The chapter aims to present the results of the study. It comprises five parts.

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS

The chapter aims to present the results of the study. It comprises five parts.

The first part provides the background information of the participants. The second part demonstrates the effects of English-talented program on the participants’ listening and reading comprehension. The third part reveals the effects of the talented program on the participants’ speaking and writing proficiency. The forth part shows the results of the evaluation questionnaire about the participants’ satisfaction levels towards the program provided. The last part presents the results of the semi-structured interview with nine students in the talented program.

A total of 48 students participated in the study and answered the evaluation questionnaire. Half of them were from the talented class and were labeled as Group T, while the other half of them came from regular classes and were classified as Group R. Nine students from Group T also received interview after their completion of the evaluation questionnaire.

Participants’ Background

The participants’ gender, years of learning English, and residence in

English-speaking countries were obtained from the evaluation questionnaire and are

shown in Figure 2. More female students (83.33% in Group T and 66.67% in Group

R) than male ones participated in this study. As for the number of years of learning

English, over half of the participants had been learning English for four to six years

(54.17% in Group T and 54.17% in Group R), which meant most students started

learning English since they were 5

or 6

graders in elementary school. As for the

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00

Male Female 4-6 years 7-8 years 9-10 years 10- years No Yes Gender Years of learning English Residence in English-

speaking countries

Group T (%) Group R (%)

rest of them: ten students in Group R (41.67%) had been learning English for seven to eight years and another student in this group had learned English for more than ten years; students in Group T, however, spread evenly between the spans of seven to eight years (25%) and nine to ten years (20.83%). Finally, when asked if they had the experience of residing in English-speaking countries, most answers of the participants were negative (91.67% in Group T and 100% in Group R). Only two participants from Group T expressed their short-term residence in English-speaking countries. One of them had a one-year stay in Australia when she was 14 years old, and the other one had lived in the United States for four months when she was about the age of 12.

Effects of English-talented Program on Listening and Reading Comprehension This part focuses on the effects of English-talented program on the participants’

receptive English abilities, namely their listening and reading comprehension. It is noted that students in both groups received educational training in the two aspects.

Figure 2. Background Information of the Participants

Effects on Listening Comprehension

Table 4 provides descriptive statistics of participants’ performance of the pretest and posttest on listening comprehension. Group T (M = 30.92, SD = 2.70) obtained higher mean and smaller standard deviation than Group R (M = 27.42, SD = 3.57) in the pretest. After five months, both groups improved on their English listening comprehension but also had larger standard deviations in the posttest: Group T ascended to 33.67 (SD = 3.32), while Group R rose to 29.00 (SD = 4.14).

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest and the Posttest on Listening Comprehension

Group N Pretest Posttest

Group T

24 M = 30.92

(SD = 2.70)

M = 33.67 (SD = 3.32) Group R

24 M = 27.42

(SD = 3.57)

M = 29.00 (SD = 4.14)

Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used in the comparisons across groups to explore whether the use of differentiated curriculum had a positive effect on the English-talented students’ listening comprehension. An ANCOVA analysis shows that there was a significant difference, F (1, 45) = 4.66, p = .036, between groups in the posttest (see Table 5). It means Group T outperformed Group R on listening comprehension after the use of differentiated curriculum.

Table 2. ANCOVA Summary for Listening Comprehension

Source SS df MS F p

Covariate (pretest) 236.36 1 236.36 25.88 .000

Group 42.56 1 42.55 4.66* .036

Error 410.97 45 9.13

Note.

< .01. *** p < .001. The adjusted mean for Group T was 32.42, whereas that for Group R was 30.25.

Effects on Reading Comprehension

Descriptive statistics of participants’ performance of the pretest and posttest on reading comprehension are shown in Table 6. Group T (M = 26.79, SD = 3.72) had higher mean and also larger standard deviation than Group R (M = 22.96, SD = 2.54) in the pretest. After the five-month treatment, both groups improved on their English reading comprehension in the posttest: Group T climbed up to 27.38, while Group R moved up to 24.21. However, participants in Group R (SD = 5.66) showed even larger standard deviations than Group T (SD = 3.89) in the posttest.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest and the Posttest on Reading Comprehension

Group N Pretest Posttest

Group T

24 M = 26.79

(SD = 3.72)

M = 27.38 (SD = 3.89) Group R

24 M = 22.96

(SD = 2.54)

M = 24.21 (SD = 5.66)

As shown by the result of an ANCOVA analysis in Table 7, there was a

significant difference, F (1, 45) = 6.59, p = .014, between groups in the posttest. It

means that Group T outperformed Group R on listening comprehension, which

suggests that the use of differentiated curriculum had a positive effect on the

English-talented students’ reading comprehension.

Table 4. ANCOVA Summary for Reading Comprehension

Source SS df MS F p

Covariate (pretest) 33.96 1 33.96 1.46 .234

Group 153.68 1 153.68 6.59* .014

Error 1049.63 45 23.33

Note.

< .01. *** p < .001. The adjusted mean for Group T was 27.89, whereas that for Group R was 23.69.

Effects of English-talented Program on Speaking and Writing Ability

This part centers upon the effects of English-talented program on the participants’ productive English abilities, that is their speaking ability as well as writing ability (The latter ability also includes the participants’ translation ability and composition ability). It is worth mentioning that only students in Group T received special training in these two areas.

Effects on Speaking Ability

Table 8 offers descriptive statistics of participants’ performance of the pretest and posttest on speaking ability. In the pretest, Group T (M = 77.50, SD = 8.23) got higher mean and also larger standard deviation than Group R (M = 71.54, SD = 6.26).

After the use of differentiated curriculum, participants in Group T (M = 84.60, SD =

3.87) made great progress on their English speaking proficiency in the posttest,

whereas participants in Group R (M = 71.67, SD = 6.39), who received no training in

this area, showed little change in their English speaking ability.

