As stated in the previous chapter, the subjects were sampled through stratified

CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS

The present study is aimed at investigating the elementary school and junior high school English teachers’ perceptions and implementation of remedial instruction for underachievers. In this chapter, findings from the questionnaires and interviews were presented in eight sections. The first section described the subjects’ background information. From section two to seven, the subjects’ responses to the thirty-two questions in the questionnaire were analyzed and discussed in detail. Since the target population involved teachers from two different teaching contexts, namely elementary schools and junior high schools, the focus of the analysis was on comparing the responses of the two groups of subjects. The last section presented the results from the teacher interviews.

4.1 Background Information

As stated in the previous chapter, the subjects were sampled through stratified

sampling, with which the number of English teachers sampled accounted for 20% of

the total number of English teachers in elementary schools and junior high schools in

Taipei City. As shown in Table 4.1, the number of teachers planned to be sampled in

each district was listed in the “estimated” column, while the number of returned

questionnaires in each district was put down in the “returned” column.

Table 4.1 Numbers of the estimated and returned questionnaires in each district

ESET JHSET

District

Estimated Returned Estimated Returned

Sungshan Dist. (松山區) 8 8 14 14

Hsini Dist. (信義區) 9 9 14 12

Taan Dist. (大安區) 13 13 24 17

Chungshan Dist. (中山區) 9 4 10 7

Chungcheng Dist. (中正區) 7 3 14 10

Tatung Dist. (大同區) 9 3 13 9

Wanhua Dist. (萬華區) 12 2 9 7

Wenshan Dist. (文山區) 21 11 20 20

Nankang Dist. (南港區) 6 3 7 7

Neihu Dist. (內湖區) 11 9 20 16

Shihlin Dist. (士林區) 19 12 20 20

Peitou Dist. (北投區) 17 15 19 8

Total 141 92 184 147

Note: ESET= Elementary school English teachers; JHSET= Junior high school English teachers.

In total, the valid returned questionnaires used for the analysis in the present

study were 239, including 92 elementary school teachers (38.5%) and 147 junior high

school teachers (61.5%), with 13 males (5.4%) and 223 (94.6%) females. In terms of

their educational background, a majority of the teachers (72.8%) were college

graduates, while 26.8% owned a master’s degree and only one teacher (0.4%) had a

doctoral degree. Additionally, most of the teachers were English majors (77.8%). As

for the frequencies of attending relevant workshops on English teaching, 79.6% of the

teachers attended less than five workshops each semester, while 16.2% attended six to

ten workshops per semester. The subjects’ background information was summarized

in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Background information of the subjects

Category N %

School level (N=239)

Elementary school 92 38.5

Junior high school 147 61.5

Gender (N=239)

Male 13 5.4

Female 226 94.6

Educational background (N=239)

College graduates 174 72.8

Master’s degree 64 26.8

Doctoral degree 1 0.4

Major (N=239)

English major 186 77.8

Non-English major 53 22.2

Times of attending workshops each semester (N=216)

Less than 5 times 172 79.6

6~10 times 35 16.2

More than 11 times 9 4.2

In terms of the teacher training programs, years of teaching experience, positions at school, and the numbers of classes and students teaching, the data showed that there are significant differences between the elementary school and junior high school teachers. This difference was due to the English teaching policy. For example, the elementary school English teachers’ training programs sponsored by MOE was offered in company with Grades 1 to 9 English Curriculum. And since the elementary school English courses in Taipei City began from the school year of 1998, the years of teaching experience of elementary school English teachers tend to be less than that of

7

When analyzing the data and computing the frequency and percentage of the responses for each

question, only valid cases would be computed. Subjects who did not answer the specific question or

whose answer to that question was confusing would be treated as “missing.” Therefore, the number of

the subjects responding to each question would not always be the same, thus the total number of the

subjects (N) would vary from question to question.

junior high school teachers. Due to the different nature of the two groups of the

teachers, the subjects’ background information regarding the categories mentioned

above were described separately (Table 4.3). The majority of the elementary school

teachers (78.3%) received elementary school English teachers’ training programs

sponsored by MOE, while junior high school teachers were mostly assigned after

graduation from a teacher training school (56.5%) or after taking teacher education

courses (34.7%). Besides, more than 80% of the elementary school teachers had less

than five years of teaching experience, compared to a majority of 53.3% junior high

school teachers who had been teaching for more than ten years. The teacher’s position

at school was also different between the two groups, with 80.4% elementary school

teachers teaching only English while 73.5% junior high school teachers serving

supervising teachers. The number of classes teaching at the two school levels was also

different. At elementary schools, most teachers (68.1%) were responsible for six to

ten classes, and still 19.8% are teaching more than eleven classes, with each class

comprising less than thirty-five students. The large number of classes that the teachers

teach was because in elementary schools, each class had only two English courses per

week. By comparison, at junior high schools, 95.2% of the teachers were teaching less

than five classes, while the number of students in each class was more than that of at

the elementary school level.

Table 4.3 Background information of the subjects at different school levels Teacher training programs Years of teaching experience

% ^Teacher training school

Teacher education

courses

MOE’s teacher training programs

Others

Less than 5

years

6~10 years

11~15 years

16~20 years

More than 21

years

School Level N=239 N=225

ES 6.5 12.0 78.3 3.3*** 81.8 12.5 4.5 1.1 0.0***

JHS 56.5 34.7 4.1 4.8 28.5 18.2 18.2 13.9 21.2 Positions at school

Supervising teacher Teaching English and

other subject matters Teaching only English

%

No Yes No Yes No Yes

School Level N=239 N=239 N=239

ES 97.8 2.2*** 88.0 12.0* 19.6 80.4***

JHS 26.5 73.5 95.9 4.1 79.6 20.4

Numbers of classes teaching Numbers of students teaching

% Less than 5

classes 6~10

classes More than

11 classes Less than

30 students 31~35

students More than 36 students

School Level N=236 N=237

ES 12.1 68.1 19.8*** 50.5 48.4 1.1***

JHS 95.2 4.1 0.7 28.1 29.5 42.5

*p<.05, ***p<.001

Note: ES= Elementary school; JHS= Junior high school

4.2 School Policy on English Teaching and Remedial Instruction

From this section to section 4.6 were the detailed analysis of the subjects’

responses to questions number 11 to 42 in the questionnaire, which focused on

exploring the current situation of English teaching at the two school levels, the

teachers’ perceptions and implementation of remedial instruction, the effects of

remedial instruction implemented, and the difficulties and support needed. As

aforementioned, the analysis was displayed mainly as the comparison between the

responses of the elementary school teachers and junior high school teachers. In this

section, questions 11 to 17 were analyzed to understand the school policy on English teaching, including ability grouping and textbook selection, and on remedial instruction, including whether remedial instructions were implemented, types of remedial programs, target students, course contents, and general effects of the programs.

