Definition of Terms Remedial Instruction Remedial instruction, also called clinical teaching, is to provide additional and individualized assistance for students who fail to reach minimum requirements in schools (Tu, 1993). The process of remedial instruction includes diagnosing students’ competence, designing remedial curriculum and materials, implementing remedial instruction, and evaluating students’ competences.. Underachievers Underachievers refer to students whose academic performances are significantly below their competences or the requirements while their intelligences are within normal range (Chang, Ciou, & Li, 2001; Hung, 1996). These students often lack learning motivation and positive attitudes toward learning (Whitmore, 1989).. Education Priority Area Program In order to take care of students in counties or remote areas, the MOE designed “Education Priority Area Program” in 1995 and continues implementing it until now. The program sets up several indicators to identify which school needs the help from the government. Those schools conforming to the indicators can apply for the subsidies to improve their school environments and students’ educational resources.. Hand-in-Hand Afterschool Alternative Program “Hand-in-Hand Afterschool Alternative Program”, also called “Hand-in-Hand Program”, was implemented in 2006 and ended in 2012. It was designed mainly to offer remedial instruction for disadvantaged underachievers. The goals of the Program 6.

(22) include (1) bridging the learning gap between underachievers and other students, (2) inviting retired teachers back to schools to teach the remedial courses, (3) providing economically. disadvantaged. college. students. opportunities. to. teach. the. underachievers and to ease their economic pressure at the same time, and (4) offering adaptive teaching and diversified learning activities for the underachievers.. Project for the Implementation of Remedial Instruction (Remedial Instruction Project) In 2013, the government combined the remedial programs executed before into a new program named “Project for the Implementation of Remedial Instruction”, also called “Remedial Instruction Project.” As a supporting policy for the Twelve-Year Public Education Reform, this Project aims to provide remedial instruction for students who fail to learn the basic contents of Chinese, Math, and English at their levels.. 7.

(23)

(24) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW. In order to explore the implementation of remedial instruction and teachers’ perceptions of the remedial instruction policies in Taiwan, this literature review is divided into three sections. The first section presents different kinds of underachievers. The second section is related to remedial instruction in general, including curriculum design, teaching methods, materials, and evaluation. The third section introduces the remedial instruction policies in the U.S., the U.K., and Taiwan. Studies on investigating the implementation of the remedial instruction in Taiwan are included in the third section. Types of Underachievers In school, it is not difficult to find students having low learning motivation, resisting to class activities, scoring poor grades in class, or holding negative attitudes toward schools. Some of them are unable to catch up with others because of their own limited abilities or intelligence, while others lag behind because they receive fewer learning resources owing to low socioeconomic statuses of their families. Reasons for causing underachievement are varied and complicated. In order to help people to understand underachievement, Otto and Smith (1980) divided underachievers into six categories. However, they emphasized that these six categories were not mutually exclusive.. 9.

(25) Underachievers with Average Capacity When students’ intelligence and abilities are within average range but they fail to reach their chronological grade-placement level, they are regarded as underachievers. These students, first of all, have some learning difficulties which cause their failure to attain goals at certain level. Without proper instruction, the constant failure they experience leads to frustration. The frustration then leads to mental problems, which interfere with their attempt to learn or create more frustration. Therefore, the learning problems of underachievers with average capacity are chronic. This type of students is usually the target of remedial instruction. Slow Learners Many schools offer special programs to assist students who fail to reach their school levels, and they believe that after receiving the special help, all of the students can reach the school levels. Nevertheless, grade level, sometimes, is not a good standard for assessment of underachievement. For students whose IQ scores are between 90 and 110, if they can not achieve their school levels, they are regarded as an underachiever. However, if students whose IQ score is between 75 and 90, even when they fail to reach the school levels, they probably have achieved the limit of their abilities. These students should be called slow learners. Some slow learners who have not attained the limit of their abilities still need remedial instruction. Most slow learners enter schools when they are physically mature but mentally immature, so they fail to acquire basic learning skills and usually fall into “the cycle of failure-frustration-more failure-greater frustration”(Otto & Smith, 1980). What these learners need is a program that can follow their learning speed and help them to achieve to the degree their abilities can reach. 10.

