Summary of the Study

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION

This chapter provides conclusions of the study, pedagogical implications and suggestions for future research. A summary of the study is first presented. Then, conclusions of the study will be specified. What follows then is pedagogical implications derived from the study. Finally, suggestions for future research will be provided.

Summary of the Study

The study aimed to construct a set of principles for English talented curriculum development and a set of criteria for English talented program evaluation through a series of the Delphi survey, in which twenty experts were to respond to the questionnaire based on their expertise and experience of TESOL, special education, curriculum development and program evaluation. The study went through five stages, including the planning stage, data collection stage, principles establishment and transformation stage, criteria validation stage and finalization stage. There were five rounds of the Delphi survey conducted, three rounds for establishing principles for English talented curriculum development, two for establishing criteria for English talented program evaluation. After the three rounds of survey for establishing curriculum development principles, the experts’ opinions on the 119 principles had been convergent. Based on the importance value assigned to each principle, these principles were categorized into three groups—principles of primary importance, principles of secondary importance, and principles of tertiary importance. Then these principles were transformed into criteria for English talented program evaluation.

Together with another 21 newly added criteria, a set of criteria for English talented

program evaluation was established. Likewise, the 140 criteria were categorized into

three groups—criteria of primary importance, criteria of secondary importance, and

criteria of tertiary importance. After a comparison between principle importance and criteria importance and analyses of the differences, final sets of principles for English talented curriculum development and criteria for English talented program evaluation were finalized. With the two sets of principles and criteria, school teachers and administrators have a specific and tangible guide to accomplish such formidable tasks of developing an English talented curriculum and conducting an English talented program evaluation without resorting to experts outside of the school.

Conclusions

Conclusions will be presented in two parts. The first part provides answers to the research questions. The second part proffers more insights from the study.

Answers to the Research Questions

In the first chapter of this study, there were three research questions the study aimed to answer. The answers are proposed as follows.

Research Question 1: What should be the principles for developing a curriculum for English talented students?

In developing an English talented curriculum, there are six components to take

care of, including Needs Analysis, Goals and Objectives, Materials and Resources,

Courses and Teaching, Test and Assessment, and Evaluation. Each component

encompasses several domains with numbers of principles. In the component of Needs

Analysis, there are four domains which address assessment of learners’, teachers’,

parents’, and administrators’ needs and perception of the program respectively with

16 principles. In the component of Goals and Objectives, there are three domains,

including goals and objectives of the program and conveyance of them. These three

domains contain 18 principles. The third component, Materials and Resources,

encompasses five domains, which deal with teacher-guided teaching materials,

student self-study materials, human resources, financial resources, and facility resources. There are 24 principles in this component. The fourth component caters to Courses and Teaching, which encompasses the most domains and principles. There are seven domains, including application of differentiated teaching methods, and skills, common core curriculum, special courses on English, second foreign language learning, other curricular variations, teacher preparation, and administration preparation for the program. There are 40 principles in this component, many of which differentiate a gifted/talented curriculum from a regular curriculum. The fifth component, Test and Assessment, include two domains, that is, specification and identification of the gifted and application of differentiated ways of assessment with 12 principles. The last component, Program Evaluation, contains only one domain, implementation of evaluation, with 9 principles. The 119 principles are as shown in Table 5.13. By following these principles, every component of a curriculum would be substantiated, which in turn contributes to a full-fledged, comprehensive and theory-grounded curriculum for English talented curriculum.

Based on the importance value assigned to the principles, these principles were further categorized into three groups of different importance values. The principles of primary importance, totally 101 in number, play an essential role in developing a special program for English talented students. It is recommended that all these principles be incorporated into the curriculum to ensure the completeness and comprehensiveness of an English talented curriculum.

The 12 principles of secondary importance and 6 principles of tertiary

importance are optional, depending on the individual situation the school is in. These

principles deal with students’ needs for learning other subjects, learning second

foreign languages, and their needs related to overall learning. Besides, parent factors,

including parents’ expectations of the students and of the program, their awareness of

their share of responsibilities in educating the gifted, students’ learning outcomes corresponding to parents’ expectations of the program and resources, and assistance from parents, also belong to principles of secondary importance. If these parental factors can be catered to, teachers may gain extra resources and assistance from parents. Besides, when there is any discrepancy arising between the expected and the reality, it is easier for teacher to intervene and communicate once they have knowledge of all these parent factors. Principles dealing with native speakers as teachers, provision of second foreign language courses and multiple choices of second language courses are also principles of secondary importance. This suggests that if resources for the arrangement of native speakers as teachers, and second foreign language courses are not available or hard to procure, there is no need to adhere to these principles for their own sake. This is also the case with the arrangement of extended advanced programs on weekends or vacations, another principle of secondary importance. Again, if there are enough resources, the application of these principles would add variety to the curriculum. If, on the other hand, these principles fail to be incorporated for a lack of resources, such arrangements would not detract from the value and worth of the curriculum.