Question 11: Is ability grouping for English courses implemented in your school?

In terms of ability grouping for English courses, only a minority of the subjects’

schools were administering this policy, with 17.4% and 24.5% in elementary schools and junior high schools respectively (Table 4.4). The former placed fifth and sixth graders in streams, while the latter grouped students mainly at the seventh grade (50.0%) and the eighth grade (63.9%).

Table 4.4 Ability grouping for English courses at different school levels

Category N %

Ability grouping for English courses in elementary schools N= 16 (17.4%)

Grade 1 0 0.0

Grade 2 0 0.0

Grade 3 0 0.0

Grade 4 0 0.0

Grade 5 7 43.8

Grade 6 16 100.0

Ability grouping for English courses in junior high schools N= 36 (24.5%)

Grade 7 18 50.0

Grade 8 23 63.9

Grade 9 11 30.6

Question 12: How do the English textbooks selected in your school?

As shown in Table 4.5, the English textbook selection in a majority of the

subjects’ schools was “selecting different sets of textbooks according to students’

grade levels” (73.6%). On the contrary, none of the teachers’ schools used “textbooks selected by individual teachers.” While most schools selected different sets of textbook in accordance with the students’ grade levels, the Chi-square test revealed a significant difference in responses between the teachers in elementary schools and in junior high schools (p=.000). 36.1% of the junior high school teachers used “the same set of textbooks school-wide”, compared to only 6.5% of the teachers in elementary schools.

Table 4.5 English textbook selection at different school levels English textbook selection

% ^{Using the} same set of textbooks school-wide

Selecting different sets of textbooks according to students’ grade levels

Selecting different sets of textbooks according to students’ ability groups

Using textbooks selected by individual teachers

Using teacher-made textbooks School Level N=239

ES 6.5 89.1 4.4 0.0 0.0***

JHS 36.1 64.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 24.7 73.6 1.7 0.0 0.0

*** p<.001

Question 13: Is you school implementing or has your school implemented English remedial instruction for underachievers? From which school year?

When asked about the school’s implementation of remedial instruction for underachievers in English learning, the teachers at the two school levels responded differently, and the difference among the two groups achieved the level of significance via the Chi-square test (p=.000). As illustrated in Table 4.6, only 33.0%

of the teachers in elementary schools indicated current implementation of remedial

instruction, and nearly half of the teachers’ schools (48.4%) had never had such

remedial programs, and another 18.7% had the programs before but cease implementing this year. In contrast, a majority of the teachers in junior high schools (84.9%) had school-wide remedial programs right now, among them 53.6% started the program before the school year of 2000. The data showed that there was a widespread implementation of remedial instruction at the junior high school level but not quite so at the elementary school level.

Table 4.6 Current implementation of remedial instruction at different school levels School’s current implementation of

remedial instruction

Academic year of starting remedial instruction

% Yes. Starting from this school year

Yes. Starting from ___

school year to this year

Yes, we had, but not this school year

No, never

Since 1996 and

before

Between 1997 and

2000

Since 2001 and

after

School Level N=236 N=85

ES 17.6 15.4 18.7 48.4*** 0.00 10.3 89.7***

JHS 9.7 75.2 5.5 9.7 17.9 35.7 46.4

*** p<.001

Question 14: What kind of remedial instruction programs is your school implementing or has implemented? (More than one answer can be selected)

Table 4.7 indicated that among the seven given options, the two most commonly adopted programs in elementary schools were “after school session” (57.5%) and

“incorporation of parents and community resources” (25.5%), such as “volunteer parents.” In junior high schools, on the other hand, “pull-out resource program” and

“after-school session” were most frequently implemented, accounting for 81.8% and

59.9% respectively. Further comparison showed that among these common programs,

significant differences existed between the two school levels in terms of their

administration of “pull-out resource program” and “incorporation of parents and

community resources” (p=.000). Contrasting to that of in junior high schools, only 17.0% of the elementary school teachers reported the use of “pull-out resource program.” Besides, unlike that of in elementary schools, a minority of 3.0% junior high school teachers incorporated parents and community resources for remedial programs. Furthermore, though “after school session” was implemented in both school contexts, elementary school teachers mostly conducted remedial instruction during the mornings or lunch breaks, while junior high school teachers made use of the “eighth period” to do so.

Noticeably, though “computer-assisted instruction” (CAI) had been proved to be effective in the literature (Slavin et al., 1989; Tu, 2001) and was featured as individualizing students’ leaning (Huang, 2001), no use of such program was reported in both school contexts. Similarly, the school-university partnership was one of the current trends in remedial education (Chen & Li, 2004; Conderman et al., 1997);

however, only three cases reported (2.3%) in junior high schools and none in

elementary schools.

Table 4.7 Remedial instruction programs implemented at different school levels School-wide remedial instruction programs

Pull-out resource program

After-school session

Computer- assisted instruction

Summer/winter remedial instruction program

%

No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

School Level N=179 N=179 N=179 N=179

ES 83.0 17.0*** 42.5 57.5 100.0 0.0 91.5 8.5*

JHS 18.2 81.8 40.1 59.9 100.0 0.0 77.3 22.7

School-wide remedial instruction programs Summer/winter

English camp

School-university partnership

Incorporation of parents and community

resources

%

No Yes No Yes No Yes

School Level N=179 N=179 N=179

ES 97.9 2.1 100.0 0.0 74.5 25.5 ***

JHS 90.9 9.1 97.7 2.3 97.0 3.0

*p<.05, ***p<.001

Question 15~17: What are the target students, the major contents, and the general effects for the school- implemented remedial instruction programs?

