EVALUATION OF THE
NATIVE-SPEAKING ENGLISH TEACHER SCHEME IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS
IN HONG KONG 2015 – 2016
FINAL REPORT
Submitted to
Education Bureau of the Hong Kong SAR Government in 2018
Prepared by
Professor Mary Shepard Wong (PI), Azusa Pacific University
Honorary Associate Professor Peter Storey (Co-I), The Open University of Hong Kong Associate Professor Chong Ho (Alex) Yu (Co-I), Azusa Pacific University
Professor Icy Kit Bing Lee (Co-I), The Chinese University of Hong Kong Associate Professor Andy Xue-song Gao (Co-I), The University of Hong Kong
with assistance from
Bernie Chun Nam Mak, Ph.D and Hailey Trier, BS
This evaluation study was funded by the Education Bureau (EDB), Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The authors of this report wish to thank the many people from the Native-speaking English Teacher (NET) Section, EDB, whose contributions and insights were important for the success of this evaluation. We also wish to acknowledge the generous contributions of the members of the Advisory Teaching Team, School Heads, English Panel Chairs, native-speaking English teachers, local English teachers, parents and students who took part in online surveys, interviews and focus groups, and facilitated the school visits conducted in this evaluation study.
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY p. v
GLOSSARY OF TERMS p. ix
1. INTRODUCTION TO EVALUATION OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN p.1 1.1 Background
1.2 Objectives
1.3 Research Questions
1.4 Rationale for Research Questions 1.5 Timeline
2. LITERATURE REVIEW OF SIMILAR PROGRAMMES p. 7
2.1 Overview of Similar Programmes 2.2 Common Challenges
2.3 Common Benefits and Perceived Outcomes 2.4 Common Recommendations
2.5 Relevance to the Current Evaluation
2.6 Selected References of English Language Schemes in Region
3. QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS, AND RESULTS p.15 3.1 Preparation for Quantitative Phase
3.1.1 Preparation of Quantitative Instruments and IRB Approval 3.1.2 Piloting of Quantitative Instruments
3.2 Quantitative Data Collection 3.2.1 Sampling Procedures 3.2.2 Schedule of Surveys
3.3 Quantitative Data Analysis Methodology 3.3.1 Determining Key Findings 3.3.2 Obstacles and Limitations 3.4 Quantitative Results and Key Findings
3.4.1 Research Question One (SF1 – SF3) 3.4.2 Research Question Two (SF4 – SF6) 3.4.3 Research Question Three (SF7 – SF9) 3.4.4 Research Question Four (SF10 – SF11) 3.4.5 Research Question Five (SF12 – SF13) 3.4.6 Research Question Six (SF14 – SF18)
4. QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS, AND RESULTS p. 63 4.1 Preparation for Qualitative Phase
4.1.1 Preparation of Qualitative Instruments and IRB Approval
4.2 Qualitative Data Collection 4.2.1 Sampling Procedures 4.2.2 Schedule of Case Studies
4.3 Qualitative Data Analysis Methodology
4.3.1 Determining Key Findings Versus Outliers 4.3.2 Text Mining
4.3.3 Limitations
4.4 Qualitative Results and Findings 4.4.1 Overview of Case Studies
4.4.2 Interviews with NET Section Personnel
4.4.3 Qualitative Results and Key Case Study Findings 4.4.3.1 Research Question One (CF1-7)
4.4.3.2 Research Question Two (CF8-10) 4.4.3.3 Research Question Three (CF11-17) 4.4.3.4 Research Question Four (CF18-22) 4.4.3.5 Research Question Five (CF23-32) 4.4.3.6 Research Question Six (CF33-40)
5. RECOMMENDATIONS p. 135
6. REFERENCES p. 138
7. APPENDICES p. 146
A. Recommendations of the 2007 PNET Evaluation Report B. Sample Data and Documents
Sample of Interview Transcript Sample of Coding in NVivo Sample of Observation Notes
Sample Email Sent to Schools to Take Part in Case Study C. Schedule of Case Study Visits and Observations
D. Summary of Findings
E. Data Collection Instruments (separate attachment)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The evaluation of the Native-speaking English Teacher Scheme in Primary Schools (PNET Scheme) described in this report employed a sequential mixed-method approach using online surveys of key stakeholders followed by case studies. It explored the impact of the Scheme on primary students’ learning of English with regard to the English-speaking environment of the school, local teachers’ and NETs’ pedagogical practices, and the use of English in the classroom. The study collected data on stakeholders’ background and activities, as well as their views of the effectiveness of NET deployment, utilisation, integration, and support in schools, and the collaboration between NETs and their local colleagues. It also asked stakeholders about the support received from the Advisory Teachers (ATs) and the NET Section, the progress made on the key recommendations from the previous evaluation (Griffin, Woods, Storey, et al.
2007), and how the PNET Scheme might be improved.
In the literature review comparing the NET Schemes in Hong Kong with similar schemes in the region, including Japan, Korea and Taiwan, the research team pointed out that only Hong Kong had conducted and published external evaluations on its NET Schemes. In addition, Hong Kong’s NET Schemes had a more fully developed support system for professional and curriculum development.
Questionnaire surveys were developed and piloted, and refined after piloting before links to the online versions were released to participating schools. A similar process of development, piloting and refinement was followed for the interview protocols and observation schedules before they were put into practice in the case studies.
Over 13,000 participants were surveyed, including students, parents, local teachers, NETs, School Heads, and NET Section personnel. To enable the research team to gain a more in- depth understanding of the operation of the Scheme, 40 interviews were conducted, including 32 in eight case study schools with local teachers, NETs, English Panel Chairs and School Heads, and 8 with NET Section personnel, in addition to 24 observations of the English environment of schools, co-planning meetings, and classrooms in which team-teaching took place.
Multi-stage sampling was used to obtain a representative sample of 104 schools willing to participate and 79 schools successfully completed the questionnaire phase of the study, representing 16.9% of the total number of primary schools participating in the PNET Scheme in the 2014/15 school year.
A total of 18 findings identified after statistical analysis of responses to the online surveys indicated that stakeholders generally held positive perceptions of the impact on the PNET Scheme on students’ English learning, on the English-speaking environment of the school and on the use of pedagogical practices by English teachers. Findings indicated that the majority of all stakeholders support the Scheme.
Key survey findings (noted as “SF”) include the following:
The majority of stakeholders believe the PNET Scheme contributes to students’ English learning (SF1).
