CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 A process of change
Having examined the design (chapters 5 and 6), implementation (chapter 7), and evaluation (chapter 8) of the task-based programme that is the subject of this study, it is appropriate at this stage to review the research questions (section 1.2) and to consider how they were answered by data in the research instruments (chapter 8).
Research question 1: Did learner/teacher beliefs change during the research period?
i)
If "Yes", how did they change?
ii)
If "Yes", to what extent was this due to the programme?
Student attitude change is not immediately apparent from results of student-based research instruments (numbers 1, 2 and 5), and we have to turn to research instrument 6 (section 8.8) for more details (all of these quotes are from table A-76):
I noticed an extreme attitude change in some of my classes from the first semester to the second semester.
I've seen noticeable increases in their willingness to have conversations in English, and some classes have gone from not being particularly interested ... to being pretty hungry for it. Now they always come to class on time and are very enthusiastic and are rightfully proud of their accomplishments.
[In the class I had for a whole year] they think themselves much better [with an] average 20% increase on the self-assessment instrument. In that class there are some attitude changes for the better.
Most of the [Junior] students do have good attitudes now. ... Generally, they enjoy the projects.
I think students do change from the beginning, when they are quite restrained and quite self-conscious, convinced ... that they can't do very much with English. And suddenly they find out that really they can do quite a bit. ... I think that's a major achievement on their part.
It appears, therefore, that teachers saw positive attitude change in the students (part i, research question 1) from December 1998 to December 1999, that this was not actively perceived by the students themselves, and that the teachers were aware of this lack of perception: "The good students don't think they're good students" (table A-85); "They don't trust themselves, ... but certainly I can see the difference" (table A-76).
In terms of the teachers, some attitude change is evident in research instrument 3 (section 8.5.3) but it is especially noticeable in research instrument 6, question 5: "Have you noticed any attitude changes in yourself during the programme? Not only did teachers notice their opinions and attitudes changing in favour of the programme ethos, but they were happy to acknowledge this (the following quotes are all from table A-77):
I think my role as a teacher has certainly changed from controller to the other side of the spectrum.
I think I'm more positive towards letting the students make decisions in class. ... It's been really weird for me to do that. ... Sometimes I feel bad because I'm not standing in front of the class talking to them. ... I'm still working on that paradigm shift in my head.
At first I didn't really buy into your ideas ... This year I am really happy with the programme.
Part ii) of research question 1 asks to what extent this change in beliefs and attitudes was due to the programme. This is difficult to answer without a control programme of similar students with similar learning backgrounds and teaching staff – an impossibility for the present study. However, teacher responses to research instrument 6, questions 4 and 5 (above) indicate that teachers felt that their attitude change was due to the programme, and from their enthusiasm about the attitude change in the students, it would appear that they attribute this to the programme as well:
I'm very excited about what I've learned in one year. ... great learning curve. (Table A-77)
I've definitely developed an appreciation for the effectiveness of task-based activities. ... I've seen their value and effectiveness – that's been a change in my own teaching method. (Table A-77)
[There is no longer any] fear of periods of uncertainty. ... When I first came here, I felt the need to correct. ... I'm less threatened. ... I see the purpose of having the students fill in the gap themselves. ... I think it has given me more motivation and independence and confidence. (Table A-77)
Motivation is a cause as well as a result. ... If you give a learner good feedback, that provides them with motivation also. ... I think our programme is becoming more sensitive to this. Rather than just trying to quantify the numbers ... just saying that we can perceive a good effort, and giving people the sort of results that they find rewarding. And I think that that also makes them better learners. (Table A-82)
Research question 2: Did learners/teachers become more confident, motivated and independent during the research period?
i)
If "Yes", how did this manifest itself?
ii) If "Yes", to what extent was this due to the programme?
Items 37 ("The English lessons in the Language Centre give me confidence to use English"), 39 ("The English lessons in the Language Centre help me study English by myself"), 42 ("The English lessons in the Language Centre make me want to continue studying English") and 48 ("I am more confident about speaking English now") of research instrument 2 address this question. Student responses to these items (tables A-92/93) show remarkable consistency, with 39% (December 1998) and 38% (December 1999) of students answering "Yes", 53% (both cases) answering "Maybe", and 8% and 9% answering "No" to item 37[1]. Item 39 (independence) also receives consistent scores, with 19% (December 1998) and 20% (December 1999) of students answering "Yes", 61% and 59% answering "Maybe", and 18% and 20% answering "No". 41% and 38% of students feel more motivated about English (9% and 13% do not feel more motivated - item 42), and 35% and 31% feel more confident about speaking English (12% and 20% do not feel more confident - item 48). Teachers' scores on these items (research instrument 3, tables A-92/3) in general see the programme as more beneficial for the students, in terms of CMI:
- Item 37: "Yes" – 71%, 86%, 55%; "No" – 0%, 0%, 0%.
- Item 39: "Yes" – 71%, 65%, 68%; "No" – 0%, 0%, 0%.