(26) Bright Underachievers Different from slow learners, some students that pass the school levels may still be underachievers. This type of students has high IQ and is able to perform beyond their chronological school levels, but their performances in school are merely adequate. The problem of these students is that they avoid high-risk tasks and only ask for passing exams. In the long run, they will not know their potential and learning problems. Reluctant Learners Reluctant learners refer to students who do not fully participate and function in the classroom because of lack of motivation. Normally, these students’ intelligence and abilities are within average range. If teachers provide individualized instruction and arouse their interest in learning, they are able to use knowledge and skills they learn to fulfill the goals. Children with Limited Experiential Background With development of technology, learning is no longer limited in time and space. Some students, however, still have difficulties in learning due to disadvantaged learning conditions and insufficient learning resources. Compared with their counterparts, these students receive little stimuli from their surroundings. They need special assistance in advance, or they are easily caught in vicious circle of learned helplessness.. 11.

(27) Children with Limited Language Development A person’s language development is largely related to his or her background. Lack of proper language development will greatly influence both students’ academic learning and interaction with classmates. This type of students is also in need of timely individualized instruction to avoid more complex learning problems. It is true that underachievers have some learning problems, but they are quite different from students with learning disability. Though they have several overlapping characteristics, underachievers refer to those who fail to reach their potential, while students with learning disability are characterized by neurological disorders which affect the brains’ abilities to receive, process, store and respond to stimuli. The following is a more comprehensive definition of learning disability suggested by Kirk and Gallagher (1979).. A specific learning disability is a psychological or neurological impediment to spoken or written language or perceptual, cognitive or motor behavior. The impediment (1) is manifested by discrepancies among specific behaviors and achievements or between evidenced ability and academic achievement, (2) is of such nature and extent that the child does not learn by the instructional methods and materials appropriate for the majority of children and requires specialized procedures for development, and (3) is not primarily due to severe mental retardation, sensory handicap, emotional problems, or lack of opportunity to learn. (p. 285). Students with mental retardation, visual or auditory impairment, emotional problems, or lack of opportunity are excluded from the category of learning difficulties. For students with learning disability, what they need is not to catch up developmental teaching; instead, they need special education. Students with physical 12.

(28) impairment or emotional problems could also have learning difficulties, and they need multiple assistances (Kirk & Gallagher, 1979). On the other hand, for underachievers, teachers have to diagnose what factors cause their underachievement before providing remedial instruction. Normally, these students have both internal and external factors (Baum et al., 1991; Otto & Smith, 1980; Rimm, 1986; Whitmore, 1989). Internal factors include intelligence, emotional health, physical health, neurological function, academic skills, behavioral self-control, and affective factors. External factors contain family factors, school factors, and social factors. Thus, teachers should launch an investigation before implementing remedial instruction. It is important to note that the definition of underachievers in Taiwan is slightly different. As long as students who fail to meet the expectations in school settings such as monthly exams or ability screening tests implemented in remedial instruction programs, they are regarded as underachievers. Thus, they do not include “bright underachievers” but may include “slow learners” that have achieved the limit of their abilities and students with learning disability. In the following section, remedial instructions provided for underachievers in Taiwan are presented. Remedial Instruction in Taiwan Remedial instruction, also call clinical teaching, is to provide additional and individualized assistance for students who fail to reach minimum academic requirements in schools (Tu, 1993). Circulating among the three steps “evaluation-teaching-reevaluation” (Chang, 2000), remedial instruction requires teachers to plan specific curriculum, design a series of materials, and choose appropriate teaching methods based on students’ learning difficulties after evaluating the target students’ competences. Then the teachers evaluate students' progress again 13.

(29) after the implementation of remedial instruction. Huang (1999) presented a process of remedial instruction (Figure 1) which illustrates that students’ learning problems need to be diagnosed through teachers’ constant observations and valid diagnostic instruments. After knowing the students’ needs, the teachers can design appropriate materials and implement remedial instruction. In the end of the instruction, the students’ learning outcomes should be assessed.. Figure 1. Procedure of Remedial Instruction. Chiu (2000) proposed another model of remedial instruction which focuses on the process after the assessments (Figure 2). Different from Huang’s model, Chiu emphasized what the teachers should do when students failed the tests after receiving remedial instruction. In Chiu’s model, students who do not pass the tests would first receive group-teaching of five to ten students before taking another assessment. If the students fail the tests again, they would receive second stage individualized instruction.. Figure 2. Two-stage Remedial Instruction Model 14.