The majority of students hold positive views of NET-LET collaboration (SF3).
The majority of stakeholders believe the PNET Scheme helps to enhance the English-
Stakeholders believe NETs contribute to LETs’ use of expanded pedagogical practices (SF7).
The majority of stakeholders believe the Scheme’s professional development activities enhance LETs’ pedagogical practices (SF9).
The majority of all stakeholders support the Scheme and would like more NETs if resources allow (SF17).
Survey responses, and in particular responses to open-ended questions within the surveys were analysed to identify 8 schools for further investigation through case study. While the findings from quantitative analysis of the surveys suggested that a majority of the stakeholders held positive views of the PNET Scheme, there were also challenges and/or strong and divergent views among key stakeholders (NET, LETs, School Heads). The case studies included a representative proportion of schools that, based on these indications of divergence, appeared to be ‘struggling’ with implementation of the Scheme, as well as schools that were ‘excelling’
in their operation of the Scheme. This allowed for triangulation to substantiate interpretations of the quantitative data with findings from the qualitative data including responses from the open-ended survey questions, the eight case studies, and the interviews conducted with NET Section personnel. Overall, these data corroborate the positive overall findings in the surveys, but they also shed light on the divergences that raise specific issues that if addressed could improve effectiveness of the Scheme.
37 of the 40 interviews and focus groups were digitally recorded and transcribed; and in three cases in which participants opted not to have the interview recorded, copious notes were taken.
Qualitative analysis of 40 transcripts/notes and the 24 observation reports was undertaken by at least two research team members and compared, and supplemented by text mining. This analysis generated a total of 40 additional findings. These generally supported the positive attitudes to the Scheme identified in the survey findings.
Stakeholders reported that the Scheme (including the presence of the NET, the work of the Advisory Teaching Team (ATT) and the various programmes’ support of collaboration), helped to improve student English proficiency, demonstrated by what stakeholders perceived as significant advances in students’ literacy skills as well as enhanced oral fluency, confidence, and better pronunciation. Stakeholders also stated that the Scheme led to an increased use of English in the classroom and enhanced students’ motivation to learn.
Key case study (CS) findings include the following:
Stakeholders provided indirect evidence of improved student English proficiency in speaking through active, fun, learning activities that motivate students (CF1).
The emphasis on co-teaching and the presence of a NET in the school has increased student motivation and the degree to which English is used in the classroom (CF3).
Participants mentioned the value of the contributions of the NET to the English speaking environment of the school including contributions to cultural awareness, decoration of classrooms with English-related material, the operation of the English room, and whole-school activities, school assemblies and ‘English Fun Days’ and more opportunities for teachers and students to speak English (CF8)
Several participants mentioned the resources which the PNET Scheme can make available to schools, including programme schools involved in the Primary Literacy Programme – Reading and Writing (PLP-R/W) and the Development of Text Sets
resources and teaching ideas through their general support roles. The work of the NET in locating suitable additional resources was also mentioned and valued by school personnel (CF10).
Interviewees generally recognised the role of the Scheme in increasing the amount of English used in the classroom, improving LETs’ repertoire of pedagogical practices and their spoken English (CF14 & 15).
Having teachers (both NETs and LETs) who are open and willing to learn from each other is vital to collaboration, recognised by all participants as a cornerstone of the PNET Scheme (CF20 & 23).
Holding regular co-planning meetings prior to co-teaching was widely perceived as a key factor in promoting collaboration between NET and LETs. In non-programme schools (schools not signing up for a project like PLP-R/W), the failure to set aside time for co-planning was perceived as an impediment to effective collaboration (CF24 &
26).
The importance of experience and qualifications among NETs was emphasised and seen as impacting on the nature of the collaboration possible between very experienced LETs and less experienced NETs, as well as on the role of the ATs in supporting the NETs (CF29).
Another factor that was perceived to impact the effectiveness of collaboration in schools is the degree to which the NET is treated as a team member (CF30).
The support of the School Head was seen as an important factor in determining the success of collaboration (CF31).
A common perception among nearly all LETs, English Panel Chairs and School Heads was that one NET was not sufficient (CF36).
The overall findings of the evaluation point to the success of the Scheme in achieving its objectives and having a positive impact on the learning and teaching of English in the primary schools. Stakeholders acknowledge the contribution of the Scheme to enhancing students’
English learning by effecting improvements in general proficiency, literacy skills, oral fluency and accuracy, confidence and motivation. Evidence was found of an enhanced repertoire of pedagogical practices and increased use of English in the classroom by local teachers engendered by the co-planning and co-teaching modelled and supported by Advisory Teachers.
Effective NET deployment, utilisation and integration were facilitated by the support of the School Head and an openness and willingness to collaborate among both NETs and local teachers. Findings indicate that progress has been made in implementing key recommendations of the 2007 evaluation with the majority of NETs attending English Panel Meetings and reporting on their activities and enhanced collaboration and greater use of English between teachers and students in class and between teachers in the school environment.
In light of these findings, the following nine recommendations are made.
1. Continue to work to create a collegial culture among all teachers in primary schools so that NETs and LETs are treated and viewed as part of a team.
2. Review the current system for NET recruitment to ensure teachers recruited through the Scheme have the appropriate qualifications and experience for the positions and tasks for which they are hired.
3. Continue to explore ways to strengthen support for larger primary schools in the public sector in promoting English Language Education.
4. Continue to improve public relations that will inspire teachers, draw in potential qualified and experienced NETs, and inform and engage the parents, the public, and legislators of what the Scheme is accomplishing.
5. Continue to support schools with ATs, the induction programme for new teachers recruited into the Scheme, professional development workshops for all English teachers, and curriculum development that addresses new areas of need.
6. Continue to establish communication channels with NET organisations and seek out their support to provide insight into NET issues and potential solutions.
7. Continue to monitor and assess the effectiveness of the Scheme including formal evaluations every six to eight years and annual informal assessments.