As illustrated in Table 4.8, the analysis focused on the two most commonly adopted programs in elementary schools, namely “after-school session” and

“incorporation of parents and community resources” in terms of their identification of the target students, major contents and general effects. The target students for the two programs were mainly underachievers only (70.4% and 91.7%), and the contents were mostly “consolidating students’ basic English language skills” (51.9% and 83.3%) and

“reviewing the lessons taught” (40.7% and 16.7%). As for the general effects, a

majority of the teachers (48.2%) whose schools adopting after-school session claimed

that “the effects were not yet evaluated.” The results implied that though the

“after-school session” was widely implemented in elementary school context, its effectiveness remained unclear and the student’s progress was seldom traced systematically. As for the “incorporation of parents and community resources,” 66.7%

of the teachers reported to have acceptable effects, while still 25.0% thought there were only short-term effects. Analyzing from the data, it was encouraging that some of the elementary schools had made efforts to lighten the school teachers’ workload by recruiting volunteer parents for the practice of remedial programs. However, only minor or short-term effects were reported. Generated from the results, it is suggested that careful planning of the program and the provision of parental training sessions were necessary to promote the efficiency of the program. Moreover, the scale of integration of the community resources could be further extended so as to maximize its effectiveness.

Table 4.8 Target students, major contents, and general effects for the remedial instruction programs in elementary schools

Target students, major contents, and general effects for the remedial instruction programs in elementary schools

Target

students Major contents General effects

%

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

N=27 N=27 N=27

After-school

session 0.0 29.6 70.4 0.0 40.7 51.9 7.4 0.0 3.7 29.6 3.7 14.8 48.2

N=12 N=12 N=12

Parents and community

resources 0.0 8.3 91.7 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 25.0 8.3

Note: (1) All students are required to attend the class; (2) Students are allowed to take the course

voluntarily; (3) Only underachievers in English learning are required to attend the class; (4) Teaching

new lessons; (5) Reviewing the lessons taught; (6) Taking tests; (7) Consolidating students’ basic

English language skills; (8) Providing individualized instruction; (9) Remarkable effects; (10)

Acceptable effects; (11) Insignificant effects; (12) Only short-term effects; (13) The effects are not yet

evaluated

As in Table 4.8 above, Table 4.9 showed the target students, course contents, and general effects of the “pull-out resource program” and “after-school session,” the two most widely adopted remedial programs in junior high schools. Students for the pull-out resource program were mainly underachievers (68.2%), while the after-school session basically opened for either underachievers (53.9%) or any student who is willing to take the course (41.0%). In terms of the major contents for the pull-out resource program, “reviewing the lessons taught” (38.0%), “individualized instruction” (26.9%), and “consolidating students’ basic English language skills”

(25.9%) were all reported. On the other hand, more than half of the teachers (55.1%)

indicated “reviewing the lessons taught” to be the major content for the after-school

session. The analysis of the general effects of these two programs showed that though

a majority of the subjects considered the effects to be acceptable (62.0% and 67.1%),

no significant differences existed among the teachers whose school did and did not

implement the two programs. In other words, there were limited effects of the two

commonly adopted remedial programs in junior high schools in helping the learning

of underachievers.

Table 4.9 Target students, major contents, and general effects for the remedial instruction programs in junior high schools

Target students, major contents, and general effects for the remedial instruction programs in junior high schools

Target

students Major contents General effects

%

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

N=107 N=108 N=108

Pull-out resource

program 4.7 27.1 68.2 8.3 38.0 25.9 26.9 0.9 4.6 62.0 8.3 4.6 17.6

N=78 N=78 N=79

After-school

session 5.1 41.0 53.9 3.8 55.1 19.2 21.8 0.0 5.1 67.1 6.3 7.6 12.7 Note: (1) All students are required to attend the class; (2) Students are allowed to take the course voluntarily; (3) Only underachievers in English learning are required to attend the class; (4) Teaching new lessons; (5) Reviewing the lessons taught; (6) Taking tests; (7) Consolidating students’ basic English language skills; (8) Providing individualized instruction; (9) Remarkable effects; (10) Acceptable effects; (11) Insignificant effects; (12) Only short-term effects; (13) The effects are not yet evaluated

4.3 Current Situation of Multilevel Classes and Teachers’ Responses in Dealing with This Problem

Question 18: How do you perceive the situation of students’ mix-ability in English learning in your classes?

Considering the current situation of multilevel classes in both elementary

schools and junior high schools, as shown in Table 4.10, 44.7% of all the subjects

considered the students’ mixed level to be a normal condition. By comparison, still

more than half of the teachers observed a large gap among students’ English

proficiency, among which 29.5% thought the gap had made English teaching difficult,

and the other 25.3% claimed to be able to overcome this problem with specific

teaching strategies. Further analysis via the Chi-square test revealed a significant

difference between the responses of the subjects in elementary schools and in junior

high schools (p=.001) regarding the problem of students’ mixed ability in English

learning. A higher proportion of junior high school teachers (35.9%) had trouble dealing with mixed-ability classes, compared to 19.6% of the elementary school teachers who had the same problem. Besides, 38.0% of the elementary school teachers claimed to be able to cope with mixed-ability classes with specific teaching strategies, while only 17.2% of the junior high school teachers made such a claim.

The possible explanations for the discrepancy among the two groups of the teachers were further discussed in sections 4.7.1 and 5.1.

Table 4.10 Students’ mixed-ability in English learning at different school levels Students’ mixed-ability in English learning

%

A large gap among students’ ability which makes English teaching really difficult

A large gap among students’ ability, but it can be overcome with specific teaching strategies

The differences among students’

ability is a normal condition

No obvious differences exist among students’

ability

Others

School Level N=237

ES 19.6 38.0 42.4 0.0 0.0**

JHS 35.9 17.2 46.2 0.0 0.7

Total 29.5 25.3 44.7 0.0 0.4

**p<.01

Question 19: How do you deal with students of mixed-ability in English learning in your classes? (At most three answers can be selected)

As indicated in Table 4.11, among the eleven given options, five most commonly used strategies reported by the subjects in dealing with mixed-ability classes were “focusing on the majority of the students with average level of English ability” (65.1%), “assigning peer-tutors to help underachievers” (38.7%), “conducting multiple assessment activities” (32.8%), “cooperative learning” (31.9%), and

“providing underachievers with more opportunities to practice and participate in the

class” (24.8%). Further analysis showed that significant differences exited between the teachers in elementary schools and junior high schools regarding their use of

“focusing on the majority of the students with average level of English ability” and

“cooperative learning” (p≤.001) in that the former is adopted more frequently by

junior high school teachers (73.3%) while the latter was found more often in

elementary school contexts (47.8%). It was also found that though the problem of

mixed ability was considered more serious in the junior high school context, as

discussed in question 18, there were still 73.3% of the junior high school teachers

whose teaching were “focusing on the majority of the students with average level of

English ability.” Such results were indeed worth noticing and were discussed in the

next chapter.