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest and the Posttest on Speaking Ability

Group N Pretest Posttest

Group T

24 M = 77.50

(SD = 8.23)

M = 84.60 (SD = 3.87) Group R

24 M = 71.54

(SD = 6.26)

M = 71.67 (SD = 6.39)

As Table 9 shows, there was a significant difference between groups in the posttest in English speaking ability, p < .001. Actually, the difference, F (1, 45) = 54.61, p = .000, is large enough to prove that the use of differentiated curriculum did facilitate the talented students’ speaking proficiency.

Table 6. ANCOVA Summary for Speaking Ability

Source SS df MS F

Covariate (pretest) 270.84 1 270.84 12.04 .001

Group 1228.61 1 1228.61 54.61*** .000

Error 1012.48 45 22.50

Note.

< .01. *** p < .001. The adjusted mean for Group T was 83.62, whereas that for Group R was 72.66.

Effects on Writing Ability

In Table 10, descriptive statistics of participants’ performance of the pretest and

posttest on writing ability are provided. Students in Group T (M = 73.42, SD = 6.04)

obtained much higher mean than those in Group R (M = 66.27, SD = 6.57) in the

pretest. After five months, participants in Group T (M = 76.79, SD = 6.07) showed

some improvement on their English writing ability in the posttest. Without special

training, participants in Group R (M = 64.63, SD = 9.01), regressed in their English

writing performance and also showed larger standard deviation.

Table 7. Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest and the Posttest on Writing Ability

Group N Pretest Posttest

Group T

24 M = 73.42

(SD = 6.04)

M = 76.79 (SD = 6.07) Group R

24 M = 66.27

(SD = 6.57)

M = 64.63 (SD = 9.01)

An ANCOVA analysis in Table 11 shows that there was a significant difference between groups in the posttest in English writing ability, p < .01. Besides, the difference, F (1, 45) = 13.06, p = .001, is significant enough to suggest that the use of differentiated curriculum had a positive effect on the English-talented students’

writing ability.

Table 8. ANCOVA Summary for Writing Ability

Source SS df MS F p

Covariate (pretest) 488.94 1 488.94 9.88 .003

Group 645.96 1 645.96 13.06** .001

Error 2226.64 45 49.48

Note.

< .01. *** p < .001. The adjusted mean for Group T was 74.95, whereas that for Group R was 66.47.

In the following two sections, the participants’ writing ability is analyzed by

looking at its two sub-abilities, translation ability and composition ability so as to be

more specific about which factor (sub-ability) contributes to their improvement on

writing ability.

Effects on translation ability

Table 12 shows descriptive statistics of participants’ performance of the pretest and posttest on translation ability. Students in Group T (M = 11.33, SD = 2.22) had higher mean than those in Group R (M = 9.92, SD = 2.39) in the pretest. After five months, both groups improved on their translation ability in the posttest.

Participants in Group T ascended to 12.75 (SD = 2.23), while participants in Group R (M = 64.63, SD = 9.01) rose to 11.29 (SD = 3.03).

Table 9. Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest and the Posttest on Translation Ability

Group N Pretest Posttest

Group T

24 M = 11.33

(SD = 2.22)

M = 12.75 (SD = 2.23) Group R

24 M = 9.92

(SD = 2.39)

M = 11.29 (SD = 3.03)

However, an ANCOVA analysis on the posttest, with pretest as a covariate, shows that there was no significant difference on English translation ability of the talented, F (1, 45) = 1.70, p > .05. (see Table 13). This result suggests that the use of differentiated curriculum failed to positively facilitate the English-talented students’ translation ability.

Table 10. ANCOVA Summary for Translation Ability

Source SS df MS F p

Covariate (pretest) 23.30 1 23.30 3.47 .069

Group 11.40 1 11.40 1.70 .199

Error 302.16 45 6.72

Note.

< .01. *** p < .001. The adjusted mean for Group T was 12.53, whereas that for Group R was 11.51.

Effects on composition ability

Descriptive statistics of participants’ performance of the pretest and posttest on composition ability are presented in Table 14. Students in Group T (M = 62.08, SD

= 5.12) obtained higher mean than those in Group R (M = 56.35, SD = 5.44) in the pretest. After a five-month treatment, participants in Group T (M = 66.42, SD = 5.50) made some progress on their English composition ability. However, because of no training in this field, participants in Group R (M = 53.33, SD = 7.86), regressed in their English composition ability and also showed larger standard deviation.

Table 11. Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest and the Posttest on Composition Ability

Group N Pretest Posttest

Group T

24 M = 62.08

(SD = 5.12)

M = 66.42 (SD = 5.50) Group R

24 M = 56.35

(SD = 5.44)

M = 53.33 (SD = 7.86)

In Table 15, an ANCOVA analysis shows that there was a significant difference between groups in the posttest in English composition ability, p < .001. Besides, this difference, F (1, 45) = 23.48, p = .000, is significant enough to imply that the English-talented student could positively improve on their composition ability with exposure to differentiated curriculum.

Table 12. ANCOVA Summary for Composition Ability

Source SS df MS F p

Covariate (pretest) 408.66 1 408.66 10.78 .002

Group 890.42 1 890.42 23.48*** .000

Error 1706.51 45 37.92

Note.

< .01. *** p < .001. The adjusted mean for Group T was 64.80, whereas that for Group R

was 54.95.

In general, participants in the talented group outperformed those in the regular group in terms of English receptive as well as productive abilities. Besides, significant differences between groups were found in participants’ listening and reading comprehension as well as their speaking and writing abilities. However, the talented program was unable to generate significant effects on talented students’

translation ability (a sub-ability of writing ability) as suggested by the ANCOVA analysis.

Results of the Evaluation Questionnaire

Information on participants’ English learning, and participants’ satisfaction levels towards English curriculum are presented and analyzed in the following two sections.

Information on Participants’ English Learning

This section includes the participants’ ways of practicing English after school and the evaluation of their own performance in English subject.

Participants’ ways of practicing English after school

It should be addressed that this question should be answered according to real

situations, so it was possible for one participant to have two or three ways of

practicing English after school. Surprisingly, most students even those from Group

T still adopted the most traditional ways to practice English after school, as shown by

Figure 3. The participants chose to attend cram schools (58.33% in Group T and

70.83% in Group R) or do self-practicing such as listening to English radio programs

10.000.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00

cram school self-practice tutor e-pal or foreign friends

no practice others

Ways of practicing English

Group T (%) Group R (%)

or reading English magazines at home (75% in Group T and 58.33% in Group R).