8. Continue to review and revise the deployment guidelines and disseminate them.
9. Continue to encourage English panel members to focus on students’ English language needs and learning, and teachers’ curriculum adjustments and professional development.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Terms are used in Hong Kong unless specified otherwise) AI Artificial Intelligence
AJET Association of JETs [in Japan]
ALTs Assistant Language Teachers [in Japan]
APU Azusa Pacific University AT Advisory Teacher
ATT Advisory Teaching Team CF Case Study Finding
CIR Coordinator for International Relations [in Japan]
Co-I Co-Investigator
CL Computational Linguistics
CPD Centralised Professional Development CBS Cross–Boundary Students
DTS Development of Text Sets EDB Education Bureau
ELI English Language Instructor [used in Korea]
EPC English Panel Chair
EPIK English Programme in Korea
ENET Enhanced Native-speaking English Teacher Scheme in Secondary Schools [in Hong Kong]
FETRP Foreign English Teacher Recruitment Project [in Taiwan]
JET Japan Exchange and Teaching [Programme]
JTE Japanese Teachers of English [in Japan]
KIP Key Stage 2 Integration Programme
KS1/2 Key Stage 1 (P1 - P3) and Key Stage 2 (P4 - P6) LET Local English Teacher
NET Native-speaking English Teacher
NEST Native English-Speaking Teacher [in Taiwan]
NLC NET-LET Collaboration NLP Natural Language Processing
NNEST Non-native English Speaking Teachers NS Native [English] Speakers
PD Professional Development PI Principal Investigator PM Project Manager
PNET Primary Native-speaking English Teachers
PLP-R/W The Primary Literacy Programme – Reading and Writing
SF Survey Finding
SEA Sports Exchange Advisors [in Japan]
TM Text Mining
1. INTRODUCTION TO EVALUATION OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN 1.1 Background
The Native-speaking English Teacher Scheme in Primary Schools (hereafter the PNET Scheme) was implemented in 2002 to provide public sector primary schools in Hong Kong having six or more classes, with a Native English-speaking Teacher (NET). The Education Bureau (hereafter EDB) provided the following goals for the PNET Scheme:
1. provide an authentic environment for children to learn English;
2. develop children’s interest in learning English and establish the foundation for lifelong learning;
3. help local English teachers (LETs) develop innovative learning and teaching methods, materials, curricula and activities suited to the needs of local children; and
4. disseminate good practices in language learning and teaching through region-based teacher development programmes such as experience-sharing seminars/workshops and networking activities.
The first territory-wide evaluation of the PNET Scheme took place between 2004 and 2006.
This was a longitudinal and cross-sectional study designed to evaluate the extent to which the four key objectives of the Scheme were being achieved. The evaluation was undertaken by a team of researchers from the University of Melbourne and the Hong Kong Institute of Education.
The evaluation involved tracking student language proficiency and attitudinal development, and gathering the views of all key stakeholders – School Heads (SH), NETs, LETs, English Panel Chairs (EPC), students and parents – through questionnaire surveys administered in a longitudinal repeated measures design applied to 140 primary schools.
The key findings of the evaluation were that Scheme effectiveness was linked to productive collaboration between Advisory Teachers (ATs), LETs and the NET, and that the influence of the SH was a key factor in successful NET deployment. The practice of deploying the NET across as many classes as possible was found to be ineffective. There were indications that NETs were most effectively deployed at Key Stage One (KS1), although these were inconclusive.
The key recommendations of the 2004-2006 evaluation related to the operation of the PNET Scheme included the following:
1. NETs should attend English Panel Meetings in schools, and should, in conjunction with participating LETs, report on Scheme-related activities including professional development, teaching strategies, co-planning and co-teaching. Professional development should be provided to NETs and LETs to facilitate evidence-based decision making and evaluation.
2. The deployment of the NET should be determined by the needs of the English programme in the school and decided upon by the English Panel in discussions with the EPC and SH.
3. Strategies should be put in place to encourage greater use of English between teachers and students, between students in the class, and between teachers in the school environment.1
4. Participation in professional development activities provided by the NET, the AT and the NET Section should be more actively required of LETs. The professional development activities should focus on instructional intervention in the classroom, targeted instruction, and evaluation.
1.2 Objectives
The objectives of this 22-month evaluation study commissioned by the EDB are to evaluate the effectiveness of the PNET Scheme, identify areas for its improvement, recommend strategies for its enhancement, and inform policymaking regarding the implementation of the Scheme. The study began in January 2015 and concluded in October 2016. The scope of the study includes: student learning and the English learning environment in public sector primary schools in Hong Kong; NETs’ and LETs’ professional development and their collaboration;
English language teaching (i.e. pedagogy and curriculum development); and the deployment of NETs in primary schools.
1.3 Research Questions
The study employs an explanatory sequential mixed-method approach using online surveys followed by case studies to address six main research questions:
1. To what extent and in what ways do key stakeholders believe the PNET Scheme helps to improve primary students’ learning of English?
2. To what extent and in what ways does the PNET Scheme help to enhance the English- speaking environment of the school?
3. To what extent and in what ways does the PNET Scheme help to improve and increase local teachers’ use of English in the classroom and enhance and expand their pedagogical practices?
4. What factors determine effective NET deployment, utilisation, and integration in schools?
5. What factors foster and inhibit NET-LET collaboration according to the various stakeholders?
1 The wording of the recommendations is: “Classroom strategies that encourage student to student, student to teacher and teacher to teacher use of English need to be identified and made mandatory for classes, taking into account the different levels of proficiency of both the local teacher and the students. Immediate action is required in this regard and the role of the AT in identifying these strategies and providing the professional development is central to the success of these strategies.
Local English teachers must be encouraged and rewarded for practising English. Prizes and awards for spoken English usage are needed. The Scheme’s coordination unit should devise ways of monitoring the use of English and this must start with the language medium of the English Panel meetings involving the NET. Regardless of
6. What progress has been made on the key recommendations of the 2007 evaluation report and how might the PNET Scheme and the deployment of NETs be improved in light of economic, demographic, social, and political changes since the previous evaluation?
1.4 Rationale for Research Questions
The majority of the research questions address achievement of the objectives of the PNET Scheme, which are stated in the 2012 NET Deployment Guidelines as follows:
1. To provide an authentic environment for children to learn English
2. To develop children’s interest in learning English and establish the foundation for lifelong learning
3. To work with local teachers to develop the curricula, innovative learning and teaching methods, materials, and activities suited to the needs of local children
4. To disseminate good practices in language learning and teaching through region-based teacher development programmes such as experience sharing seminars/workshops and networking activities.
In addition, the brief for the current evaluation required the research team to refer to the key recommendations of the 2007 evaluation report. These have been summarised and included in Appendix A.