There are another six principles of tertiary importance, which cater to

arrangement of advanced courses of English grammar, application of collaborative

learning techniques, connection with literature, art, music, social studies, and other

relevant areas of study, emphasis on bibliotherapy, arrangement of overseas study

tours, and procurement of man power from community. These principles are so

categorized not because they are unimportant, but because they either failed to garner

enough support from the experts or they evoked quite extreme responses from the

experts. When incorporating principles of tertiary importance into the curriculum,

more communication and prior training for teachers who are involved would be

required so that undesirable tension and misunderstanding can be averted beforehand.

Research Question 2: What is the relation between principles for curriculum development and criteria for program evaluation?

One of the six components of a curriculum is program evaluation. Without this component, a curriculum is incomplete. The component is like “the glue that connects and holds all the elements together” (Brown, 1989: 217). The purpose of program evaluation is to assess a program’s merit or worth, to improve the program or to make judgment of the program (Stufflebeam, 2001; Shandish, 1994). To evaluate a program, a set of criteria would help to alleviate the pressure of the evaluators and enhance objectivity of the evaluation results. The set of criteria for evaluating English talented programs can be transformed from the set of principles for developing English talented curriculum through a transformation mechanism composing a Transformation Rule, four Filters and additional criteria for evaluation (See Figure 3.3 on p. 90) as proposed in this study. With a few more criteria added, a set of criteria for evaluating English talented programs under the CIPP model are thus established.

Such a transformational relationship between the curriculum development principles and the program evaluation criteria was built upon a contention that what is infused into the curriculum should be examined at the stage of evaluation. If a certain principle that is emphasized in the stage of curriculum development, then it stands to reason that the achievement of this principle would work as a criterion, based on which an evaluation can be conducted. Therefore, all the points of examination would function as criteria for evaluation. Such a transformational relationship confirms the belief that curriculum development and program evaluation are not separate and irrelevant educational activities (Brown, 1995). In fact, these two are interrelated.

Program evaluation should be built upon curriculum development, which in turn,

should be modified based on the results of program evaluation.

Research Question 3: What should be the criteria for evaluating programs for English talented students?

One hundred nineteen criteria transformed from principles for English talented curriculum development along with another 21 newly added criteria formed a set of 140 criteria for English talented program evaluation that help evaluators make a comprehensive program evaluation under the CIPP model. The 119 principles, once transformed, were rearranged into four categories of evaluation, including Context Evaluation, Input Evaluation, Process Evaluation, and Product Evaluation. The newly added 21 criteria were also categorized into Context Evaluation and Product Evaluation (See Table 5.15 on pp. 202-204).

Like principles for English talented curriculum development, these criteria for English talented program evaluation were categorized into three groups of different importance values. In the category of Context Evaluation, there are 39 criteria of primary importance, 8 criteria of secondary importance, and 4 criteria of tertiary importance, on which evaluators can rely to conduct evaluation of the context of an English talented program. In the category of Input Evaluation, there are 32 criteria of primary importance, 5 criteria of secondary and 4 criteria of tertiary importance.

Evaluators may rely on these criteria to conduct evaluation of the input of an English

talented program. In the category of Process Evaluation, there are 33 criteria of

primary importance, one criterion of secondary importance, and one criterion of

tertiary importance. Evaluators may rely on these criteria to conduct evaluation of the

process of an English talented program. In the category of Product Evaluation, there

are 17 criteria of primary importance, 4 criteria of secondary importance, and 2

criteria of tertiary importance. Based on these criteria, evaluators come to conduct

evaluation of the product of an English talented program.

Altogether, there are 111 criteria of primary importance, 101 of which were transformed from the principles and 10 of which were newly added. Like principles of primary importance, these criteria command attention from the evaluators in evaluating an English talented program. As for the eighteen criteria of secondary importance and eleven criteria of tertiary importance, if their corresponding principles are incorporated into curriculum development, then these criteria would have to come into effect too.