Only five students from Group T (20.83%) and two students from Group R (8.33%) used more interactive ways, like chatting with or writing to foreign friends to facilitate their English learning. Two students from Group T (8.33%) and one student from Group R (4.17%) employed English tutors to facilitate their language learning. It should be noted that one student from Group T (4.17%) chose to practice English conversation with her family so as to improve her conversation skills.

Participants’ self-evaluation of performance in English

Figure 4 shows the results of participants’ self-evaluation of their own performance in English subject in the previous semester. Students in both groups were quite modest and none of them ranked their performance as excellent.

However, nearly half of the students in Group T (41.67%) regarded their performance

in English as above-average, while merely five students from Group R (20.83%)

chose this item. Besides, nine students in Group T (37.5%) considered their

performance in English to be so-so, whereas eighteen students in Group R (75%) had

Figure 3. Participants’ Ways of Practicing English after School

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00

excellent above-average so-so below-average

Self-evaluation of performance in English

Group T (%) Group R (%)

the same choice. As for the last item—below-average level, more students from Group T (20.83%) than those from Group R (4.17%) placed themselves in this ranking.

Satisfaction Levels

Satisfaction levels of different categories across two groups are shown in Table 16. When the two averages of the twenty-six items in this questionnaire were compared (five being the highest score and one being the lowest), participants in Group T (M = 3.63, SD = 0.25) had higher satisfaction level than those in Group R (M = 3.27, SD = 0.17). With regard to the eleven items in the category of

“Curriculum Design and Teaching Methodology”, participants in Group T (M = 3.67, SD = 0.24) had higher satisfaction level than those in Group R (M = 3.32, SD = 0.09).

As far as the five items in the category of “Learning Environment and Opportunity”

were concerned, participants in Group T (M = 3.74, SD = 0.28) were more satisfied than those in Group R (M = 3.24, SD = 0.15) as well. In the case of the nine items in the third category—“Learning Effects”, the evaluation score of participants in Group T (M = 3.50, SD = 0.23) was still higher than those in Group R (M = 3.18, SD = 0.20).

Figure 4. Participants’ Self-evaluation of Performance in English

As for the last questionnaire item (the 26

statement) regarding overall evaluation towards any aspect of English curriculum, Group T (M = 3.71, SD = 0.91) also scored higher than Group R (M = 3.58, SD = 0.88).

Meanwhile, the two groups’ placing of three main categories of the evaluation questionnaire is presented in Table 16. For students in Group T, the most satisfying category was “Learning Environment and Opportunity;” the secondary category went to “Curriculum Design and Teaching Methodology;” “Learning Effects” was the least satisfying category. The sequence of three main categories for students in Group R was a little different. “Curriculum Design and Teaching Methodology” was placed prior to “Learning Environment and Opportunity.” But “Learning Effects” was still the least satisfying category for these students.

Table 13. Descriptive Statistics of Satisfaction Levels of different categories by Group Questionnaire

Categories

Number of Items

Group M SD Order

Curriculum Design and Teaching Methodology

11 Group T

Group R

3.67 3.32

0.24 0.09

2 1 Learning Environment

and Opportunity

5 Group T

Group R

3.74 3.24

0.28 0.15

1 2 Learning Effects 9 Group T

Group R

3.50 3.18

0.23 0.20

3 3 Overall Evaluation 1 Group T

Group R

3.71 3.58

0.91 0.88

Sum 26 Group T

Group R

3.63 3.27

0.25 0.17

Satisfaction levels towards curriculum design and teaching methodology

As shown by Table 17, among the eleven questionnaire statements in the

category of curriculum design and teaching methodology, the means of Group T were

generally higher than those of Group R. The only exception went to the fourth

statement that “English curriculum can stimulate higher-level thinking.” Both groups had equal mean score for this statement (M = 3.29) with slightly different standard deviations (0.75 for Group T, and 0.81 for Group R).

For participants in Group T, the most satisfying item in this category went to the fifth statement, “English curriculum can provide appropriate challenge” (M = 4.04, SD = 0.81). The least satisfying item in this category was the fourth statement,

“English curriculum can stimulate higher-level thinking” (M = 3.29, SD = 0.75).

Participants in Group R also ranked the fifth statement (M = 3.50, SD = 0.66)

as their most satisfying item in this category. The seventh statement that “English

curriculum provide in-depth lectures on literature” (M = 3.17, SD = 0.92) became the

least satisfying part for students in regular classes.

Table 14. Descriptive Statistics of Satisfaction Levels towards Curriculum Design and Teaching Methodology by Group

Questionnaire Statements Group N M SD

1. The quality of English curriculum is satisfying.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.71 3.46

.62 .93 2. The content of English curriculum

is divergent and comprehensive.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.71 3.29

.69 .91 3. English curriculum can satisfy my

sense of inquiry.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.38 3.33

.77 .64 4. English curriculum can stimulate

higher level thinking.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.29 3.29

.75 .81 5. English curriculum can provide

appropriate challenge.

Group T Group R

24 24

4.04 3.50

.81 .66 6. English curriculum can lead to

optimal learning.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.92 3.33

.88 .64 7. English curriculum provides

in-depth lectures on literature.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.83 3.17

.92 .92 8. Self-directed learning, compression

or deletion of materials are encouraged and adopted for easy or already-learned content.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.79 3.29

.83 .81

9. The teaching methodology of my English teacher can promote critical thinking.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.75 3.33

.94 .82 10. The teaching methodology of my

English teacher can facilitate my problem solving skill.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.42 3.33

.88 .82 11. My English teacher encourages

me to conduct independent study.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.50 3.21

1.06 .72

The results of independent samples t-test (Table 18) show that the differences

between the two groups were significant in four out of eleven statements in this

category. These statements were as follows: “English curriculum can provide appropriate challenge” (p = .014), “English curriculum can lead to optimal learning”

(p = .012), “English curriculum provide in-depth lectures on literature” (p = .015) and

“Self-directed learning, compression or deletion of materials are encouraged and adopted for easy or already-learned content” (p = .040). It implies that English curriculum for Group T was significantly superior to that for Group R in the four aspects.