The current evaluation focused in particular on recommendations 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 of the 2007 report. These related to:
2007
Report Recommendation:
Collaboration, co-teaching, and co-planning, and attendance of NETs at English Panel meetings
2
NET deployment 3
Oral language opportunities for teachers and students 6
The role of NETs in English Panel meetings 8
Professional development for LETs 9
Finally, Research Question Six in the current evaluation looks at how the Scheme and the deployment of NETs might be improved in light of economic, demographic, social, and political changes since the previous evaluation. This encompasses recommendation one of the 2007 report, that ‘the EDB should identify the influence of immigration and the changing economic and ethnic profile of the community and its impact on the Scheme’. The following section sets out the research team’s analysis of relevant changes that have guided them in the evaluation.
Relevant economic, demographic, social and political changes which have taken place since
of Melbourne revolve around the continuing move to a service- and knowledge-based economy, the falling birth rate and the aging economy, the increasing socio-economic and political integration of Hong Kong with the People’s Republic of China, and the changing balance of Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Shanghai in terms of regional dominance as financial and commercial hubs.
In the education sector, changes at the school level include increasing levels of fully qualified English teachers entering the profession as a result of the adoption of the recommendations of the Final Report of the Language Education Review undertaken by the Standing Committee for Language Education and Research (SCOLAR, 2003). These recommendations included a proposal that teachers of English should be subject specialists with a degree majoring in English and relevant teacher training. The adoption of the recommendations meant that teachers entering the profession as English teachers needed to have majored in English and obtained training in the teaching of English either as part of a Bachelor of Education degree, or by taking an English major degree and studying a Postgraduate Diploma in Education with English as a major subject. Newly recruited English teachers without these qualifications would be expected to achieve them within five years by undertaking further study and training to obtain the necessary level of English subject expertise and pedagogy. Existing English teachers without these qualifications were also encouraged to undertake the further study and training necessary to obtain them.
During the period, accountability has also increased in the school sector. This is illustrated by the School Development and Accountability (SDA) Framework2 introduced in 2003 under which public sector schools are required to undergo external review on a six-year cycle and upload three-yearly development plans and annual plans for public scrutiny. Further progress in educational reform has also taken place since the 2007 report, with increasing focus on assessment for learning, school-based assessment and e-learning.
While the increasingly service- and knowledge-based orientation of the Hong Kong economy3 would suggest an increasing role for English in the community, the increasing integration of Hong Kong with the Mainland means that this is not necessarily the case. Massive increases in tourists from the Mainland during this period4 have put a greater premium on competence in Putonghua in the service sector. Similarly, increasing numbers of Mainland companies have established footholds in Hong Kong5 putting further value on Putonghua in the workplace. It seems inevitable that the rise of Putonghua will impact on the perceived need for good English among parents and children, though generally a good command of English is still perceived as a gateway to success in Hong Kong and in the global community where English remains the dominant lingua franca.
Hong Kong has one of the lowest fertility rates worldwide. In the period 2011-2015, Macau and Hong Kong jointly hold the lowest birth rates per woman among 211 countries listed in a World Bank survey6. Falling birth rates have meant that enrolment in primary schools has dropped and a number of smaller schools have been closed or amalgamated into larger units.
2 http://edb.gov.hk/en/sch-admin/sch-quality-assurance/sda/index.html
3 http://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/service_economy.pdf
4 77.7% of all tourists in 2014 came from Mainland China
(http://www.tourism.gov.hk/english/statistics/statistics_perform.html)
5 Report on the Annual Survey of Companies in Hong Kong Representing Parent Companies Located outside Hong Kong (http://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B11100042015AN15B0100.pdf) See also
http://www1.investhk.gov.hk/news-item/more-overseas-and-mainland-companies-using-hong-kong-as-their-
The long-term goal7 of the then Education Department was to integrate bi-sessional primary schools (i.e. schools which operated an AM and PM session in the same premises with two separate cohorts of children) into whole-day schools. By 2007, the majority of schools were already operating on a whole-day basis, though a sizeable proportion8 remained bi-sessional, with school premises being used by both the AM and PM sessions, and often with the NET shared between the two sessions. By 2014/15, nearly all government and aided primary schools had been converted to whole-day operation. With the successful amalgamation of bi-sessional primary schools into whole-day schools, 455 primary schools were each served by a NET under the PNET Scheme in 2014/15 compared to 480 in 2007/08.
The increasing socio-economic integration of Hong Kong and the Mainland has meant that increasing numbers of Hong Kong citizens have found employment on the Mainland.
According to the latest Census and Statistics Department survey of Hong Kong residents working in the mainland of China, published in 2011, there has been a steady increase reaching nearly 9% of Hong Kong residents by the third quarter of 20109. Among these are increasing numbers of Hong Kong families that have settled across the boundary. In addition, there has been increasing incidence of cross-boundary marriage (Leung, 2012). These factors have resulted in increasing numbers of cross-boundary students (CBS) – that is children being bussed across the boundary from Shenzhen to be educated in Hong Kong primary schools (Yuen, 2011). In the 2014/15 school year, there were 4403 children newly admitted to Hong Kong primary schools from the Mainland10. Indeed there is increasing evidence that local schools actively seek out CBS in order to boost the falling rolls, which have resulted from the declining birth rate11. There are also increasing numbers of Mainland families settling in Hong Kong and sending their children to Hong Kong primary schools.
Cross-boundary children enrolled in local primary schools contribute to diversity in the student population. These students have diverse family backgrounds (Leung, 2012); they may be the children of Hong Kong citizens who have chosen to live on the Mainland, or of Mainland couples who have given birth in Hong Kong. The added diversity which cross-boundary students bring to the English classroom is varied and generalisations are difficult. Perhaps the most significant impact is on the children themselves. They may have travelled up to two hours before reaching their schools every morning, which may affect their attentiveness in class.
Their long homeward journey may mean that they cannot take advantage of after-school activities to the same extent as local children.
The inclusive education policy, introduced well before the 2007 report, but being more actively implemented since then has also created greater diversity in primary school classes, with the numbers of mainstream primary school children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum disorders, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder doubling in the period since 200712.
7 http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr02-03/english/panels/ed/papers/ed0616cb2-2883-1e.pdf `
8 A representative sample of 131 schools was drawn up for the 2003-2006 evaluation. More than 35% of these schools were bi-sessional.