(30) As pointed out by Chang (2000), curriculum, teaching methods, and materials in remedial courses should be carefully designed. Chang, Ciou and Li (2000) also suggested that teachers should evaluate students’ academic abilities and find out how well individual students have learned and what they should improve in the remedial courses. Therefore, in the following parts, curriculum, teaching methods, materials, and evaluation of remedial instruction in Taiwan are reviewed. Curriculum Design Many kinds of remedial curriculum have been developed to increase the effects of remedial instruction in Taiwan. Among them, six remedial programs identified by Tu (1993) are widely cited and discussed in the remedial instruction literature (Chang, 2000; Chang, Ciou, & Li, 2000; Zou & Hsu, 2009). Compensatory program. Compensatory programs share the same learning objectives with regular programs; however, students in compensatory programs are taught according to their strengths. For instance, if a student’s listening and speaking abilities are better than reading and writing abilities, the teacher will replace textbooks with audio books, written tests with oral tests, and note-taking with tape-recording. By doing so, the student is able to absorb the knowledge faster and easier. Tutorial program. Tutorial programs aim to provide additional assistance to students who fail to learn what teachers teach in regular programs. Students in this program can learn the contents again on one-on-one teaching or group teaching. Though the tutorial program provides the students second chance to learn the materials, it takes teachers more time and efforts to take care of individual students, so few teachers would like to implement it. Therefore, some teachers will invite capable students as teachers’ assistances to help their peers. Adaptive program. Adaptive programs also have similar learning objectives, 15.

(31) learning contents, and teaching methods with the regular program. However, the teachers will leave ten to fifteen minutes for one-on-on teaching after the whole class lecturing. The materials and teaching methods are normally designed and utilized by the teachers based on students’ needs and levels. To put it simply, the adaptive program is a student-centered program where the materials, the teaching methods, and the curriculum are tools for students to learn. Supplemental program. Supplemental programs are a special program, providing important knowledge or skills not included in regular curriculum. The knowledge and skills may be essential for certain objectives. For example, in the supplementary program, students learn the English listening or writing skills in order to pass the exams or they practice the knowledge and skills again and again in order to get better scores in tests. Basic skills program. Basic skills programs emphasize the basic skills which the students should have acquired in regular courses. For instance, if a fifth grader’s writing ability is lower than the third grade level, then he or she will receive writing remedial instruction at third grade level. The ultimate goal of the program is not for students to learn the materials, but to master the basic skills. The assumption of basic skills program is that learning is in linear order—the students have to master the basic skills in one stage in order to move on to the next stage. Thus if the students fail to acquire the basic skills at certain stage, they should receive remedial instruction in basic skills training. Learning strategies training program. Learning strategies training programs put emphasis on learning strategies training. Learning strategies can be divided into two categories, general learning strategies and subjects-specific strategies (Zou & Hsu, 2009). The former includes cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, memory-related strategies, compensatory strategies, affective strategies, and social 16.

(32) strategies. The latter includes learning strategies needed in subject matters such as reading strategies, writing strategies, or problem-solving strategies. Teaching Methods Since. teaching. methods. are. one. of. the. factors. causing. students’. underachievement (Zou & Hsu, 2009), most teachers tend to use different ways to present the materials in remedial courses. After reviewing several teaching methods, Chang (2000) recommends five remedial teaching methods. Direct instruction. Instead of using discussion, seminars, workshops, case study, or internship, direct instruction uses lectures or systematical demonstrations to present the materials. Teachers who implement direct instruction help students see both the purposes and the results of each step. It is assumed that when students are explained what they are going to learn, and demonstrate the steps which they need to accomplish, they are likely to use their time more effectively and learn more. Mastery instruction. Mastery instruction refers to a type of teaching which requires students to “master” before they move on to the next unit (Slavin, 1987). That is, students in mastery instruction will go through a series of trials and errors and master the specified knowledge before they move on to a next unit of instruction. Strongly influenced by behaviorism in the 1960s, Bloom (1968) believed that students’ achievements did not mainly rely on intelligence and aptitude; instead, effort and time devoted in the learning would make the outcomes different. Thus, mastery of each step prior to advancing to the next step is essential in mastery instruction. Cooperative learning. Cooperative learning is an approach to organize classroom activities for students to work together to accomplish shared goals. Contrasted with competitive and individualistic learning, students within cooperative situations capitalize on one another’s resources and skills (by asking one another for 17.