Table 4.11 Teaching strategies used by teachers at different school levels in dealing with mixed-ability classes

Teaching strategies in dealing with mixed-ability classes Focusing on the

majority of the students with average level of English ability

Within-class ability grouping

Cooperative learning

Conducting multiple assessment activities

Setting assessment standards according to students’ levels

%

No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

School Level N=238 N=238 N=238 N=238 N=238

ES 47.8 52.2 ** 94.6 5.4 ** 52.2 47.8*** 72.8 27.2 84.8 15.2 JHS 26.7 73.3 100.0 0.0 78.1 21.9 63.7 36.3 75.3 24.7 Total 34.9 65.1 97.9 2.1 68.1 31.9 67.2 32.8 79.0 21.0

Teaching strategies in dealing with mixed-ability classes Providing

underachievers with more opportunities to practice and participate in the class

Assigning

peer-tutors to help underachievers

Providing underachievers with after-class remedial instruction

Providing fast-learners with extra learning materials

%

No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

School Level N=238 N=238 N=238 N=238

ES 69.6 30.4 55.4 44.6 75.0 25.0 78.3 21.7

JHS ^{78.8 21.2 65.1 34.9 84.2 15.8 72.6 27.4}

Total ^{75.2 24.8 61.3 38.7 80.7 19.3 74.8 25.2}

**p<.01, ***p<.001

More detailed analysis revealed that there was a discrepancy between the two school levels in terms of the teachers’ use of classroom strategies. As illustrated in Table 4.12, “cooperative learning” played a more crucial role in elementary schools.

In junior high schools, on the other hand, “providing fast-learners with extra learning materials” and “setting different assessment standards for different levels of students”

were not uncommon (Table 4.13). Further discussion on how the teachers

implemented the classroom strategies, including “cooperative learning,” “peer

tutoring,” and “providing underachievers with more opportunities to practice and

participate in the class,” were presented in section 4.7.3.

Table 4.12 The five most frequently adopted strategies by elementary school English teachers in dealing with mixed-ability classes

Elementary school English teachers’ teaching strategies (N=92) N % Focusing on the majority of the students with average level of

English ability

48 52.2

Cooperative learning (heterogeneous grouping) 44 47.8 Assigning peer-tutors to help underachievers 41 44.6 Providing underachievers with more opportunities to practice and

participate in the class

28 30.4

Conducting multiple assessment activities 25 27.2

Table 4.13 The five most frequently adopted strategies by junior high school English teachers in dealing with mixed-ability classes

Junior high school English teachers’ teaching strategies (N=146) N % Focusing on the majority of the students with average level of

English ability

107 73.3

Conducting multiple assessment activities 53 36.3 Assigning peer-tutors to help underachievers 51 34.9 Providing fast-learners with extra learning materials 40 27.4 Setting different assessment standards for different levels of

students

36 24.7

Question 20: What are the general effects of your teaching strategies in improving the situation of mixed-ability in your classes?

As illustrated in Table 4.14, the general effects of the five most frequently

adopted strategies were considered by more than half of the subjects to be minor in

enhancing their teaching of mixed-ability classes. Moreover, the Chi-square test

showed a significant difference between responses of two groups of the teachers—

those who focused their teaching on the majority of the students, and those who

adopted other strategies (p=.023). Compared to those teachers using other strategies, a

higher proportion of the subjects whose teaching focused on the majority of the

students evaluated this strategy to be ineffective (8.7%) or to have only short-term

effects (16.8%) in narrowing the gap among the students’ English language abilities,

and still some of the teachers had not made their evaluation yet (10.7%). The results

implied that the problem of students’ mixed-ability in English learning would not be

efficiently solved if the teacher focused their teaching only on the majority of the

students with average level of English ability. Rather, specific classroom strategies

were necessary to enhance the learning of all students (Hess, 2001).

Table 4.14 General effects of the five most frequently adopted strategies in dealing with mixed-ability classes

General effects of the strategies in dealing with mixed-ability classes

%

Remarkable effects

Minor effects

No effects

Only short-term effects

Effects are not yet evaluated Focus on majority N=232

No 18.1 61.4 1.2 12.0 7.2*

Yes 8.1 55.7 8.7 16.8 10.7

Peer-tutors N=232

No 9.9 57.7 7.0 13.4 12.0

Yes 14.4 57.8 4.4 4.4 5.6

Multiple assessment N=232

No 10.2 59.2 7.0 14.0 9.6

Yes 14.7 54.7 4.0 17.3 9.3

Cooperative learning N=232

No 10.1 57.6 8.2 16.5 7.6

Yes 14.9 58.1 1.4 12.2 13.5

More practice

opportunities N=232

No 12.1 55.5 6.4 16.8 9.2

Yes 10.2 64.4 5.1 10.2 10.2

*p<.05

Question 21: In average, how many underachievers in English learning are in your classes?

The numbers of underachievers reported in elementary school and junior high school contexts was different, as in Table 4.15. 88.8% of the teachers in the former school context reported three to five underachievers in each class, and only 10.1%

found more than six in their classes. On the contrary, 40.3% of the teachers in the latter school context had three to five underachievers in their classes, while 58.2%

found more than six. The discrepancy between the two school contexts achieved the

level of significance (p=.000) in that the numbers of underachievers in junior high

schools tended to be more than that of in elementary school context. Besides, on the margin of the questionnaires, not a few numbers of the subjects also noted their observations that the number of underachievers inclined to increase with the students’

grade levels. The possible reasons accounted for this common reported phenomenon were further revealed with the results of the teacher interviews.

Table 4.15 Numbers of underachievers in English learning at different school levels

Numbers of underachievers in English learning

% Less than 3 students

3 to 5 students

6 to 7 students

8 to 10 students

More than 11 students

School Level N=223

ES 1.1 88.8 6.7 3.4 0.0***

JHS 1.5 40.3 20.1 33.6 4.5

***p<.001

Question 22: What are the major factors do you think that lead to the students’

underachievement?