9 http://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B11301572011XXXXB0100.pdf
10 http://www.edb.gov.hk/en/about-edb/publications-stat/figures/pri.html
11 http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education-community/article/1834136/hong-kong-teachers-sell-their-
1.5 Timeline
A timeline of the evaluation is provided below to give an overview of what has been completed.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW OF SIMILAR PROGRAMMES
While there are quite a number of research articles and edited books on the collaboration of Non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) and Native Speakers (NS), recent large scale evaluation reports of state run programmes that recruit, hire, and place Native Speakers in their public schools are harder to find apart from those conducted in Hong Kong. There are however, several topical reports on small scale surveys conducted in Japan on the Association of JETs (AJET) website (see links in the references). With this in mind, we turned to the research on collaboration of NNESTs and NS, and specifically studies focusing on Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong as well as studies that compare and contrast aspects of English language teaching in these four countries (Carless, 2006; Wang & Lin, 2013), to inform our evaluation plan and alert us to the challenges that may arise and the potential strategies used to address them.
An overview of the programmes that recruit and place foreign English teachers in these four countries, and a comparison of the challenges, benefits, and recommendations found in the literature are presented below, followed by a brief discussion of the relevance these have to the current evaluation. But before proceeding, a word of caution is needed when interpreting this information. Note that when discussing programmes in different countries there are many differences that make a true comparison difficult. Most of the literature discussing programmes in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan discusses the issues in both primary and secondary schools, while some articles about Hong Kong’s Schemes focus on just primary or just secondary. Also, note that differences in policies and in school contexts vary a great deal, and these differences cannot be addressed in a general overview. Readers should be careful not to make hasty generalisations from this overview and are encouraged to refer to the specific articles for further details. This overview is not meant to represent a comprehensive review, but a starting point to identify commonalties and differences across the four programmes and issues pertinent to our evaluation.
2.1 Overview of Similar Programmes
This overview of the literature related to similar programmes in the region includes the Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme (JET Programme), the English Programme in Korea (EPIK), and the Foreign English Teacher Recruitment Project (FETRP) in Taiwan, as well as Hong Kong’s NET Schemes. (See Table 0.1. Overview of Similar Programmes.) Data collection in these studies most often took the form of a case study approach, in which observations of one or more classes or schools were followed by interviews and analysis. Some studies used surveys, or a combination of surveys, observations, and interviews. In addition to these methods, Carless (2006) emailed participants and viewed videotaped class sessions that participants provided when face-to-face observations were not an option. Most of the AJET reports explain the findings of surveys conducted among the JET community, such as
“Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs) as solo teachers” followed by a presentation and discussion of the findings and a list of conclusions. Most issues discussed related to the logistical, pedagogical, and relational aspects of programme implementation and the perceived challenges, benefits, and recommendations for improvement.
The programme in Japan began in the late 1980’s, with Korea and Hong Kong’s programmes launching in the mid and late 90’s respectively, and Taiwan’s starting most recently, in 2008.
2015, with the goal of 6,000 by 2020), Korea had 1,165 teachers in their programme in 2014, and Hong Kong had 858 NETs that same year. The exact number of current foreign teachers in Taiwan’s programme was not found, although they had close to 300 in 2013, with the stated ambitious goal to recruit 3,300. A unique aspect of the JET programme is that it recruits teachers of six different languages—not just English teachers—and is supported by three government ministries. A common stated purpose of all the programmes is to increase the English proficiency of students and a common duty of foreign teachers in all the programmes is to team-teach with local teachers. It appears that only Hong Kong has conducted and published external evaluations. Hong Kong also has the highest standards for recruiting teachers and the most developed professional development support, which extends to local teachers and curriculum development that in many cases requires and supports co-planning and co-teaching. Thus it appears that Hong Kong’s NET Schemes in most cases have higher standards for incoming teachers as well as a more fully developed support system for professional and curriculum development compared to what is found in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.
2.2 Common Challenges
Eleven challenges were identified as issues common to at least two and in most cases all four of the programmes as listed in the table below. Challenges related to the incoming teachers’
lack of qualifications was noted in relation to Japan (Crooks, 2001; Marchesseau, 2014; Wang
& Lin, 2013), Korea (Ahn et al., 1998; Robison et al., 2000), Taiwan (Wang & Lin, 2013), and Hong Kong (Wang & Lin, 2013). Lack of teaching experience was also noted in Japan (Carless, 2006b; Crooks, 2001; Marchesseau, 2014; Rabbini et al. 2003), Korea (Ahn et al., 1998; Carless, 2006b; Wang & Lin, 2013), Taiwan (Carless, 2006b; Wang & Lin, 2013), and Hong Kong (Carless, 2006b; Wang & Lin, 2013). More specifically, lack of team teaching skills was noted in Japan (Carless, 2006b; Crooks, 2001; Rabbini et al. 2003; Wang & Lin, 2013), Korea (Ahn et al., 1998; Carless, 2006b; Wang & Lin, 2013), Taiwan (Luo, 2010; Luo, 2013; Wang & Lin, 2013), and Hong Kong (Carless, 2006b; Griffin et al., 2007; Wang & Lin, 2013) as well a lack of cultural understanding (see the table for specific references). Lack of support for the teachers including lack of adequate time allocated to co-planning with local teachers, overall lack of support for the programme and its stakeholders, and “threatened”
local teachers and “isolated” foreign teachers (see the table for specific references for each of these) demonstrates that the challenges were related to not only the quality of the incoming teachers, but also how they were supported and deployed once in the programmes.
2.3 Common Benefits and Perceived Outcomes
With the dearth of published external evaluations on the programmes in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, it is hard to compare the actual achieved outcomes across all four programmes. Carless (2006b) notes at least five benefits found in two of the programmes (Japan and Hong Kong), namely that the programmes appear to: bring foreigners to needed areas or schools, improve the English proficiency of local teachers, motivate students to learn English, and offer more support to students by having two teachers in the classroom. In the case of Hong Kong, Carless (2006a), Griffin et al., (2007), and Storey et al., (2001) confirm these gains, as well as many others. It is hoped that more external and comparative studies will be conducted to investigate programmes in these and other countries and they will be published so that the full range of benefits and outcomes can be known.