(33) information, evaluating one another’s ideas, monitoring one another’s work, etc.) and seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves and to all other group members (M. M. Chiu, 2000, 2008). By doing so, the students in the same group are able to develop “positive interdependence” (Slavin, 1990) with their group members. Individualized instruction. Opposite to mass instruction in which content, materials, and pace of learning are the same for all students in a classroom or a course, individualized instruction focuses on individual differences and paces of learning based upon the abilities and interest of each individual learner. That is, students in individualized instruction enjoy more control of their learning, and teaching materials are also designed to cater for their cognitive skills and learning styles (Gagné, Briggs, & Wager, 1992). Computer-assisted instruction (CAI). Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) is an interactive instructional technique combining text, graphics, sound, and video to enhance the learning process. CAI in schools has become common and popular since it can be used either in isolation or in combination with conventional teaching. Moreover, it is convenient for teachers to monitor students’ learning progress and assess the outcomes. Teaching Materials Many English commercial materials have been published, and most of the materials focus on certain abilities such as four skills, grammar, or vocabulary. However, few of them are developed specifically for English remedial instruction. Thus, some teachers use the same textbooks as these in regular classes and teach all of them in the remedial classes so that the students can review and practice the materials again. Zou and Hsu (2009) argue that teaching textbooks again can increase exposure for students who need more time to develop knowledge; however, it might not help 18.

(34) students who have difficulties in understanding and applying what they have learned from the textbooks. To provide more choices for teachers, Zou and Hsu (2009) suggested three possible sources of materials for remedial instruction. The first one is to simplify the textbook contents instead of teaching all of them again. Chang (2000) expressed that when designing materials for middle or low-achievers, teachers can simplify materials and design interesting activities to arouse students’ motivation. Teachers can focus on some important concepts in one lesson and have students practice them until they get a better grasp of the concepts. By simplifying the textbook contents, it can ease the learning burden of the underachievers and enable them to pay full attention to the contents assigned by the teachers. In 2008, Shi (2008) carried out a study exploring the effect of English remedial instruction. Two English underachievers received twenty remedial instruction classes. The results showed that simplifying materials increased English underachievers’ learning effect, and students improved their vocabulary, sentence patterns, and speaking after the English remedial classes. Second, some teachers design special materials for their students. Shao (1998) found that materials designed by the teachers would make a difference in English remedial instruction. The teacher-made materials provide customized explanations for some important concepts for students to review before the exams. In order to examine the effect of self-designed materials, Chen (2009) invited sixty fifth-grade math underachievers as participants. They were divided into two groups for a three-week experiment. Control group used traditional materials, while experimental group used self-designed materials. The results demonstrated that the experimental group benefited from self-designed mathematic materials and they made significant progress after three weeks of treatments. 19.

(35) The third learning material suggested by Zou and Hsu is learning package which is competence-based and self-directed learning. It enables students to acquire concepts or skills in their speed. Each set of learning packages has its own learning objectives, providing various activities to assist the students to learn a concept or a skill gradually. According to Chang (2000), learning package has three advantages for remedial instruction. First, each set of learning package is designed for a specific concept or skill with various activities, and the materials are easy to learn in order to eliminate learned helplessness. Second, teachers do not have to prepare many types of equipment to use learning package in class. What students need is a chair, a desk, and a set of learning materials. Third, learning package can facilitate individualized instruction. Teachers can guide students to finish activities, or students are able to learn the concept or skill at their own pace. Diagnosis and Evaluation The goal of evaluation here is not to label the students as underachievers; instead, it can help teachers to know whether the materials or teaching methods are helpful for students, and to understand what students have learned, what they have not learned yet, and what their learning weaknesses are (Gipps & Murphy, 1994). Therefore, students will know where they should work on, and teachers can design specific materials for them. Before implementing remedial instruction, diagnostic tests provide teachers general ideas about students’ levels and weaknesses so that teachers can place them appropriately and design curriculum suitable for them. Otto and Smith (1980) suggested three levels of evaluation—survey level, specific level, and intensive level—for teachers. In survey level, teachers keep record of underachievers’ merits and weaknesses, and find out their learning problems. Then teachers can use diagnosis 20.