As for the rest of statements, there were no significant differences between the two groups. These statements were: “The quality of English curriculum is satisfying” (p = .280), “The content of English curriculum is divergent and comprehensive” (p = .080), “English curriculum can satisfy my sense of inquiry” (p

= .839), “English curriculum can stimulate higher-level thinking” (p = 1.000), “The teaching methodology of my English teacher can promote critical thinking” (p = .109),

“The teaching methodology of my English teacher can facilitate my problem solving

skill” (p = .735) and “My English teacher encourages me to conduct independent

study” (p = .272).

Table 15. Results of Independent Samples t-test on Satisfaction Levels towards Curriculum Design and Teaching Methodology by Group

Questionnaire Statements Group t df P (2-tailed

)

Mean Differ-

ence 1. The quality of English

curriculum is satisfying.

Group T Group R

1.09 46 .280 .25

2. The content of English curriculum is divergent and comprehensive.

Group T Group R

1.79 46 .080 .42

3. English curriculum can satisfy my sense of inquiry.

Group T Group R

.20 46 .839 .04

4. English curriculum can stimulate higher-level thinking.

Group T Group R

.00 46 1.000 .00

5. English curriculum can provide appropriate challenge.

Group T Group R

2.55 46 .014 .54

6. English curriculum can lead to optimal learning.

Group T Group R

2.63 46 .012 .58

7. English curriculum provides in-depth lectures on literature.

Group T Group R

2.52 46 .015 .67

8. Self-directed learning, compression or deletion of materials are encouraged and adopted for easy or already-learned content.

Group T Group R

2.11 46 .040 .50

9. The teaching methodology of my English teacher can promote critical thinking.

Group T Group R

1.63 46 .109 .42

10. The teaching methodology of my English teacher can facilitate my problem solving skill.

Group T Group R

.34 46 .735 .08

11. My English teacher encourages me to conduct independent study.

Group T Group R

1.11 46 .272 .29

Note.

Satisfaction levels towards learning environment and opportunity

Table 19 demonstrates that the means of Group T for the five statements in the category of learning environment and opportunity were comprehensively higher than those of Group R.

For participants in Group T, the thirteenth statement, “My English teacher makes good use of technology or multimedia to facilitate my English learning” (M = 3.92, SD = 0.88) and the fifteenth statement, “The school and English teachers provide me with enough learning opportunities regarding the four abilities of English”

(M = 3.92, SD = 0.72) were ranked highest among the five items. However, the sixteenth statement, “The school and English teachers provide me with enough opportunities for joining English contests or performances” (M = 3.25, SD = 0.99) was labeled as the least satisfying part.

On the other hand, participants in Group R gave the twelfth statement, “The

school provides enough equipments and resources for my English learning” (M = 3.50,

SD = 0.83) the highest score. Nevertheless, the fifteenth statement, “The school and

English teachers provide me with enough learning opportunities regarding the four

abilities of English” (M = 3.13, SD = 0.54) and the sixteenth statement, “The school

and English teachers provide me with enough opportunities for joining English

contests or performances” (M = 3.13, SD = 0.74) were ranked lowest in the category.

Table 16. Descriptive Statistics of Satisfaction Levels towards Learning Environment and Opportunity by Group

Questionnaire Statements Group N M SD

12. The school provides enough equipments and resources for my English learning.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.79 3.50

.72 .83 13. My English teacher makes good

use of technology or multimedia to facilitate my English learning.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.92 3.25

.88 .90 14. My English teacher creates

beneficial atmosphere for my English learning.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.83 3.21

.64 .83 15. The school and English teachers

provide me with enough learning opportunities regarding the four abilities of English.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.92 3.13

.72 .54

16. The school and English teachers provide me with enough opportunities for joining English contests or performances.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.25 3.13

.99 .74

As the results of independent samples t-test in Table 20 tell, three out of five statements showed significant differences across the two groups. These statements were as follows: the thirteenth statement, “My English teacher makes good use of technology or multimedia to facilitate my English learning” (p = .013), the fourteenth statement, “My English teacher creates beneficial atmosphere for my English learning” (p = .005) and the fifteenth statement, “The school and English teachers provide me with enough learning opportunities regarding the four abilities of English”

(p = .000).

The other two statements that showed no significant differences between groups

were: the twelfth statement, “The school provides enough equipments and resources

for my English learning” (p = .201) and the sixteenth statement, “The school and

English teachers provide me with enough opportunities for joining English contests or performances” (p = .623).

Table 17. Results of Independent Samples t-test on Satisfaction Levels towards Learning Environment and Opportunity by Group

Questionnaire Statements Group t df P (2-tailed

)

Mean Differ-

ence 12. The school provides enough

equipments and resources for my English learning.

Group T Group R

1.30 46 .201 .29

13. My English teacher makes good use of technology or multimedia to facilitate my English learning.

Group T Group R

2.60 46 .013 .67*

14. My English teacher creates beneficial atmosphere for my English learning.

Group T Group R

2.92 46 .005 .63**

15. The school and English teachers provide me with enough learning opportunities regarding the four abilities of English.

Group T Group R

4.32 46 .000 .79***

16. The school and English teachers provide me with enough opportunities for joining English contests or performances.

Group T Group R

.50 46 .623 .13

Note.

Satisfaction levels towards learning effects

The participants’ perceptions towards the learning effects of English curriculum

are illustrated in Table 21. Similar to the results in the previous two main categories,

the means of Group T were generally higher than those of Group R. In fact, Group T

outperformed Group R in seven out of nine statements (the 19

, the 20

, the 21

, the 22

, the 23

, the 24

and the 25

statements). As for the seventeenth (M = 3.33) and the eighteenth statements (M = 3.25), the two groups had equal means and similar standard deviations (the 17

statement: 0.76 for Group T and 0.96 for Group R, the 18

statement: 0.90 for Group T and 0.90 for Group R).