Six recommendations found in the literature were made for at least three, and in most cases all four of the programmes. The first three recommendations are to provide more professional development for collaboration (Crooks, 2001; Rabbini et al., 2003; Robinson, 2000; Luo, 2014; Carless, 2006a; Griffin et al., 2007; Storey et al., 2001), counselling or support for foreign teachers (Crooks, 2001; Rabbini et al., Griffin et al., 2007; Storey et al., 2001), and national support for programme (Crooks, 2001; Robinson, 2000; Chang, 2013). Another recommendation is to follow guidelines that are already in place, although a related challenge is that one size never fits all, and flexibility is needed to cater for the diverse contextual factors facing schools. Seeking expertise from specialists when needed was also noted (Crooks, 2001;
Marchesseau, 2014; Robinson, 2000; Chang, 2013; Luo, 2014; Griffin et al., 2007; Storey et al., 2001). Carless (2006a), Griffin et al., (2007), MA & Ping (2012); Storey et al., (2001) and Trent (2012) recommended that programmes seek out teachers who demonstrate cultural sensitivity, positive attitudes, and openness. Finally, Wang & Lin (2013) recommended that all four programmes remove anti-professional discourse such as “authentic” and “native”
that they state undermines local teachers.
2.5 Relevance to the Current Evaluation
Some of the challenges and recommendations found in these programmes are relevant to the NET Schemes in Hong Kong, but some are not as relevant due to Hong Kong’s colonial past, which provided more exposure to English in Hong Kong compared to Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. The first three recommendations (to provide more professional development for collaboration, increase counselling and support for foreign teachers, and seek out national support for the programmes), are already taking place in Hong Kong, although this speaks to the need to maintain or increase this support. The recommendations to follow guidelines that are in place and/or seek expertise from specialists when needed and to seek out teachers (both NETs and LETs) who demonstrate cultural sensitivity, positive attitudes, and openness are ones the research team underscores. Removing what Wang & Lin (2013) call anti-professional discourse such as “authentic” and “native” that they claim undermines local teachers is one that the EDB might consider.
A final note in comparing the NET Schemes in Hong Kong with similar schemes in the region, including Japan, Korea and Taiwan, is that it appears that only Hong Kong had conducted and published external evaluations on its NET Schemes. In addition, Hong Kong’s NET Schemes had a more fully developed support system for professional and curriculum development.
Table 0.1.
Overview of similar programmes
Issue Japan JET Korea EPIK Taiwan FETRP Hong Kong NET
Overview of the four programmes Start date
number of foreign teachers
1987: start date
2015: 4,786 from 43 countries
2020 goal = 6,000
1995: start date
2014: 1,165 2008: start date
2013: ~300
goal=3,300 one in each prim &
1998: (E)NET started
2002: PNET started
2014: 455 PNETs
Uniqueness of the programme
Supported by 3 govt.
ministries and managed by 1 govt.
council, CLAIR
Apply through Japanese embassy
Not just English, 6 total languages
Most from US
placed in rural areas
Launched by MoE for ed reform in foreign language learning and globalisation
May reduce the qualifications so they can get more applications
Launched to enhance English environment of schools.
Has highest teacher qualifications,
Conducted external evaluations
Terms used for foreign and local teachers
90% ALTs: Assistant language teachers.
10% CIR, Coordinator for International Relations,
a few SEA, Sports Exchange Advisors.
ELIs: English language instructors
NESTs AT
LET
NET
PNET
Stated purpose Increase cultural understanding
Improve foreign language proficiency
Move toward CLT
Improve English Proficiency of Ss and Ts
X-Cult exchange
Reform methods
Upgrade English proficiency of Taiwanese
(see website, as PNET and ENET differ.)
Duties: Team teach
Assist JTE in teaching
PD of local teachers
Team teach
Develop materials
PD of local teachers
Team teach
Develop materials
PD of local teachers
Team teach
Promote innovative teaching practices
Organise co- curricular activities
Develop materials and an English-rich environment
PD of local teachers Recruitment
criteria
BA? Yes
Teaching Exp? No
Teaching Qual? No
Interest in Japan? Yes
Excellent English skills? Yes
BA? Yes
Teaching Exp?
No
Teaching Qual?
No
Adapt to K? Yes
Citizen? Yes
BA? Yes
Teaching Exp?
Preferred
Teaching Qual?
Yes (may lower)
NS equivalent?
Yes
BA? Yes (except for Cat.5)
Teaching Exp?
Preferred
Teaching Qual? Yes
NS equivalent? Yes Some common challenges found in the literature
Lack of clarity and understanding of NETs’ role
Crooks, 2001
Mahoney, 2004
Marchesseau, 2014
Rabbini et al., 2003
Carless, 2006b Carless, 2006b
Griffin et al., 2007
Storey et al., 2001 Lack of team
teaching skills of NETs and LETs
Carless, 2006b
Crooks, 2001
Rabbini et al., 2003
Wang & Lin, 2013
Ahn et al., 1998
Carless, 2006b
Wang & Lin, 2013
Luo, 2010
Luo, 2013
Wang & Lin, 2013
Carless, 2006b
Griffin et al., 2007
Wang & Lin, 2013 Lack of time to
co-plan with local teachers
Carless, 2006b
Mahoney, 2004 Carless, 2006b Luo, 2010 Carless, 2006b
Griffin et al., 2007 Lack of support
from programme or stakeholders
Carless, 2006b
Crooks, 2001
Wang & Lin, 2013
Carless, 2006b
Robinson, 2000
Wang & Lin, 2013
Chang, 2013
Luo, 2010
Wang & Lin, 2013
Carless, 2006b
Wang & Lin, 2013
NETs lack of teaching experience
Carless, 2006b
Crooks, 2001
Marchesseau, 2014
Rabbini et al., 2003
Ahn et al., 1998
Carless, 2006b
Wang & Lin, 2013
Carless, 2006b
Wang & Lin, 2013
Carless, 2006b
Wang & Lin, 2013
NETs lack of knowledge of host language and culture
Carless, 2006b Ahn et al., 1998
Carless, 2006b
Robinson, 2000
Carless, 2006b Carless, 2006b
NETs lack of teaching qualifications
Crooks, 2001
Marchesseau, 2014
Wang & Lin, 2013
Ahn et al., 1998
Robinson, 2000 Wang & Lin, 2013 Wang & Lin, 2013 Hostile or
threatened LETs
Crooks, 2001
Samuels, 2008
Wang & Lin, 2013
Ahn et al., 1998
Robinson, 2000
Wang & Lin, 2013
Wang & Lin, 2013
Chang, 2013
Wu, 2009
Trent, 2012
Wang & Lin, 2013
NETs feeling isolated
Marchesseau, 2014
Samuels, 2008
Griffin et al., 2007
Storey et al., 2001 Mismatch of goals
of lifelong learning, etc. vs.