(36) at specific level to check out the results of survey level and to identify a student’s strength and weakness in detail to design remedial instruction. Standardized tests or self-designed tests can be used in this stage. Normally, data gathered from diagnosis in survey level and in specific level are enough for planning remedial instruction. However, some students may have serious problems which hinder their progress even after receiving remedial instruction. These students need diagnosis at intensive level to examine other possible causes such as emotional problems. The range of diagnosis at intensive level is much broader than that at survey level or specific level, aiming to provide in-depth case study for underlying information that led to students’ underachievement. As a result, such diagnosis may involve not only classroom teachers but also education specialists such as social workers and school psychologists. After planning remedial instruction, constant evaluation is still essential. Formative assessment can offer teachers and students feedback and help teachers to adjust the curriculum and teaching methods. In this phase, quizzes or monthly exams both can help teachers know the progress of the students. It will encourage teachers and students to keep implementing remedial instruction. In the end of remedial instruction, summative assessment helps examine the effects of remedial instruction and collect feedbacks for future students. As indicated by Otto and Smith (1980), a feedback loop from evaluation to earlier stages of planning and implementation should be an ongoing process which all teachers are engaged in when they plan and implement remedial instructions.. 21.

(37) Remedial Instruction Policies. Definition of Education Policy The concept of education policy, like all other policies, is too broad to be defined (Bell & Stevenson, 2006). According to New Oxford Dictionary of English, a policy is defined as “a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.” A similar definition presented by Harman (1984) suggests that “policy can also be thought of as position or stance developed in response to a problem or issue of conflict, and directed towards a particular objective.” The two definitions describe policy as a planned and goal-oriented action which is an outcome, or a product, of discussion and analysis of present problems. However, they fail to see a policy as a process of action (Bell & Stevenson, 2006). According to Haddad (1994), a policy can be defined in a functional way as “[a]n explicit or implicit decision or group of decisions which may set out directives for guiding future decisions, or initiate, sustain, or retard action, or guide the implementation of previous decisions.” Haddad’s definition shows the dynamic characteristics of policy and also demonstrates policy as product and process (Henry, Lingard, Rizvi, & Taylor, 1997). Education Policy Analysis No matter how conscientious and careful the process of policymaking is, unanticipated or underestimated problems may occur when policy rules are put into concrete implementation. After analyzing the problems and difficulties, suggestions and advice can be offered to help the government to re-assess and re-organize the policy for future implementation. Therefore, the goals of policy analysis are to 22.

(38) understand what the government is doing, why they implement the policies, and what impacts the implemented policies bring (Dye, 2001). Five types of policy analysis are identified by Gordon, Lewis, and Young (1997), and they are either analysis for policy or analysis of policy. First, analysis for policy includes (1) policy advocacy, which aims to promote or advocate a specific policy or a set of policies, (2) information for policy, which aims to investigate the present problems or implemented policies and provide advice for policymakers, and (3) policy monitoring and evaluation, which is a common form of policy research mainly focusing on impact assessment. The second category, analysis of policy, comprises of analysis of policy determination, examining why and how a policy develops and analysis of policy content, emphasizing the origin, intention, and regulations of a specific policy. With the aim to provide suggestions for modification or future implementation of English remedial instruction policy, the current research falls into the category of information for policy. The five types of policy analyses identified by Gordon, Lewis, and Young (1997) investigate various aspects of policy implementation separately. The framework of policy analysis proposed by Tayor (1997), on the other hand, focuses on analysis of the policy development process, which includes context, text, and consequence. Context refers to the economic, social, and political factors which lead to the development of a specific policy. Text means the content of a policy such as spirits, goals, regulations, and schedules. After implementing the policy, different consequences, also described as “policy refraction” (Tayor et al., 1997), would arise since every institution has its own unique conditions. The framework developed by Tayor (1997) manifests a linear process of policy development. Nevertheless, Bowe, Ball, and Gold (1992) believe that policy is continuously made and remade. Therefore, rather than a linear process, he describes 23.

(39) policy development as a cycle. The idea of Bowe et al. happens to correspond to the policy cycle drawn by Haddad (1994) (see Figure 3). According to Haddad, there are six stages of policy development and the policy can be either re-implemented or re-analyzed so that another policy cycle will begin after adjusting the existing policy.. Figure 3. The Policy Cycle. Later, Haddad (1995) proposed a more specified dynamic framework for education policy analysis covering seven policy processes: (1) analysis of the existing situation, (2) the generation of policy options, (3) evaluation policy options, (4) making the policy decision, (5) planning of policy implementation, (6) policy impact assessment, and (7) subsequent policy cycle. These seven processes are discussed in the following paragraphs. Analysis of the existing situation. Policymakers in this stage analyze the background of the country including social and economic stratification, popular trends in political context, the level of economic development, national education issues, and 24.