For students in Group T, the twentieth statement, “English learning has stimulated my optimal learning” (M = 3.83, SD = 0.82) and the twenty-second statement, “English learning has facilitated my ability to do self-directed learning” (M

= 3.83, SD = 0.87) were given the highest score in the category of learning effects.

The eighteenth statement, “English curriculum give me a lot of fun” (M = 3.25, SD = 0.90), however, was proved to be the least satisfying part in this category.

For students in Group R, the twentieth statement, “English learning has

stimulated my optimal learning” (M = 3.50, SD = 0.72) was also ranked highest in

this category. The twenty-third statement, “English learning has promoted my

critical thinking ability” (M = 2.92, SD = 0.83), however, was ranked lowest.

Table 18. Descriptive Statistics of Satisfaction Levels towards Learning Effects by Group

Questionnaire Statements Group N M SD

17. English curriculum bring me sense of achievement.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.33 3.33

.76 .96 18. English curriculum give me a lot

of fun.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.25 3.25

.90 .90 19. English learning has promoted my

self-concept and self-recognition.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.42 3.38

1.06 .71 20. English learning has stimulated

my optimal learning.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.83 3.50

.82 .72 21. English learning has facilitated

my ability to analyze literature.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.75 3.13

.94 .74 22. English learning has facilitated

my ability to do self-directed learning.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.83 3.13

.87 .80 23. English learning has promoted my

critical thinking ability.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.29 2.92

.91 .83 24. English learning has promoted my

problem solving skill.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.42 2.96

.78 .81 25. English learning has promoted my

ability to conduct independent study.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.42 3.00

.88 .83

Table 22 demonstrates the results of independent samples t-test on learning effects of the two groups. Merely two out of nine statements showed significant differences. The two statements were: “English learning has facilitated my ability to analyze literature” (p = .014) and “English learning has facilitated my ability to do self-directed learning” (p = .005). The difference in the latter statement (p < .01) was more significant than that in the former statement (p < .05).

The other seven statements showed no significant differences between the two

groups. These statements were: “English curriculum brings me sense of

achievement” (p=1.000), “English curriculum gives me a lot of fun” (p = 1.000),

“English learning has promoted my self-concept and self-recognition” (p = .874),

“English learning has stimulated my optimal learning” (p = .141), “English learning

has promoted my critical thinking ability” (p = .142), “English learning has promoted

my problem solving skill” (p = .051), and “English learning has promoted my ability

to conduct independent study” (p = .631).

Table 19. Results of Independent Samples t-test on Satisfaction Levels towards Learning Effects by Group

Questionnaire Statements Group t df P (2-tailed

)

Mean Differ-

ence 17. English curriculum bring me

sense of achievement.

Group T Group R

.00 46 1.000 .00

18. English curriculum give me a lot of fun.

Group T Group R

.00 46 1.000 .00

19. English learning has promoted my self-concept and self-recognition.

Group T Group R

.16 46 .874 .04

20. English learning has stimulated my optimal learning.

Group T Group R

1.50 46 .141 .33

21. English learning has facilitated my ability to analyze literature.

Group T Group R

2.55 46 .014 .63*

22. English learning has facilitated my ability to do self-directed learning.

Group T Group R

2.94 46 .005 .71**

23. English learning has promoted my critical thinking ability.

Group T Group R

1.49 46 .142 .38

24. English learning has promoted my problem solving skill.

Group T Group R

2.01 46 .051 .46

25. English learning has promoted my ability to conduct independent study.

Group T Group R

1.68 46 .099 .42

Note.

As shown by Table 23, the mean of Group T (M = 3.71, SD = 0.91) for the twenty-sixth statement was still higher than that of Group R (M = 3.58, SD = 0.88).

Thus, it could be concluded that students in the English-talented class were more

satisfied with the English curriculum provided, compared with those in regular

classes.

Table 20. Descriptive Statistics of Overall Evaluation by Group

Questionnaire Statements Group N M SD

26. Generally speaking, I feel satisfied with any aspect of English curriculum.

Group T Group R

24 24

3.71 3.58

.91 .88

However, the result of independent samples t-test on the twenty-sixth statement (Table 24) shows that the difference between the two groups was not significant (p

= .631).

Table 21. Result of Independent Samples t-test on Overall Evaluation by Group Questionnaire Statements Group t df P

(2-tailed )

Mean Differ-

ence 26. Generally speaking, I feel

satisfied with any aspect of English curriculum.

Group T Group R

.48 46 .631 .13

Note.

Results of Semi-structured Interview

This part demonstrates the results of semi-structured interview with nine participants’ from the English-talented program, including eight females and one male.

The time span for each interview lasted for about thirty minutes. All of them had

received one-semester instruction in the same English-talented class. Their opinions

on general experiences, course design, teaching methodology, learning environment

as well as effects of the talented program may generate implications for gifted and

talented education and are presented respectively in the following four sections.

Students’ General Experiences

The section focuses on the interviewees’ opinions on their general experiences in the English-talented program. Questions, related to their most challenging learning experiences, and their most liked or disliked learning experiences were discussed.

Most Challenging Experiences

When being asked to describe experiences that were especially challenging in the talented program, seven out of nine participants (A1, B1, C1, E1, F1, H1, and I1) mentioned that: the “small size of vocabulary” hindered their English learning greatly and became challenging in many aspects, such as listening, reading, speaking, writing and even test-taking. For example, they could not understand what the English teacher was saying just because they did not know certain words in his/her speech.

One student expressed her experience in a whole-English class:

I often feel it difficult to catch up with the teacher’s lecture owing to several unintelligible words. What was worse, even after the teacher tried to explain the difficult parts again in simpler English, I still could not fully comprehend (Interviewee E1).