exam focus
Crooks, 2001
Marchesseau, 2014 Griffin et al., 2007
Storey et al., 2001
Benefits and achieved outcomes Brings foreigners
to needed areas or schools
Carless, 2006b
Samuels, 2008 Carless, 2006b Carless, 2006b Carless, 2006a
Carless, 2006b
Griffin et al., 2007 LETs improved
English proficiency
Luo, 2014 Carless, 2006a
Griffin et al., 2007
Storey et al., 2001 LETs exposed to
pedagogical practices
Carless, 2006b Carless, 2006a
Carless, 2006b
Griffin et al., 2007
Storey et al., 2001 Students more
motivated and enjoyed English
Carless, 2006b Luo, 2014 Carless, 2006a
Carless, 2006b
Griffin et al., 2007
Storey et al., 2001 2 Ts offer more
support for Ss
Carless, 2006b Carless, 2006a
Carless, 2006b
Griffin et al., 2007 Recommendations
Professional development needed for collaboration
Crooks, (2001
Rabbini et al., 2003 Robinson, 2000 Luo 2014 (TESL Cert needed.)
Carless, 2006a
Griffin et al., 2007
Storey et al., 2001 Counselling for
NETs needed
Crooks, (2001)
Rabbini et al., 2003 Robinson, 2000 Griffin et al., 2007
Storey et al., 2001 More national
support needed
Crooks, (2001) Robinson, 2000 Chang, 2013 Guidelines and
expertise from specialists needs to be followed
Crooks, (2001)
Marchesseau, 2014
Rabbini et al., 2003
Chang, 2013
Luo, 2014 (all stakeholders involved in reform)
Griffin et al., 2007
Storey et al., 2001
Cultural Carless, 2006b Carless, 2006b Carless, 2006b Carless, 2006b
and openness needed in teachers
Storey et al., 2001
Trent, 2012 Remove of
“authentic”
“Native” needed13
Wang & Lin, 2013 Wang & Lin, 2013
Wang & Lin, 2013 Wang & Lin, 2013
2.6 Selected References of English Language Schemes in Region
Japan
Adam, K. (2010). Five keys to improving assistant language teacher and Japanese teacher relations on the JET Program. Reitaku Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 18(2), 1-9.
Associate for Japan Exchange and Teaching (AJET). (2014a). AJET Activities and Service Review. Retrieved from
http://ajet.net/downloads/reports/2014/AJET_Activities_and_Services_ENG.pdf Associate for Japan Exchange and Teaching (AJET). (2014b). Assistant language teachers as
solo teachers. Retrieved from
http://ajet.net/downloads/reports/2014/ALTs_as_Solo_Educators_ENG.pdf
Browne, C., & Wada, M. (1998). Current issues in high school English teaching in Japan: An exploratory study. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 11(1), 97-112.
The Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme Promotional Video (2015). Retrieved from http://jetprogramme.org/ja/ (In Japanese)
http://jetprogramme.org/en/ (In English)
Crooks, A. (2001). Professional development and the JET Program: Insights and solutions based on the Sendai City Program. Japan Association for Language Teaching Journal, 23(1), 31-46.
Gorsuch, G. (2002). Assistant foreign language teachers in Japanese high schools: Focus on the hosting of Japanese teachers. Japan Association for Language Teaching Journal, 24, 5-32.
Mahoney, S. (2004). Role controversy among teachers in the JET Programme. Japan Association for Language Teaching Journal, 26, 223-244.
Meerman, A. (2003). The impact of foreign instructors on lesson content and student learning in Japanese junior and senior high schools. Asia Pacific Education Review 4, 97-107.
Marchesseau, G. (2014). “Assistant language teachers” as a catalyst for communicative competence in Japan: Policy and outcomes regarding the “JET Program”.
Proceedings of CLaSIC 2014: Knowledge, Skills and Competencies in Foreign Language Education, 300-309.
McConnell, D. L. (1996). Education for global integration in Japan: A case study of the JET Program. Human Organization, 55, 446-457.
Nakatsugawa, M. (2014). I am the icing on the cake: Classroom-based research on the roles of teachers in the JET Program. Research Bulletin of English Teaching, 11, 1-26.
13 The research team would like to draw attention to the fact that the Scheme employs a nomenclature that recent thinking on the development of English as an InternationalLanguage and English as a Lingua Franca would find unacceptable (see Copland, Davis, Garton, & Mann, 2016a; Wang & Lin, 2013). For example, use of the term “authentic” in referring to an English environment or communication in which a native speaker is involved, might imply that the use of English between multilingual speakers whose first language is not English is somehow not authentic. A more obvious example is the term “NET” which although its full form is ‘native English-speaking teacher’ rather than ‘native speaker’, nevertheless implies the latter term. “NET Scheme” is a very familiar term in Hong Kong, for educators internationally, however it carries a ‘native speaker’ bias, which
Rabbini, R., Yamashita, T., Ibaraki, T., & Nonaka, T. (2003). To reform or not to reform: In- service training on the JET Program. Shizuoka Conference Proceedings, 200-208.
Samuels, C. (2008). The JET Program: Promises, problems and an uncertain future. SOPHIA TESOL FORUM: Working Papers in TESOL, 1, 60-68.
Tsurutani, C. (2012). Evaluation of speakers with foreign-accented speech in Japan: The effect of accent produced by English native speakers. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33, 589-603.
Korea
Ahn, S., Park, M., Ono, S., 1998. A comparative study of the EPIK program and the JET program. English Teaching 53, 241–267.
Carless, D. (2004). The deployment of English native-speakers in state school systems:
Comparative perspectives. Conference proceedings of 2002 Kotesol conference.
Seoul: Kotesol.
Choi, Y. (2001). Suggestions for the re-organisation of English teaching program by native speakers in Korea. English Teaching 56, 101–122.
Jeon, M. (2009). Globalization and native English speakers in English Programme in Korea (EPIK). Language Culture and Curriculum, 22, 231-243.
Jeon, M. (2010). Globalization and South Korea’s EPIK (English Programme in Korea). In V. Viniti (Ed.), Globalization of language and culture in Asia (pp. 161-179). London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group.
EPIK Program home page. (2014). Retrieved from
http://www.niied.go.kr/eng/contents.do?contentsNo=98&menuNo=369
Robinson, K. (2000). Comings and goings: Considerations and reflections on the English Program in Korea (EPIK). MA TESOL Collection, Paper 420.
Wang, L. Y., & Lin, T. B. (2013). The representation of professionalism in native English- speaking teachers recruitment policies: A comparative study of Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 12(3), 5-22.