In terms of the leading factors of the students’ underachievement, as shown in Table 4.16, the two factors identified by most of the elementary school teachers were

“lacking learning motivation” (33.7%) and “having weaker learning ability” (26.1%), while in junior high schools, “lacking learning motivation” (44.5%) and “having almost given up on English learning” (26.7%) were the two main factors. Further comparison found a significant difference between the teachers’ responses at the two school levels (p=.000). Though the factor of students’ “lacking learning motivation”

was reported in both contexts, it was more prominent in leading to junior high school

students’ underachievement. Moreover, there was a much higher proportion of the

junior high school teachers (26.7%) who believed the factor to be “having almost given up on English learning,” compared to only 7.6% of the elementary school teachers with the same response. As for the factors reported in the elementary school context, the proportion of “having weaker learning ability,” “not taking private English courses,” “not getting individual attention from the teacher,” and “lacking parental care and attention” were more common than in the junior high school context.

Inferring from the results, it seemed that the students considered to be underachievers in elementary schools were more because of their weaker learning abilities, less English input, or insufficient attention from the teachers and the parents. However, in junior high schools the situations of students’ lack of motivation and their giving up on English leaning were more serious. For the implications of the findings, further discussions were presented in section 4.7, the results of the teacher interviews.

Table 4.16 Major factors leading to underachievement of students at different school levels

Major factors leading to underachievement of students

% ^Having _weaker learning ability

Lacking learning motivation

Not making good use of learning strategies

Having almost given up on English learning

Not taking private English courses

Not getting individual attention from the teacher

Not using appropriate leaning materials

Lacking parental care and attention

School Level N=238

ES 26.1 33.7 4.3 7.6 7.6 6.5 0.0 14.1***

JHS 10.3 44.5 6.2 26.7 3.4 4.8 1.4 2.7

***p<.001

4.4 Teachers’ Perceptions and Knowledge of Remedial Instruction

Question 23: How do you perceive the importance of remedial instruction for

underachievers in English learning?

Question 24: To what extent are you willing to implement remedial instruction?

Question 25: How much do you understand the implementation of remedial instruction?

Question 26: To what degree do you think you need to enrich the knowledge of remedial instruction?

From questions 23 to 26, the subjects were required to identify their perceptions, willingness, and understanding of the implementation of remedial instruction through a four-point scale

, with 4 points represented the highest degree and 1 point the lowest.

The higher the degree they perceived, the higher the score they would rate. In sum, the mean scores of the subjects’ responses to these four questions were all above the mean score of the four-point scale (2.5), which indicated, in average, the subjects were positive about these four questions. As indicated in Table 4.17, the teachers showed high agreement to the importance of remedial instruction (M=3.5), with more than 90% of the subjects considered remedial instruction to be either very important or important. When asked their willingness to implement remedial instruction, the subjects’ responses reached a mean score of 3.2, which also showed that nearly 90%

of the teachers were quite willing to help the underachievers with remedial instruction.

As for the understanding about the implementation of remedial instruction, a relatively lower score were achieved (M=2.8), which was just slightly above 2.5, the mean score of the four-point scale. The subjects’ responses to this question implied that the teachers’ knowledge about remedial instruction were in need of improvement.

Such an implication echoed the results for question 26 (M=3.1) in that most teachers

8

The options for questions 23 to 26 on the questionnaire were nominal scale. Since the subjects’

responses to these four questions were a matter of degree (Babbie, 1990), when processing the data, the

researcher transformed the four given options into a four-point scale. For example, the options in

question 23 were “very important”, “important”, “not very important”, and “totally unimportant.” They

then were transformed into 4, 3, 2, and 1 point respectively. The same is true for question 24, 25, and

26.

sensed the need of enriching their knowledge of remedial instruction.

Table 4.17 Teachers’ perceptions and knowledge of remedial instruction Teachers’ perceptions and knowledge of remedial instruction N Mean Perceptions of importance of remedial instruction 237 3.5 Willingness to implement remedial instruction 238 3.2 Understanding about the implementation of remedial instruction 237 2.8 Need of enriching the knowledge of remedial instruction 238 3.1

Question 27: In what way do you usually gain the knowledge of remedial instruction?

As shown in Table 4.18, 43.3% claimed that the source of their knowledge of remedial instruction was “from teaching experiences,” and 23.5% were “from sharing ideas with colleagues.” The data revealed a small number of the subjects who gained their professional knowledge in this aspect “from in-service workshops” (12.2%) or from “pre-service teacher training programs” (0.8%).

Table 4.18 Teachers’ sources of knowledge of remedial instruction Teachers’ sources of knowledge of remedial instruction

%

Not

intentionally gathering relative information

From pre-service teacher training programs

From in-service workshops

From teaching experiences

From sharing ideas with colleagues

Gathering relative information on my own School Level N=238

ES 16.3 0.0 15.2 33.7 27.2 7.6

JHS 8.9 1.4 10.3 49.3 21.2 8.9

Total 11.8 0.8 12.2 43.3 23.5 8.4

4.5 Current Situation of Teachers’ Implementation of Remedial Instruction

Question 29: Other than the school-wide remedial instruction, are you implementing

or have you implemented English remedial instruction for underachievers? When?

As illustrated in Table 4.19, the implementation of remedial instruction by the individual teachers was not quite popular. A total of 35.3% of the subjects reported current implementation of remedial instruction. Further comparison between the school-wide remedial programs (inquired in question 13) and the individual teachers’

remedial instructions (inquired in question 29) revealed that among the 83 subjects whose schools did not have school-wide remedial programs, 63 (75.9%) of whom were not conducting any remedial instruction either. In other words, it is very likely that these teachers were dealing with mixed-ability classes with certain classroom strategies, or with no any specific strategy.

Table 4.19 Current implementation of remedial instruction by individual teachers at different school levels

Teacher’s current implementation of remedial instruction

Academic year of starting remedial instruction

% Yes. Starting from this school year

Yes. Starting from ___

school year to this year

Yes, we had, but not this school year

No, never

Since 1996 and

before

Between 1997 and

2000

Since 2001 and

after

School Level N=238 N=58

ES 15.2 17.4 32.6 34.8 0.0 4.0 96.0

JHS 11.6 25.3 41.1 21.9 15.2 9.1 75.8

Total 13.0 22.3 37.8 26.9 8.6 6.9 84.5

Question 30~33: In terms of school administration, individual teachers, students, and parents, what are the factors that hinder your implementation of remedial instruction?

Table 4.20 showed the responses of 154 teachers who had implemented remedial instruction before but not in this year and those who had never done so regarding the factors that hindered their implementation of remedial instruction.