Another student (B1) mentioned the lack of vocabulary made her unable to get good

grades in GEPT mocks. Still another (I1) found that difficult literary words in the

texts had made Introduction to Western Literature a challenging course. Two of the

interviewees (C1 and H1) found it difficult to write English compositions not because

they lacked good ideas but because they were not sure if the words, phrases, or

structures being used were correct. Another two interviewees (F1 and H1) stated

that the vocabulary problem had affected their confidence in English

speaking—whenever they could not find suitable words to convey the messages in

their minds, they became nervous about making a conversation or delivering a speech

on the stage. Thus, the lack of vocabulary had troubled these talented students a lot and became the most challenging and difficult experiences for them during the process of learning English.

Most Liked Experiences

As for the participants’ favorite experiences in the talented program, eight out of nine students (A2, B2, C2, D2, E2, F2, H2, and I2) referred to the same course—Aural-Oral Training in English. Generally speaking, they liked this course because it was a lot of fun to converse with a foreigner. Two of them (A2 and H2) further explained that when talking with a native speaker, they could not only train their English listening abilities but could also imitate his authentic accent. Besides, the foreign teacher, with a dissimilar cultural background would share things from a totally different viewpoint (C2). One student commented that:

I like Aural-Oral Training in English best because the course instructor is a foreigner! I learned the cultural heritages of another country, and it was a lot of fun. I also learned correct pronunciation, proper intonation, and even some practical conversation skills from this course (Interviewee H2).

Furthermore, the teacher would sometimes adopt interesting teaching methodologies (B2 and I2), like guessing games, imitation activities, or film watching to “wake up”

students. They (A2 and I2) agreed that the atmosphere of this course was easy, entertaining, and the most importantly, facilitative.

One student (G2) considered Introduction to Western Literature as her favorite learning experience in this program. She said that Alice in Wonderland was especially interesting among all the works of literature they had read.

Therefore, “variety” and “fun” seem to be key elements in attracting these

young language learners.

Not Liked Experiences

The experiences that most of the participants did not like in the talented program went to English Composition class though they agreed that it was a practical course. The main reason why the course was unattractive to the six interviewees (B3, C3, F3, G3, H3, and I3) was that it was boring, tiring and unpleasant to practice translation questions, have brainstorms, and do rewrites all the time. Three of them (C3, G3, and I3) accounted that writing was their softest spot among the four language abilities and therefore, they considered their English to be broken and felt very frustrated in this course. Some students admitted that they had encountered some difficulties in English writing. One of them (G3) said that I did not like translation practice because it always took a lot of time to figure out which word, phrase, or sentence structure to use. Another two interviewees (F3 and H3) asked for assistance from the course instructor, and one of them expressed that:

Besides, to remember what I had learned in the previous weeks was not easy, and forgetting happened quite frequently. I really hope that our instructor could give us some pressure, like pop quizzes to urge me to memorize the newly-learned materials (Interviewee H3).

Another student (C3) suggested that Introduction to Western Literature was a little boring, but she would try to overcome this negative feeling because she wanted to learn something from the course.

Course Design in English-talented Program

The section centers upon the interviewees’ opinions of the course design in the

English-talented program. Questions, such as their attitudes towards the talented

program, differences between the talented program and the regular program, their

learning needs, and their suggestions for the talented program were probed into.

Attitudes towards the Instruction in the English-talented Program

All of the nine interviewees held “positive attitudes” towards the instruction they received in the English-talented program. They were quite satisfied with the three enrichment courses provided. One of them commented that:

Aural-Oral Training in English and English Composition I received here were far superior to those provided by the English-talented class at another senior high school, where my friend studied. The instructor of Introduction to Western Literature also taught us a lot like how to analyze literary texts (Interviewee B4).

Three of them (F4, G4, and I4) praised for personalities and knowledge of the course instructors. One said that “all teachers at our school are hard-working and professional” (Interviewee G4). Two of the interviewees (E4 and I4) were particularly impressive of all-English instruction, and one of them indicated that

“almost all the courses were instructed via English, which did facilitate my language learning” (Interviewee I4). Besides, two of them (D4 and I4) mentioned another merit of learning in this talented program—peer competition. Actually, this kind of competition brought them some pressure. However, instead of feeling uncomfortable, they regarded the pressure from peers as a stepping stone that pushed them forward.

Differences between the English-talented Program and the Regular Program

When being asked how the English-talented program differed from the regular

English program, six interviewees (B5, D5, E5, G5, H5, and I5) adverted to the “solid

nature” of the courses provided. One of them expressed that “we read more, listened

more, wrote more, spoke more, and of course, learned more than students in the

general education” (Interviewee G5). Another student had a similar opinion “all the

contents and materials were deepened and enriched, compared with those for students in regular classes” (Interviewee H5).

The three enrichment courses had benefited these students in certain aspects.

Two interviewees (A5 and C5) considered that Aural-Oral Training in English instructed by a foreign teacher had facilitated their listening and speaking abilities to some degree. In English Composition course, they learned many important sentence patterns and useful writing strategies (G5). Another course, Introduction to Western Literature, however, informed these students of life, history, and value of another

culture (C5). Thus, as one student said, “even if it is tiring to learn so many things in a short time, I think it is worthwhile and I do not regret having this choice”

(Interviewee I5).

Learning Needs of the Participants in the English-talented Program

Concerning the interviewees’ learning needs, four of them (C6, D6, H6, and I6) put forth the importance of “autonomy.” They thought that learning was their own business instead of their teachers’ or parents’. They had to memorize vocabulary and read articles as much as possible. They also needed to practice speaking and writing by themselves. No one could do the spadework for them. One student indicated that:

To be honest, I think teachers can not help much, when it comes to language learning. Success in acquiring a language depends upon one’s own determination and willpower. One must be careful and industrious.

Teachers cannot prevent you from making grammar mistakes, right (Interviewee I6)?

Nevertheless, another two interviewees (F6 and G6) held a different point of

view by saying that they were passive learners so that they needed pressure and

supervision from teachers. If teachers could arrange a learning schedule and some

exams for them, they would study harder and could learn better. One of them (G6) also hoped that the instructor of Aural-Oral Training in English could double-check the speech drafts for her because good preparation beforehand kept her from being too nervous on the stage.