More Insights from the Study

The results from the study also render some insights with regard to implementing an English talented curriculum and conducting evaluation of an English talented program. These additional findings, together with answers to the three research questions, enable educators to see English talented curriculum development and program evaluation in the best light and assist educators to achieve desirable results when undertaking such an enterprise of English talented curriculum.

Insight 1. That the component of evaluation is an indispensable part of

curriculum development is not widely perceived by teachers. The awareness of the

indispensability of evaluation should be raised among teachers. Curriculum

development and program evaluation are mistaken by many as unrelated educational

activities. In fact, as Brown (1995) pointed out, program evaluation plays a very

important role in curriculum development. It connects and holds all the other

components together like glue. Its importance cannot be overemphasized. However,

such an important role of program evaluation was not recognized by teachers. As is

shown by the results of the study, the high school teacher panel of experts

demonstrated a less supportive attitude than their professor counterparts regarding

conducting periodical evaluations of the program. But later at the second stage of survey on constructing criteria for English talented program evaluation, the teacher experts changed to hold a more supportive attitude toward conducting periodical evaluations of the program. Such change of attitude suggested that it takes time to convey to teachers the idea that conducting periodical evaluations of a program is an important activity if the program is to be made better. Program evaluation is not something monstrous that is meant to bring pressure to school teachers or administrators. Instead, program evaluation is an activity whose final goal is to determine the worth and value of a program, to help evaluators to make decisions, either to improve the program or to make judgment on the program (Worthen et al., 1997; Stufflebeam, 2001; Stufflebeam and Shankfiled, 1985; Weir and Roberts, 1994;

Preedy, 2001). When the evaluation is the result of the school’s own initiative, it stimulates a commitment among staff, which in turn, guarantees findings and recommendations to be acted upon (McCormick and James, 1990).

Insight 2. Components of a language program for gifted students deserve more attention from teachers. Components of a language program for the gifted include reading and the study of literature, bibliotherapy, exploitation of library, creative writing, linguistics (i.e., the study of the language), oral communication, and foreign langue learning (VanTassel-Baska, 1994b, 1994c). The components of reading, creative writing, oral communication, exploitation of library were considered very important by the experts in the study. The importance of inclusion of literature study was doubted by some experts, suggesting such importance is not widely recognized.

The study of literature is not an activity reserved for students who are interested in

literature or in majoring in literature in the future. The study of literature offers

different channels and perspectives to approach the world, to reflect on life and to

gain insights to human understanding (Passow, 1996; Taylor, 1996). Even for students

who decide not to major in literature in college, or who are not really interested in literature, they should also be exposed to literature works. The study of literature in an English talented curriculum is a means, rather than an end. It provides good exercise of thinking skills (Thompson, 1995) and exposure of a “great depository of life experience” (Passow, 1996). It is a great pity that the great value of literature study was not fully recognized.

Another component that is not given due importance is the study of language, that is, the study of grammar. Grammar is not limited to merely syntactic structures. In fact, it describes everything in using the language, including morphology, phonetics, phonology, semantics, discourse analysis, and pragmatics. Anything that relates to maintenance of good and effective communication relates to grammar (Lock, 1996;

Richards 1985a, 1985b). The better the students get to know the language, the better command of the language they develop. However, once grammar is stigmatized with boring and useless sentence structure analysis by teachers, it would be hard for them to be willing to incorporate more of it into their teaching. Then students are denied a chance to approach the language from a more analytical way to become linguistically facile so as to develop proficient use of language (VanTassel-Baska, 1994b, 1994c).

Bibliotherapy is also one of the components that were not given due attention.

The benefits from bibliotherapy for the gifted have been proved (Webb et al., 1982;

Halsted, 1988), including providing insights and inspiration for the gifted. However,

partly due to the experts’ unfamiliarity with the term, and partly due to its being

suggestive of medical treatment, the application of bibliotherapy was not widely

supported by the experts. Therefore, if bibilotherapy is to be emphasized in an English

talented curriculum, it definitely would require more prior communication and

preparation on the teachers’ part so that they may feel comfortable in incorporating

this component in the curriculum.

Insight 3. Not all the principles are taken equally important, and neither are the criteria. As is shown by the results of the study, all the principles for English talented curriculum development and criteria for English talented program evaluation are categorized into three groups of different importance values. For the principles of primary importance and criteria of primary importance, it is essential that they all be incorporated into the curriculum. The inclusion of principles of secondary importance and tertiary importance would depend on the specific situation a school is in. If resources are available, the more principles are incorporated, the better it is. Then variety would be added to the curriculum. When a certain principle of secondary or tertiary importance is incorporated in developing the curriculum, its correspondent criterion should be included in the list of evaluation criteria to ensure evaluation validity.