These factors were divided into four aspects—school administration, individual

teachers, students, and parents. Among the 154 teachers, a majority of 74.0%

considered the school administration factor to be “no specific hours were arranged for remedial instruction.” In terms of individual teachers, “heavy teaching work” was the major problem to most of the teachers (62.3%). As for the factors regarding the students, a majority of the subjects considered the reason to be “most underachievers have almost given up on English studies” (44.4%). Moreover, the Chi-square test found a significant difference between the two school levels (p=.021). In elementary schools, the proportion of the teachers who were concerned about the problem of

“negative labeling” on the underachievers (17.7%) was higher than that of in the junior high schools (7.7%). While in junior high schools, more teachers selected the factors, “most underachievers have almost given up on English studies” (53.8%) and

“most students have already taken private English courses” (22.0%). In terms of the

parental factors, 58.4% pointed out that “parents do not pay enough attention to their

children’s English learning.”

Table 4.20 Factors hinder the teacher’s implementation of remedial instruction School administration factors

% _{No such} factors

No specific hours for remedial instruction

Lacking financial support for the personnel expense

Insufficient classrooms and teaching equipment

Others School Level N=154

ES 14.5 71.0 3.2 11.3 0.0

JHS 18.5 76.1 1.1 3.3 1.1

Total 16.9 74.0 1.9 6.5 0.6

Individual teacher factors

% (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

School Level N=154

ES 3.2 14.5 1.6 0.0 11.3 0.0 66.1 3.2 0.0

JHS 12.0 14.1 5.4 0.0 3.3 1.1 59.8 3.3 1.1

Total 8.4 14.3 3.9 0.0 6.5 0.6 62.3 3.2 0.6

Student factors

% _{No such} factors

Students have all achieved the basic requirement of English ability

Most students have already taken private English courses

Underachiever s are afraid of being

negatively labeled

Most

underachievers have almost given up on English studies

Others

School Level N=153

ES 29.0 3.2 19.4 17.7 30.6 0.0*

JHS 13.2 2.2 22.0 7.7 53.8 1.1

Total 19.6 2.6 20.9 11.8 44.4 0.7

Parental factors

% _{No such} factors

Parents do not pay enough attention to their children’s English learning

Parents are not satisfied with the effects of school-implemented remedial instruction

Others

School Level N=154

ES 43.5 48.4 8.1 0.0*

JHS 29.3 65.2 1.1 4.3

Total 35.1 58.4 3.9 2.6

*p<.05

Note: (1) No such factors; (2) Can take care of underachievers within English classrooms; (3)Limited

effects from the past implementation of remedial instruction; (4) Lack effective diagnostic and

assessment instrument ; (5) Not knowing how to implement remedial instruction effectively; (6)

Insufficient teaching resources; (7) Heavy teaching work; (8) Heavy school administrative work; (9)

Others

Question 34: What is your motivation for implementing remedial instruction?

In all, the subjects’ motivation for implementing remedial instruction was consistent at the two school levels. As shown in Table 4.21, among the 85 subjects who were implementing remedial instruction this year, 35.3% claimed their motivation to be “promoting students’ learning interests and motivation,” 27.1% to be

“helping underachievers in time in case they will fall further behind in the future,”

and still 16.5% to be “narrowing the gap among students’ English ability for the convenience of classroom teaching.” The results were consistent with that of question 22 in that the students’ lack of learning interests and motivation were the leading factors to their underachievement, so whatever remedial strategies were adopted, the major intention of remedial instruction was to promote the students’ interests and motivation in English learning. Moreover, by providing timely help for the underachievers, the possibilities that these students would gradually lose their motivation and eventually give up on their English learning could be greatly eliminated.

Table 4.21 Teachers’ motivation for implementing remedial instruction Teachers’ motivation for implementing remedial instruction

% (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

School Level N=85

ES 13.3 0.0 43.3 6.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0

JHS 18.2 1.8 18.2 14.5 36.4 1.8 5.5 1.8 1.8

Total 16.5 1.2 27.1 11.8 35.3 1.2 3.5 2.4 1.2

Note: (1) Narrowing the gap among students’ English ability for the convenience of classroom teaching;

(2) Raising students’ scores on English tests; (3) Helping underachievers in time in case they will fall

further behind in the future; (4) Offering students with more practice opportunity; (5) Promoting

students’ learning interests and motivation; (6) Responding to students’ self-motivated request for

remedial instruction; (7) The school’s promotion of the teachers’ implementation of remedial

instruction; (8) Responding to parents’ request for remedial instruction; (9) Others

Question 35: How do you identify the target students for receiving remedial instruction?

As in Table 4.22, among the 85 subjects who were implementing remedial instruction in the present school year, 42.4% of whom claimed to identify the target students for receiving remedial instruction through students’ performance on quizzes and assignments, and 37.6% through observations of students’ classroom performance.

Besides, 21.8% of the junior high school teachers identified the target students through students’ performance on summative assessment, while no subjects in elementary schools used this method. The difference between the two groups of the teachers regarding their identification of the target students achieved the significant level (p=.041).

Table 4.22 Identification of the target students for receiving remedial instruction Identification of the target students for receiving remedial instruction

%

School- developed assessment system on English ability

Observations of students’

classroom performance

Students’

performance on quizzes and assignment

Students’

performance on

summative assessment

Developing questionnaire to understand students’

background and learning situation

Students are allowed to take

remediation courses voluntarily School Level N=85

ES 0.0 46.7 53.3 0.0 0.0 0.0*

JHS 5.5 32.7 36.4 21.8 1.8 1.8

Total 3.5 37.6 42.4 14.1 1.2 1.2

*p<.05

Question 36: How many times a week do you implement remedial instruction? How many students and for how long?

When asked the times, number of students, and hours of remedial instruction,

most teachers (73.3%) reported to provide less than two sessions of remedial instruction per week (Table 4.23). Most of the teachers (41.4%) had three to five underachievers for each session, and some (28.6%) had only one or two. As for the hours of remediation, a majority of 87.8% teachers conducted instruction for less than one hour.