(40) the forces for or against the upcoming policies. The generation of policy options. New policy is normally generated from different modes, namely the systemic mode, the incremental mode, the ad hoc mode, and the importation mode. The systematic mode includes three stages: generation of data, formulation and prioritization of options, and refining options. The incremental mode is used when a problem in education system is widely discussed and the government is forced to develop policies. As to the ad hoc mode, there is no fundamental basis for the policy reform; the changes of policy emerge from the problem outside the education system such as political events. The last mode imports education policies around the world when foreign specialists are in charge or particular groups are in need of the new education policies. Evaluation of policy options. Before a policy is implemented, the policymakers have to evaluate the possible situations in terms of desirability, affordability, and feasibility. Desirability refers to the impact of the policy on interests groups or stakeholders. The major issues policymakers interested in include who benefit from the policy, whose rights are damaged, and whether the policy is desired for all interests groups or stakeholders. Affordability, on the other hand, depends on assessing costs in monetary (public and private), opportunity, and politics. Finally, feasibility focuses on two factors, personnel and time. Before the implementation, policymakers need to search for qualified personnel and estimate carefully required time in every stage for preparation. Making the policy decision. The policy decision is made after the policymakers evaluate different policy options in terms of technical supports, time, finance, personnel and various demands held by stakeholders. In real situation, Haddad (1994, 1995) suggests that the policymakers in this stage can identify the possible weaknesses and prepare for adjustments in advance because the decided policy option 25.

(41) is the most balanced one but probably not a perfect one. Planning of policy implementation. The planning of policy implementation includes physical resources and financial resources availability, the person-power who puts the policy into practice, the technical knowledge needed to be mastered by those who are going to apply it, the administrative systems which should be clearly structured, and a schedule which is drawn up in detail on who will do what, when and how. Another difficult task in this period is mobilizing political support. The mobilization of political support should convince the practitioners and consumers the need of the new education policy. Therefore, it is essential to make sure that students, their families, teachers, educational administrators, and communities are aware of the goals, schedules, and benefits of the coming policy. Policy impact assessment. As a policy is implemented and long enough to show the results, policy impact assessment should be carried out. The criteria used in impact assessment are similar to those in the evaluation section. Haddad (1994, 1995) provides several guided questions for policy analysts to follow: What have been the actual impacts of the policies in question? Are these impacts desirable given the changes that were hoped for? Are the changes affordable? Did costs prevent their full implementation? Did cost over-runs make it unthinkable to implement them over a longer term or on a wider basis? Can the policy be lived with politically and socially? Are the impacts feasible? Were full impacts accomplished? Would exceptional efforts be required to replicate these impacts in other circumstances? However, if the outcome is not satisfying, it does not necessarily mean that the policy is bad or a fault. The unsatisfying outcome may be the result of poor implementation such as inadequate human capital, underfunding, inadequate economic stimuli, or other possible problems. Subsequent policy cycles. Once the policy implementation has been completed, 26.

(42) the impact assessment will help the policymakers judge how to take the next initiative. After analyzing the current policy, the policymakers can adjust the policy and re-implement it. Or they can start from the beginning of the policy cycle to re-analyze the problems and redesigned the policy. In light of the dynamic and cyclic nature of policy development, a study like the current one is important because its findings may help identify problems of the current policy and provide directions for subsequent modifications of the policy. With this understanding of policy analysis, in the following sections several major remedial instruction policies in the U.K., the U.S., Singapore, and Hong Kong are presented to show how remedial instruction policies were implemented in English-speaking country, English as a second language (ESL) country, and English as a foreign language (EFL) country. Remedial Instruction Policies in the U.K. In 1964, the Plowden Committee was commissioned by Education minister, Sir Edward Boyle and chaired by Bridget, Lady Plowden to investigate the primary education in all aspects and the transition to the secondary education. After three years of research, the report of Central Advisory Council For Education (1967), also called the Plowden Report, in England revealed that family, neighborhood, and school had significant influence on children’s learning. The researchers suggested that nursery education should be provided to deprived areas and more connection between school and children’s home was needed. Besides, the idea of Education Priority Area was proposed in this report, offering “positive discrimination” which should “favor schools in neighborhoods where children are most severely handicapped by home conditions.” Educational Priority Areas (EPA) was set up in the late 1960s in parts of London, 27.