Suggestions for the Course Design of the English-talented Program

These nine interviewees provided some advice on the course design of the talented program. Six of them (A7, B7, D7, E7, G7, and I7) suggested that Introduction to Western Literature was so complex that they often felt frustrated and wanted to give up. One of them even proposed that:

I think the course can be deleted from the talented program directly because no one understood what was going on. And our English proficiency is not high enough to comprehend such literary texts and to appreciate such mental state of the author. So it may be more practical for us to equip ourselves with better language abilities, which will be the foundation for our literature learning in the future (Interviewee D7).

Besides, one student (G7) expressed that English poetry was the most difficult among all kinds of literary texts, whereas short stories the most reader-friendly to youngsters like them. Students also made some suggestions for English Composition course.

They thought that two hours a week was acceptable; however, reviews and quizzes were necessary to prevent their serious forgetting and regression of some important sentence structures (I7). One student (I7) addressed the problem concerning Aural-Oral Training in English. She said that it was time-consuming when the

teacher conversed with one student at a time because the others felt bored. She suggested that the teacher give some easy tasks for those students to carry out.

Teaching Methodology in English-talented Program

The section aims to collect the interviewees’ opinions on their instructors’

teaching methodology in the English-talented program. Questions about their teachers’ impressive teaching methodology, and the interactions between teachers and students in the talented program were investigated.

Impressive Teaching Activities

It is interesting to note that all the impressive teaching activities these interviewees mentioned did not show any repetition! Five of them (B8, C8, G8, H8, and I8) described their experiences in Aural-Oral Training in English. One (B8) talked about the instructor’s vivid facial expressions. Another (C8) referred to the easy atmosphere in class. Still another (I8) praised for the instructor’s serious teaching attitude. The other two students (G8 and H8) narrated impressive classroom activities in this course—one was a story-telling game, and the other was a debate contest. One of them recalled that:

The teacher asked us to debate on “gay marriage.” We stood for the affirmative side. However, we did not find enough evidence and could just speak out what was in our mind during the argumentation process. It was very interesting because it was out first time to debate in a foreign language. It was much more difficult than I had imagined (Interviewee G8)!

Three of the interviewees (A8, D8, and E8) stated their impressions of Regular English Course, which was in the form of curriculum compacting (three hours a

week). One student (D8) preferred the all-English instruction because it was very challenging. Another (A8) expressed that she liked the film-watching section best because she could train her English listening abilities in an interesting way. The other commented upon an impressive drama performance:

Our teacher gave us some copies of O’Henry’s short stories. We were

divided into small groups of five. Some were responsible for script

writing, some for scene setting, some for stage properties, and some for

acting. Although the situation was in a mess from time to time and some

classmates forgot their lines, we really learned a lot from this experience and also enjoyed ourselves (Interviewee E8).

Another three interviewees (C8, F8, and I8) put forth their impressive experiences in Introduction to Western Literature. One student (C8) expressed that she would have a sense of achievement after the teacher praised on her in-depth analysis. Another one (I8) felt special about this learning experience related to English literature which she had never had before. The other (F8) was especially impressed by one short story written by Kate Chopin, The story of an hour. She was amazed to discover how many things could have happened in such a short period of time.

From the interview results, it was discovered that in addition to an instructor’s favorable personality, the more students got involved in classroom activities, the more impressed they were.

Interactions between Instructors and Classmates

In general, there were lots of interactions between instructors and classmates in the courses of the talented program. However, due to the fact that different courses were diverse in nature, these instructors did show varying degrees of interactions with students. Aural-Oral Training in English was identified as the most interactive course because the instructor frequently asked students questions to check their comprehension. He also listened to their feedback patiently, which made students feel respected. One interviewee commented that “Julian is very respectful towards students. We could bring out any kind of opinions, and he also tried to make improvements if possible. That’s why we like him so much. He is very different from some arbitrary teachers” (Interviewee I9).

In English Composition course, the instructor always walked around the

classroom while the students were practicing translation questions or writing compositions. One student expressed that “our teacher is very careful in looking after each of us. She liked to walk around and asked if we had any question or any difficulty of figuring out correct forms of language. I feel so warm” (Interviewee I9).

As for the course—Introduction to Western Literature, the instructor liked to have her students discuss reading articles in small groups and complete learning sheets at the end of each class. By brainstorming, these talented students were expected to have more interests and inspirations for literature. One interviewee explained that:

Our teacher usually asked us to exchange ideas with the other classmates after we read the literary texts. I like small group discussions because I could always have better understanding of the articles. After our discussion, the teacher would encourage us to express our feelings or give some feedbacks. She liked to listen to our opinions, no matter they were mature or not (Interviewee A9).

In sum, students enjoyed classroom interactions like activities, discussions or games, and they admired attention, concern, and respect from instructors as well.

Students’ Learning Environment

The section inquires how the interviewees conceived of the learning environment and resources provided by the school. Questions like the learning environment and resources that had facilitated their language learning and how the learning environment and resources should be improved to facilitate their learning were explored.

Facilitative Learning Environment or Resources

These interviewees were quite satisfied with learning environment and

resources provided by the school because all the hardware and software equipments at

the school were new. Among these resources, five of them (B10, C10, F10, G10, and H10) especially praised the abundant book collection in the school library;

however, they were still more used to reading Chinese books than English books.

One student confessed that:

The school library provided many books or magazines written in Chinese, English, and even Japanese, but most of the time, I’d like to borrow Chinese books. It’s because reading English books took more time and sometimes brought me a splitting headache. There were lots of difficulties to be conquered such as my reading habit and preference (Interviewee B10).

Two of them (A10 and D10) mentioned the merits of English road signs and slogans on campus, which not merely helped their language learning but also made the environment lively. However, a male interviewee (H10) thought that some English signs and slogans were too simple, but he further speculated that the reason might be the signs and slogans were for all the students in the school, not just for the English-talented students.

Another interviewee (E10) benefited from the multimedia equipments provided by the school because she enjoyed watching films and practicing English listening abilities at the same time.