Taiwan
Chang, C. W. (2013). Exploring the beliefs of native and non-native English speaking kindergarten teachers in Taiwan. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2(5), 3-16.
Luo, W. H. (2007). A study of native English-speaking teacher programs in elementary schools in Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Education Review, 8, 311-320.
Luo, W. H. (2010). Collaborative teaching of EFL by native and non-native English-speaking teachers in Taiwan. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST lens: Non-native English speakers in TESOL (pp. 263-284). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Luo, W. H. (2013). A study of discourse in relation to language learning in English classes co-taught by native English-speaking teachers and local teachers in Taiwan. English Language Teaching, 6(7), 96-109.
Luo, W. H. (2014). An inquiry into a collaborative model of teaching English by native English-speaking teachers and local teachers. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23, 735-743.
Wu, S. W. (2006). A study of the views of EFL university English-major students and native English-speaking teachers towards conversation classes in Taiwan. Journal of
National Formosa University, 25, 95-104.
Wu, K. H., & Ke, C. (2009). Haunting native speakerism? Students’ perceptions toward native speaking English teachers in Taiwan. English Language Teaching, 2(3), 44-52.
Hong Kong
Boyle, J. (1997). Native-speaker teachers of English in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 11(3), 163-181.
Carless, D. (2006a). Collaborative ESL teaching in primary schools. ELT Journal 6 (4), 328- 335.
Chu, C. K., & Morrison, K. (2011). Cross-cultural adjustment of Native-speaking English Teachers (NETs) in Hong Kong: A factor in attrition and retention. Educational Studies, 37, 481-501.
Forrester, V., & Lok, B. (2008). Native English teachers in Hong Kong: Building communities of practice? Asian Social Science, 4(5), 3-11.
Griffin, P., & Woods, K. (2009). Evaluation of the Enhanced Native-speaking English Teacher Scheme in Hong Kong Secondary Schools.
Griffin, P., Woods, K., Storey, P., Wong E. K. P., & Fung W. Y. W. (2007). Evaluation of the Native-speaking English Teacher Scheme for Primary Schools in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau. (2010). Enhanced Native-speaking English Teacher (NET) Scheme in Secondary Schools. Retrieved from
http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_2076/edbcm10081e.pdf.
Lai, M. L. (1999). JET and NET: A comparison of native-speaking English teachers schemes in Japan and Hong Kong. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 12(3), 215-228.
Luk, J. (2001). Exploring the sociocultural implications of the Native English-Speaker Teacher Scheme in Hong Kong through the eyes of the students. Asia Pacific Journal of Language in Education, 4, 19-49.
Ma, L.P.F. (2012). Advantages and disadvantages of native- and nonnative-English-speaking teachers: Student perceptions in Hong Kong. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 280-305.
Storey, P., Luk, J., Gray, J., Wang-Kho, E., Lin, A., & Berry R. (2001). Monitoring and evaluation of the Native-speaking English Teacher Scheme. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education.
Sung, C. C. M. (2010). Native or non-native? Exploring Hong Kong students’ perspectives.
Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 4, 1-18.
Sung, C. C. M. (2011). Chinese parents in Hong Kong err in their perceptions of racial background and the native speaker of English. English Today, 27(3), 25-29.
Sung, C. C. M. (2014). An exploratory study of Hong Kong students’ perceptions of native and non-native English-speaking teachers in ELT. Asian Englishes, 16(1), 32-46.
Trent, J. (2012). The discursive positioning of teachers: Native-speaking English teachers and educational discourse in Hong Kong. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 104-126.
Trent, J., Gao, X. S., & Gu, M. Y. (2014). Identity construction in a foreign land: Native- speaking English teachers and the contestation of teacher identities in Hong Kong schools. Language Teacher Education in a Multilingual Context, 6, 137-157.
Walker, E. (2001). Roles of native-speaker English teachers (NETs) in Hong Kong secondary schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Language in Education, 4(2), 51-77.
Comparative studies
Carless, D. R. (2006b). Good practices in team teaching in Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong. System 34, 341-351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.02.001
Wang, L. Y., & Lin, T. B. (2013). The representation of professionalism in native English- speaking teachers recruitment policies: A comparative study of Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 12(3), 5-22.
3. QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS, AND RESULTS
3.1 Preparation for Quantitative Phase
The research team developed eight questionnaires and several supporting documents including survey instructions, informed consent forms, and templates of circulars to notify and seek permission from parents. These instruments were revised by each member of the team and were further edited by members of the NET Section who were asked to comment on drafts.
3.1.1 Preparation of Quantitative Instruments and IRB Approval
IRB Approval
Institutional Research Board (IRB) approval was provided by Azusa Pacific University on 22 February 2015. All seven Research Team members successfully completed the online course of the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) for the protection of human subjects and signed and submitted Potential Conflict of Interest Disclosure forms as required by Azusa Pacific University.
Data Collection Instruments
The Questionnaires (See Appendix E)
1. The School Head Questionnaire (SHQ) has 37 main questions and 66 sub-questions. The SHQ was designed to investigate the management perspective and collect information on the background of the school, students, and teachers, as well as the activities and opinions of the SH regarding several aspects related to the PNET Scheme including how effectively the Scheme works at their school. The online questionnaire consists of six sections. The first section has preliminaries, which include the name and purpose of the study, the institutions of the researchers, who commissioned the study, and the objectives of the study.
A statement noting that participation in the study is voluntary is followed by a list of the possible risks and a description of how the researchers will maintain the respondent’s confidentiality. This section concludes with information as to who to contact if they have questions and a place to indicate their consent. The questions are arranged in five sections, with the name of the section and the number of main questions in each part provided here:
Background: 17; Activities: 4, Effectiveness: 5; Opinions: 4; and Description: 7.
2. The Native English Teacher Questionnaire (NETQ) has 48 main questions and 113 sub- questions. The NETQ seeks to obtain the NET perspective on the operation of the Scheme, with several of the questions cross-referenced to items in the SH and LET questionnaires to facilitate triangulation. The preliminaries and five sections are similar to the SHQ described above, with the following number of main questions in each part: Background:
12; Activities: 17; Effectiveness: 9; Opinions: 3; and Description: 7.
3. The Local English Teacher Questionnaire (LETQ) has 46 questions and 113 sub- questions. The LETQ seeks to obtain the LET perspective on the operation of the Scheme, with several of the questions cross-referenced to items in the SH and NET questionnaires