- Item 42: "Yes" – 57%, 35%, 50%; "No" – 0%, 0%, 0%.
- Item 48: "Yes" – 86%, 83%, 73%; "No" – 0%, 0%, 4%.
CMI was manifested (part i, research question 2) inside and outside the classroom, as mentioned in responses to research instrument 6, question 4:
The students seem more confident, even when I meet them outside the classroom. They actually want to speak English to me. (Table A-76)
I've seen confidence develop ... in the classes from day 1, when the students ... can't even look at me ... then months later, you see them on campus, and they'll even come across and say something to me. (Table A-76)
It's been tremendous to see the growth [in the students] and the confidence. (Table A-76)
Motivation from lesson to lesson went up. (Table A-73)
As with research question 1, positive change (in this case change in CMI) is important for teachers as well as students, and responses to research instrument 6, question 5 (table A-77), show teachers believing that they have improved in CMI:
Yea. My confidence in the programme and my confidence as a teacher have increased. (Table A-77)
I feel a lot more confident. (Table A-77)
[There is no longer any] fear of periods of uncertainty. ... When I first came here, I felt the need to correct. ... I'm less threatened. ... I see the purpose of having the students fill in the gap themselves. ... I think it has given me more motivation and independence and confidence. (Table A-77)
Also as in research question 1 part ii), the comments made by the teachers suggest that the attitude changes that have occurred would not have happened in "normal" teaching situations, and were therefore inspired by the programme (cf. responses to question 1 of research instrument 6, Table A-73).
Research question 3: Did learners perceive an improvement in their oral skills during the research period?
i) If "Yes", to what extent was this due to the programme?
Research instrument 1 (section 8.3) shows student perceptions regarding their oral skills gradually changing over the first year of study. The movement is relatively small, however (though positive), and research instrument 2 (section 8.4) confirms this, with little change in students' opinions from December 1998 to December 1999 (part i above). Item 47 ("I have improved my English speaking skills this year") of research instruments 2 and 3 (section 8.5.3) shows 29% and 22% of students and 57%, 35%, 54% of teachers agreeing with this statement. There is therefore perceived improvement, though this perception is stronger with the teachers, as seen in responses to question 3 ("Is the programme helping the students to develop their oral skills in English?") of research instrument 6 (table A-73):
I think it is. ... I had a nice experience [when] I took a train to Seoul. ... A Freshman student ... sat down and stopped to talk to me. ... We had a little conversation for a few minutes. ... 12 months ago, if you'd said to him ˇ®you'll be able to sit down with a NS and have a little 5 minute chat', he wouldn't have believed it. ... I felt really satisfied that he felt comfortable enough to do that with me. (Table A-75)
Research instrument 5 (section 8.7) provides more information on this topic, with "International language" (14.6/35.6/34.5%) being seen as an increasingly important reason for studying English, along with "necessary" (14.6/22.2/23.6%), and "get a job" (8.3/11.1/16.4%). "Travel abroad" (31.2/15.6/7.3%) received less emphasis over the year (1999). "Lack of effort" (5.9/12.5/17%) grew significantly as a perceived learning problem, with "trying and trying" (13.9/12.8/16.7%) and "continue studying" (2.8/21.3/16.7%) becoming more important as means of solving that problem. There was slight improvement in perceived oral skills (100/85.4/90% of students recorded "poor" skills – cf. section 8.7.2.7, page 273). The only other noticeable change in student opinions in this instrument concerns homework, with 22.2/24.4/52.8% of students finding it "good", and 44.4/14.6/3.8% finding it "difficult".
Part ii) of this research question is also answered by Question 3 of research instrument 6, since teachers feel that the programme has helped "the students to develop their oral skills":
Yea. At other universities I've visited students are less willing to try speaking in English. (Table A-75)
Research question 4: Did the research affect the programme?
i) If "Yes", how did this manifest itself?
This question is not specifically addressed in the research instruments, but can be answered by the fact that these instruments had a formative function, and that results were fed back into the programme. This was manifested in a number of ways:
- Teacher training, an area identified by research instrument 6, question 6 (table A-78) as needing attention, was continually in a state of transition (cf. section 7.3.5) and improvement. Feedback from the first initiation week (for example) showed that teachers had been "overwhelmed" by an excess of information and theory, and that they needed more practical help, in order to be able to walk into the first lesson and start as they meant to go on. The format of the initiation week was therefore changed, with more emphasis on practicalities and on subsequent teacher-observation, coordinator-led "year" meetings, and guided reflection. Teachers were also encouraged to see their "learning experience" (cf. table A-77) in the LC as material for professional development, and a number of them enrolled on distance M.A. and M.Ed. courses while at ANULC.
- The need for a listening component was identified in responses to research instruments 2, 3 (section 8.5.3.2) and 6 (question 1, 8 and 9, tables A-73, 80/1) and a Freshman listening programme was developed in 1998, implemented in 1999, and assessed by one of the teachers (McLaughlin 1999). In this way, the programme worked efficiently, identifying a need (from the research instruments), suggesting a solution, evaluating its implementation, and further modifying the listening component.