Suggestions for Learning Environment or Resources

Despite their satisfaction, these students also made several constructive

suggestions on how the learning environment should be improved to facilitate their

English learning. Two of them (F11 and G11) proposed that the size of English

words on the signs should be larger, or at least it should be as big as that of Chinese

words. They explained that many students might neglect the English part because

the English letters were too small to read. Another interviewee (D11) asked for

more English slogans on campus so that they could learn English when they moved

about. Similarly, one student (F11) suggested that English posters be put up at different stories on campus, instead of centering upon the same storey so that they could learn English wherever they went. One of these students described an ideal environment that facilitated language learning “I hope our school can create an environment like the English village in Korea so that we can speak English, hear English, read English, and learn English anytime at the place” (Interviewee C7).

The only male interviewee, on the other hand, proposed that the school library purchase more English books regarding current affairs in addition to literature. He further explained that:

Students may be more interested in reading English materials if they are true to youngsters’ life. Books or magazines with reference to basketball, computer, finance and economics, electronic appliance, automobiles, you name it, can attract many male readers like me (Interviewee H11).

Two of the female interviewees (C11 and I11) recommended that the school or teachers should advertise for the new-coming equipments, or students might not be aware of the valuable resources around them.

Effects of English-talented Program

The section investigates how the nine interviewees considered the effects of the English-talented program on their language learning effects. Questions such as the effects of the English-talented program on their English four skills, their attitudes towards English learning, their ways of learning, and their ways of thinking were plumbed.

Effects on Four Skills in English

Generally, the nine interviewees expressed that the English-talented program

had positive effects on their four skills in English. Several interviewees (B12, D12,

and F12) indicated that they trained listening and speaking abilities mainly in one enrichment course, Aural-Oral Training in English. As for listening ability, the interviewees affirmed that the weekly-instruction design enabled their learning to be consecutive (D12), and the foreign teacher allowed them to learn authentic English accent (I12). However, one student (H12) pointed out that the nature of listening exposure they received each week was different from that of listening comprehension questions in GEPT. Thus, he often felt strenuous when taking the listening tests in GEPT mocks and suggested to have more test-oriented exposure.

In the case of speaking ability, a number of interviewees (A12, E12, and F12) felt that they became braver and more fluent in speaking English. One of them (A12) thought that she was able to offer a helping hand to foreigners who got lost after one-semester training in the program. However, some students (D12, G12, and I12) were not so confident of their English speaking ability though there had been steady improvement in this area. One of them expressed that:

We had enough training and practice in Aural-Oral Training in English.

However, I still feel that I’m not proficient enough because there are too many outstanding English speakers in my class. Therefore, I force myself to practice English speaking after class every day so as to be more competitive (Interviewee D12).

Another student (I12) admitted that she was introverted, which left her fewer opportunities for interaction with the instructor and other classmates. She wanted to make a breakthrough, but it took a lot of courage.

As regards reading ability, seven out of nine interviewees (A12, B12, D12, F12,

G12, H12, and I12) agreed that they read English articles faster and understood better

after the five-month instruction. Surprisingly, five of them conveyed their belief that

one’s reading ability is closely connected to his/her vocabulary size. Namely, the

larger one’s vocabulary size is, the faster and easier one can read. One interviewee

commented that “there has been significant progress in my reading ability. This is because I know more English words and phrases. It seems that I read faster at the same time” (Interviewee H12).

So far as writing ability was concerned, these interviewees (B12, C12, D12, F12, G12, and I12) expressed their improvement in this field and especially put forth two gains they got from English Composition course. One was writing techniques, and the other was teacher-guided self correction. One student indicated that:

Our teacher taught us several useful writing techniques, like how to draw readers’ attention in the opening paragraph, how to end a composition in a perfect way. She also asked us to memorize a number of English proverbs so that we could make our compositions more convincing (Interviewee D12).

Another student was quite grateful for the instructor’s correction method:

The most helpful way my writing teacher adopted was to circle the wrong words or sentences for us. She did not correct for us; instead, she wanted us to have self-correction. If we really couldn’t solve the problem, we could ask for her help. I really learned a lot during the reflection process (Interviewee C12).

Effects on Attitudes toward English Learning

Five of nine interviewees (B13, E13, G13, H13, and I14) expressed that they

studied harder after entering the English-talented class. These students, those who

had easily been placed prior to other classmates in English subject in junior high,

became zealous in practicing English in senior high because they did not want to fall

behind the classmates, or to be kicked out of the class due to poor performance. One

student admitted that “I have been more positive about learning English because I

don’t want to hang behind the others” (Interviewee E13). Another student (G13)

spent more time on studying English because she felt everyone in the talented class

was level with one another and was also running neck and neck. In her opinion, a

larger investment of time and effort ensured a better opportunity of good performance in English.

Instead, another interviewee (A13) expressed that she spent less time studying English after class because she had more exposure to this language in the curriculum provided by the target program. However, like the other students, she felt the pressure resulting from peer competition. She explained that “although I feel more pressure in this class, appropriate pressure can make me grow up. I think I can accept this challenge” (Interviewee A13).

In addition to pressure and competition, these interviewees also studied English hard for different reasons. One of them (C13) learned English mainly because she wanted to get foreign information faster. Another student (A13) was eager to see foreign movies without looking at the captions all the time. Another two interviewees (D13 and F13) practiced English purely because they like English.

No matter these students studied English hard out of instrumental motivation or integrative motivation, it could not be denied that they were more serious about English learning after participating in the talented program.

Effects on Ways of Learning

These interviewees held more active ways of learning English after participating

in the talented program. Interestingly, five of them shared their ways of memorizing

English vocabulary. One (A14) adopted a more integrated method by putting similar

words or phrases together. Another (B14) was more test-oriented by putting much

emphasis on GEPT vocabulary. Still another (G14) chose to recite one word several

times, especially for longer or more difficult words. The only male interviewee

(H14) expressed that he copied important vocabulary in a portable notebook so that he

could review these words anytime and anywhere. The other (I14) felt it easier to