Table 4.23 Numbers of times, students, and hours per week for remedial instruction

Numbers of times per week for remedial instruction

% Less than 2 times 3 to 5 times No fixed schedule

School Level N=75

ES 88.5 11.5 0.0

JHS 65.3 30.6 4.1

Total 73.3 24.0 2.7

Numbers of students per week for remedial instruction

% 1 to 2 students

3 to 5 students

6 to 7 students

8 to 10 students

11 students or more

No fixed number of students

School Level N=70

ES 28.0 40.0 8.0 4.0 20.0 0.0*

JHS 28.9 42.2 15.6 11.1 0.0 2.2

Total 28.6 41.4 12.9 8.6 7.1 1.4

Numbers of hours per week for remedial instruction

% Less than 1 hour 1 to 2 hours More than 2 hours Not fixed hour

School Level N=74

ES 84.6 15.4 0.0 0.0

JHS 89.6 6.3 0.0 4.2

Total 87.8 9.5 0.0 2.7

*p<.05

Question 37: What kind of remedial instruction programs are you implementing? (At

most three answers can be selected)

Among the six given options, as indicated in Table 4.24, after class assistance (79.8%) and peer tutoring (45.2%) were the two most commonly adopted remedial instruction programs, and some (16.7%) of the teachers also claimed to design individualized learning material for underachievers. For the rest of the three programs, however, no case was reported in recruiting volunteers at college, only one (1.2%) was found in incorporating parents and community resources, and one (1.2%) in assisting students during summer or winter vacation.

Table 4.24 Remedial instruction programs adopted by the teachers at different school levels

Remedial instruction programs adopted by individual teachers Peer tutoring After class assistance

Designing learning materials for underachievers

%

No Yes No Yes No Yes

School Level N=84 N=84 N=84

ES 53.3 46.7 16.7 83.3 93.3 6.7

JHS 55.6 44.4 22.2 77.8 77.8 22.2

Total 54.8 45.2 20.2 79.8 83.3 16.7

Remedial instruction programs adopted by individual teachers Recruiting volunteers at

college to assist underachievers

Incorporating parents and community resources to help underachievers

Assisting students’

learning during

summer/winter vacation

%

No Yes No Yes No Yes

School Level N=84 N=84 N=84

ES 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

JHS 100.0 0.0 98.1 1.9 98.1 1.9

Total 100.0 0.0 98.8 1.2 98.8 1.2

Question 38: What are the major contents for the remedial instruction programs that you are implementing? (At most three answers can be selected)

In terms of the major contents, as illustrated in Table 4.25, over 90% of the

subjects (91.6%) used the students’ English textbooks. Besides, not a small number of the teachers, 16.7% in elementary schools and 39.6% in junior high schools, developed learning materials for underachievers. The responses in the use of teacher-designed learning materials between the two groups of the teachers achieved the significant level (p=.025) in that such materials was more commonly used in junior high schools than in elementary schools.

Table 4.25 Major contents for the remedial instruction Major contents for the remedial instruction

Textbooks currently used school-wide

School- developed learning materials for remedial instruction

Teacher- designed learning materials for remedial instruction

Outside reading and picture books

Other

supplementary books

%

No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

School Level N=83 N=83 N=83 N=83 N=83

ES 13.3 86.7 100.0 0.0 83.3 16.7* 93.3 6.7 93.3 6.7 JHS 5.7 94.3 94.3 5.7 60.4 39.6 84.9 15.1 81.1 18.9 Total 8.4 91.6 96.4 3.6 68.7 31.3 88.0 12.0 85.5 14.5

*p<.05

Question 39: What are the positive effects of the remedial instruction programs that you are implementing?

As in Table 4.26, the examination of the effects of the two most frequently

adopted remedial instruction programs, after-class assistance and peer tutoring,

revealed that both of the two programs helped students gain more sense of

achievement and confidence in themselves (31.8% and 32.4%), and students’ English

learning interests were also increased (24.2% and 29.7%). Other positive effects of

the two programs such as students’ more classroom participation and their

improvement in English test scores were also reported by some of the teachers.

Table 4.26 Positive effects of the two most frequently adopted remedial instruction by the teachers

Positive effects of remedial instruction by individual teachers

% ^No observable positive effects

Improvement in English test scores

More classroom participation

Increased English learning interests

More sense of achievement and

confidence

Increased learner autonomy

Better use of learning strategies

Others

N=83 After-class

assistance 3.0 13.6 15.2 24.2 31.8 7.6 3.0 1.5

N=83 Peer tutoring

0.0 10.8 13.5 29.7 32.4 8.1 5.4 0.0

Question 40: What are the negative effects of the remedial instruction programs that you are implementing?

As shown in Table 4.27, the majority of the teachers did not report any observable

negative effects of the two remedial instruction programs. However, still not a small

number of the teachers (28.8% and 24.3% for each program) reflected that students

might have a stronger sense of inferiority due to the negative label. Furthermore,

when comparing the responses of the teachers at the two school levels, as indicated in

Table 4.28, a significant difference was found (p<.05) regarding the negative effects

of remedial instruction in that the problem of negative labeling appeared to be more

serious in junior high schools.

Table 4.27 Negative effects of the two most frequently adopted remedial instruction by the teachers

Negative effects of remedial instruction by individual teachers

% No observable negative effects

Stronger sense of inferiority due to the negative label

Increased fear and aversion to English

Completely giving up on English studies

Others N=83

After-class

assistance 60.6 28.8 6.1 1.5 3.0

N=83 Peer tutoring

67.6 24.3 5.4 2.7 0.0

Table 4.28 Negative effects of the two most frequently adopted remedial instruction at different school levels

Negative effects of “after-class assistance”

% No observable negative effects

Stronger sense of inferiority due to the negative label

Increased fear and aversion to English

Completely giving up on English studies

Others

School Level N=66

ES 88.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 0.0*

JHS 43.9 41.5 7.3 2.4 4.9

Negative effects of “peer tutoring”

% No observable negative effects

Stronger sense of inferiority due to the negative label

Increased fear and aversion to English

Completely giving up on English studies

Others School Level N=37

ES 92.9 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0*

JHS 52.2 39.1 4.3 4.3 0.0

*p<.05

Question 41: Has the remedial instruction that you are implementing improved the learning of those underachievers?

On evaluating the general effects of the two programs aforementioned, more

than half of the teachers (51.5% and 56.8% for each program) reported minor effects

of their remedial instruction on helping underachievers (Table 4.29). Besides, not a few teachers (22.7% and 18.9%) reported only short-term effects but not maintenance effects.

Table 4.29 General effects of the two most frequently adopted remedial instruction by the teachers in helping underachievers

General effects of remedial instruction by individual teachers

% _Remarkab

le effects

Minor

effects No effects Only short-term effects

The effects are not yet evaluated

Negative effects N=83

After-class

assistance 13.6 51.5 3.0 22.7 9.1 0.0

N=83 Peer tutoring

10.8 56.8 5.4 18.9 8.1 0.0

4.6 Difficulties Encountered by the Teachers and the Support They Need

Question 42: What difficulties do you encounter when implementing remedial instruction? (At most three answers can be selected)

In answering this question, the subjects were allowed to select at most three difficulties from among the twelve given options. As illustrated in Table 4.30, the three major difficulties that the teachers encountered in their implementation of remedial instruction were “overloaded with teaching and administrative work”

(46.6%), “lacking a complete set of remedial instruction measures” (36.0%), and

“difficult in raising students’ motivation and interests” (32.6%). Further analysis via the Chi-square test revealed that the first two difficulties were especially severe in the elementary school context while the third one was more serious in junior high schools.