Insight 4. It is of vital importance to strike a balance between practical and theoretical concerns. College professors and high school teachers in the study held different viewpoints concerning certain principles and criteria, which suggests different backgrounds and experiences would have an influence on the perception of the principles and criteria. As is shown in the analysis of such divergence of opinions between the professor group and the teacher group, the collective opinions from the professor group reveal more attention to theoretical concerns, while on the other hand, the collective opinions from the teacher group demonstrate more attention to practical concerns. One best way to handle such divergence is that teachers’ concerns for practicality should be respected and that theoretical concerns should be conveyed to teachers who are involved in the curriculum.

Insight 5. The Delphi technique can fulfill both quantitative and qualitative

functions. The merits of the Delphi technique are not limited to the consensus

reached among the experts. Its merits also include the qualitative feature of experts’

opinions in the minority. The Delphi technique has been successfully adopted in studies concerning criteria establishment, prioritizing principles, seeking opinion consensus, and identifying similarities and differences among groups of experts (Judd, 1972; Killian, 1993; Gyphert and Gant, 1971; Goodwin, 1987; Thomas, 1990;

Woudenberg, 1991; Tsao, 2007; Ni, 2007; Jiang, 2007). Most studies applied the Delphi survey as a quantitative research methodology. To make the most of the Delphi technique, not only are the quantitative data from the survey informative and useful, but the qualitative feature of opinions in the minority can provide revealing information. Not only is the consensus reached through the survey important, but the divergent opinions among experts are important. Besides, when a certain statement does not evoke convergent opinions from the experts, an appropriate way to deal with such a statement is not to eliminate it from the list as many studies do (Jiang, 2007;

Tsao, 2007), but to reserve the statement for further discussion and analysis as to why convergent opinions can not be garnered regarding this particular statement. By doing so, the Delphi technique can fulfill both quantitative and qualitative functions and provide a more comprehensive analysis of a certain phenomenon.

Insight 6. To group principles based on their importance values is more

meaningful than to make out an order of importance values. In applying the

Delphi technique, the order of importance based on the mean score is very often a

finding of the survey (Jiang, 2007; Tsao, 2007, Ni, 2007). However, the mean scores

of the judged statements or principles are usually so close that the difference between

them does not reach the level of significance. As a result, such an order does not mean

as much as it is meant to be. One way to manifest the difference of importance value

without making insignificant order of importance is to categorize the statements (or

principles) into different groups according to the median, the interquartile range and

other statistics like the way the principles and criteria in the present study are dealt

with. Grouping statements is more meaningful than making out the order of importance in two ways. For one thing, grouping avoids conveying a false message that certain statements are more important than others, but in fact, the difference between them is insignificant. For another, grouping provides a way to handle statements that are not given convergent opinions, which may be lumped together to form a group and reserved for further discussion.

Pedagogical Implications

The study aimed at establishing a set of principles for English talented curriculum development, verifying the relation between principles for English talented curriculum and criteria for English talented program evaluation, and consolidating such a set of criteria. The results and findings from the study bear the following pedagogical implications.

First of all, English talented curriculum development can be a school-based arrangement. It does not take a standardized form for all the schools to conform to. In fact, different schools have different resources available. What each school should do when developing an English talented curriculum is to make the most of whatever resource it can procure to infuse into the curriculum as well as to make certain that principles of primary importance will be fulfilled. If what is mentioned in principles of secondary and tertiary importance is hard to procure or more than can be afforded, it is alright for the schools to do without these principles. After all, exclusion of these principles would not detract from the appropriateness and worth of the curriculum.

Rather, inclusion of these principles adds variety to the curriculum.

Second, to prepare teachers with knowledge and abilities to develop

school-based talented curricula, more training on curriculum development, gifted

education and program evaluation for teachers is necessary. Seminars or workshops

provide good opportunities for teachers to enrich knowledge and expertise in these fields. Incentives can be offered to teachers who take in-service training courses on these fields. Teacher training programs can also incorporate courses on these fields.

When enough teachers in a school are equipped with prerequisite knowledge and expertise in curriculum development, gifted education, and program evaluation, to develop a talented curriculum and to conduct a talented program evaluation would not have to rely on outsiders, and the tension and pressure thus caused may cease to exist.