- Modifications of the textbook were carried out yearly, in response to student evaluations (research instrument 2, section 8.4) and to comments from teachers (research instruments 3 and 6, sections 8.5, 8.8). Thus the initial pilot textbook, TMAI (1997) grew into TMM in 1998, was revised in 1999 (still black and white) and appeared in colour, with an English-Korean dictionary, in 2000. This process of changing the textbooks in line with student- and teacher-feedback received generally favourable comments (e.g. "The [Sophomore] book has been greatly improved since last semester" - Table A-88).
- An increasingly important part in the programme was played by the LC homepage (cf. appendix C-79), which began as a way of getting programme information and teacher-training ideas (cf. research instrument 6, question 6, table A-78) to students and teachers (cf. items 1, 2, 11, research instrument 4, section 8.6), and gradually developed during 1998 and 1999.[2] The use of the LC homepage is an example of the process of innovation in practice at the LC. An initial idea was developed, piloted, and finally launched, at a stage when it could continue to grow under regular maintenance. This then inspired teachers to make their own home pages, and to direct their students to these as a learning resource supplementary to their conversation lessons. The "complex system" of the classroom thus spawned another system (the homepage), which in turn grew in unpredictable ways (cf. section 6.6).
It would appear, therefore, that the research questions have been answered in the affirmative, that there was positive attitude change over the research period (especially in teachers) (question 1), that students and teachers improved in CMI (question 2), that students developed their communicative competence (question 3), and that the research instruments fed back into the programme, thus affecting the subject of their evaluation (question 4). The holistic task-based infrastructure in which these processes occurred can also be seen as successful in the light of these results.
Description, verification and representation are difficult in this situation, however, and the learning model that has been derived from reviews of the literature (chapter 3) and from the results of this research (figure B-26, below) therefore attempts only to show the concepts involved, without attributing linear (causal, temporal), or comparative characteristics.
Initial ingredients of this "learning soup" (above) are shown as: i) a humanistic view of education; ii) a sensitive classroom environment; iii) attention to affect; iv) promotion of autonomy; v) atmosphere of trust; vi) formative feedback; and vii) recognition of the classroom as a complex system. There is no indication of any given order in which to add such ingredients (despite the numerical listing above), and no attempt to differentiate roles. Any of the factors mentioned above can be seen as learning tools (components) or learning contexts (agents), both interacting with the others, and providing the means (context) whereby the interactions occur. "Attention to affect" (for example) can therefore be seen as working in the context of the sensitive classroom environment; the "atmosphere of trust" can be seen as an effective context for the humanistic view of language learning; or all of the ingredients can be seen as contexts for each other[3]. In the complex, adaptive world of the language classroom (section 6.6), these are all possibilities, and strict roles cannot be specified. These student-centred ingredient factors are depicted (figure B-26, above) as feeding into the task-based, problem-solving "melting-pot", which becomes the catalyst and the vehicle for the various complex interactions - flexible enough to allow unpredictable events to appear and play themselves out, yet sufficiently organised to provide a framework and a common direction for subsequent "emergent" higher-order structures, which in this case are identified as: i) positive student/teacher attitude change (CMI); ii) communicative competence, and iii) "learning for life". The model (figure B-26) therefore suggests a holistic task-based teaching/learning approach for the second language classroom, as a means of processing unpredictable constituent factors, leading to more predictable global outcomes, themselves indicators of continuing internal processes.
These findings contradict the autocratic (teacher-controlled), linear (language-learning as the reassembling of definable components), discrete (language-learning as items of code), and non-transferable (transmission of information rather than development of skills and strategies) reductionist view, which offers no understanding of the "whole" entity of language learning. If, however, we view learning in terms of subjective realities (Fullan 1991:36) and of "changing a learner's inner resources so that they will become more useful" (Stevick 1999:55), the strategy-based approach of Paduk (cf. section 2.4.2) provides a means of addressing the multiplexities of the language classroom. Just as the Paduk master balances "form" (technique), "shape" (pattern-recognition), "instinct" (lateral thinking), "influence" (long-term possibilities) and "territory" (short-term gains), when choosing the next move, the English teacher can provide the appropriate learning experience for the appropriate student at the appropriate time, by promoting awareness (and acquisition) of learning strategies, by encouraging learners to investigate the language through meaningful interaction (Vygotsky 1986:99) in a non-threatening environment, and by initiating reflective self-evaluation:
Teachers can achieve this kind of environment only through their efforts to establish informal and warm-hearted interaction between teachers and learners, as well as among learners themselves. This friendly interaction is, in our opinion, the most essential factor in successful language learning. (Sano et al. 1984:171)
Continue reading Chapter 9: An extension of the process paradigm
[1] This could be interpreted as a positive change, since this would mean that 38% of students were more confident in 1999 than they were in 1998!
[2] See also its further development when the programme was taken to Seoul National University of Technology: http://www.snut.ac.kr/.
[3] Components can also be seen as their own contexts – a climate of trust is engendered by a climate of trust.