It was also found that though not ranked among the three major difficulties, the

teachers who selected “limited progress in students’ English ability” accounted for

32.2%, and the proportion of the teachers in junior high schools was relatively higher than that of in elementary schools (p=.005), meaning that this problem was more serious in junior high schools.

Table 4.30 Teachers’ difficulties to implement remedial instruction at different school levels

Teachers’ difficulties to implement remedial instruction Lacking a

complete set of remedial instruction measures

Lacking an effective diagnostic instrument

Overloaded with teaching and administrative work

Not knowing exactly how to effectively implement remedial instruction

Not able to keep implementin g remedial instruction

Hard to manage the classroom of remedial instruction

%

No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

School Level N=236 N=236 N=236 N=236 N=236 N=236

ES 45.1 54.9 *** 82.4 17.6 42.9 57.1** 87.9 12.1 82.4 17.6 83.5 16.5 JHS 75.9 24.1 85.5 14.5 60.0 40.0 93.8 6.2 73.8 26.2 89.7 10.3 Total 64.0 36.0 84.3 15.7 53.4 46.6 91.5 8.5 77.1 22.9 87.3 12.7

Teachers’ difficulties to implement remedial instruction Large number

of students for remedial instruction

Limited progress of students’

English ability

Difficult in raising students’

motivation and interest

Lacking parental involvement and

cooperation

Parents’ lack of confidence in the school and the teachers

Others

%

No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

School Level N=236 N=236 N=236 N=236 N=236 N=236

ES 80.2 19.8 78.0 22.0** 81.3 18.7*** 81.3 18.7 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 JHS 73.1 26.9 61.4 38.6 58.6 41.4 89.7 10.3 98.6 1.4 99.3 0.7 Total 75.8 24.2 67.8 32.2 64.7 32.6 86.4 13.6 99.2 0.8 99.6 0.4

**p<.01, ***p<.001

Question 28: What supports do you think is necessary if remedial instruction is to be implemented effectively? (At most three answers can be selected)

The necessary support in the two school contexts was quite different. At the

elementary school level, the three main supports needed were “reducing the teachers’

teaching workload” (57.6%), “gaining support and cooperation from the parents”

(47.8%), and “incorporating the community resources to help underachievers”

(42.4%). Among these three items, the last two were significantly necessary in elementary school context (p<.05). On the other hand, the three major supports needed in junior high schools were “providing underachieving students with appropriate learning materials” (50.3%), “reducing the teachers’ teaching workload”

(46.2%), and “implementing ability grouping for English courses” (44.8%), with the

proportion of the first and the last items relatively higher in junior high schools

(p<.001). According to the subjects’ responses, reducing the heavy teaching workload

seemed to be a common wish of most of the teachers in both school contexts.

Table 4.31 Necessary support in implementing remedial instruction at different school levels

Necessary support in implementing remedial instruction Conducting

relative workshops on remedial instruction

Implementing ability

grouping for English courses

Developing effective diagnostic instrument and assessment system

Improving the quality of English teaching equipment

Arranging specific hours for remedial instruction

Reducing the teachers’

teaching workload

%

No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

School Level N=237 N=237 N=237 N=237 N=237 N=237

ES 89.1 10.9 93.5 6.5*** 85.9 14.1 93.5 6.5 70.7 29.3** 42.4 57.6 JHS 83.4 16.6 55.2 44.8 80.7 19.3 94.5 5.5 87.6 12.4 53.8 46.2

Necessary support in implementing remedial instruction Reducing the

teachers’

school

administrative work

Cutting down the number of target students in the remedial instruction classroom

Providing underachieving students with appropriate learning materials

Incorporating the community resources to help

underachievers

Gaining support and cooperation from the parents

%

No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

School Level N=237 N=237 N=237 N=237 N=237

ES 92.4 7.6 71.7 28.3 76.1 23.9*** 57.6 42.4*** 52.2 47.8*

JHS 92.4 7.6 65.5 34.5 49.7 50.3 89.0 11.0 66.9 33.1

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

The above sections, from 4.1 to 4.6, were a detailed analysis of the questions in the questionnaire, one major data collection method for the present study. In the following section, data gathered from teacher interviews were reported. It was aimed at making a more thorough inquiry into the teachers’ perceptions, implementation, and expectations of remedial instruction.

4.7 Results from the Teacher Interviews

The interview questions, as listed in section 3.2.3, were developed to gain more

insights into the issues of teaching mixed-ability classes as well as the implementation

of remedial instruction for underachievers in elementary schools and junior high

schools. As aforementioned, among the 239 respondents, thirty-five were willing to

receive interviews. The researcher selected four teachers from among to conduct

interviews, with two of whom from elementary schools and the other two from junior

high schools. Though the sample size for the teacher interviews in the present study

was rather small, all the four interviewees were influential teachers both in their

schools and in the field of Grades 1 to 9 English Curriculum. Thus their opinions and

comments were considered to be valid and reliable to a certain degree in reflecting

most of the practicing teachers’ thoughts. The background information of the four

interviewees (coded as A, B, C, and D) was briefly summarized in Table 4.32.

Table 4.32 Background information of the interviewees Interviewee Category

A B C D

Gender

Male 9

Female 9 9 9

School levels

Elementary school 9 9

Junior high school 9 9

Years of teaching experience

Less than 5 years 9

6~10 years 9

11~15 years 9

16~20 years 9

Positions at school

Supervising teacher 9

Teaching English and other subject matters

9

Full-time teacher 9 9

Coordinator of English curriculum 9 9

Member of the “Compulsory Education Advisory Group”

9 9 9

Grades teaching in the school year of 2003

Grade 1 9

Grade 2 9

Grade 3 9 9

Grade 4 9

Grade 5

Elementary school level

Grade 6 9

Grade 7 9

Grade 8 9

Junior high school level

Grade 9 9

Date of interview May 10, 2004

May 12, 2004

May 6, 2004

May 13,

2004