Third, among all the evaluation models, the CIPP model is an appropriate model for evaluating English talented programs. As is shown in the present study, all the principles in the six components of curriculum development can be transformed into criteria for program evaluation and categorized and fit into the CIPP model. This very fact indicates that the CIPP model and the six components of curriculum development are compatible to a very large extent, which in turn suggests the appropriateness of CIPP model for educational program evaluation. Besides, the CIPP model encompasses four evaluations, the Context Evaluation, the Input Evaluation, the Process Evaluation, and the Product Evaluation, which altogether cover the whole process of program implementation. By taking the CIPP model, evaluators do not have to wait for the program to end to evaluate. The evaluation can be initiated from the Context Evaluation on day one as the program starts. Then, as the program proceeds, the evaluation process may move on to the Input Evaluation, then the Process Evaluation, and then finally the Product Evaluation. When a certain evaluation is conducted, say Input Evaluation, and some criteria are found to be not fulfilled, then modification and adjustment can be made instantaneously so as not to impede the subsequent evaluations. In a sense, CIPP fulfills functions of formative and summative evaluations (Stufflebeam and Shinkfield, 1985; Worthen et al., 1997).

Fourth, school teachers and administrators can make eligible evaluators.

Curriculum development and program evaluation should not be treated as unrelated activities given that principles for curriculum development can be transformed into criteria for program evaluation. However, in the current situation, these two activities are mostly conducted by two different groups of people, curriculum development being accomplished by school teachers or administrators, program evaluation being conducted by experts from outside of the school. Such being the case, school teachers and administrators are usually under tremendous pressure when their program is to be evaluated by outsiders who may not have any idea of the program (Worthen et al., 1997). Given such interrelated relation between curriculum development and program evaluation, both the roles of curriculum developers and program evaluators can be taken by school teachers and administrators. Being insiders, the pressure resulting in evaluation by outsiders can be lessened or prevented (Worthen et al., 1997). With a ready-made set of criteria for evaluation, the supposed impartial judgments by insiders can thus be nipped in the bud.

Limitations of the Study

There are certain limitations pertaining to the study. They are as follows.

1. The study was delimited to the establishment of principles for English talented curriculum development and criteria for evaluating such programs in senior high schools in Taiwan.

2. The study was delimited to experts in Taiwan, including college professors in the fields of TESOL, special education and education in general, and teachers teaching in public senior high schools, majoring in either TESOL or special education.

3. The study was delimited to a public senior high school focus.

Suggestions for Future Research

Suggestions for future research are presented as follows. Firstly, as pinpointed previously, there are limitations of this study, which include the context being in senior high school in Taiwan, a public senior high school focus, and the experts all coming from Taiwan. For future research to transcend such limitations, a context in other non-English speaking countries can be the focus. Meanwhile, the same study may be duplicated in the context of junior high school level or in private senior high schools. Furthermore, the very conception of establishing gifted/talented curriculum development principles and gifted/talented program evaluation can be extended to other disciplines, such as math and science gifted/talented curriculum.

Second, the present study invited twenty experts, ten of whom were high school teachers and the other ten were college professors. In order to gain a more comprehensive collection of opinions, future research may include school administrators, like principals, deans of academic affairs, and section directors of special education. The opinion divergence between school administrators and teachers may further provide insights or predications about where clashes of opinions may take form in implementing such a curriculum.

Third, with the finalized set of principles for English talented curriculum

development and criteria for English talented program evaluation available, schools

with English talented curriculum implemented may conduct an evaluation of the

program. They are suggested to start from examining the list of curriculum

development principles to make certain which of the principles of secondary and

tertiary importance would be included and combined with principles of primary

importance to form a set of principles for the schools. Then based on these principles

together with some other criteria in the secondary and tertiary categories, a set of

criteria can be transformed and finalized. With this finalized criteria, a program

evaluation of the English talented program can be conducted.

Fourth, the mailing feature of the Delphi survey can be changed into via email.

The mailing shuttling between the expert and the researcher usually takes three to four weeks for a single round to finish. In fact, time and money on postage for each round of survey can be saved if email is to replace snail mail. When adopting email to conduct the Delphi survey, researchers must make sure that all the experts check their mail on a regular basis lest important deadlines should be missed.

Fifth, time permitted, subsequent interviews of the experts are suggested to arrange after the Delphi survey is done so that more information can be gathered.

Such interviews are especially informative when it comes to clarifying opinions

falling outside of the interquartile range (i.e., Q

Q

). Therefore, subsequent

interviews will not have to include all the experts, but those who express opinions in

the minority.