Three
CHAPTER THREE
FINDINGS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter Three: Findings and Recommendations
3.1 Introduction
This chapter reports the findings from several data collected in this study including the students and teachers’ questionnaires. The results are presented in two principal sections relatively proper to divergence in terms of data. The first and the second sections report those data taken from both the students and the teachers’ questionnaires. It is hoped that the data found in this investigation will provide foundation for discussing the research questions under concern.
3.2 Data Analysis and Discussion of the Findings
Following the grouping of the item questions in the different parts of both the students and teachers’ questionnaires, I shall now proceed to the analysis of the results obtained in each section and discuss the main findings. This will be done by analyzing data both quantitatively and qualitatively[1]. On the basis of the graphs below, I obtained statistical data which give us various percentages of the findings that will hopefully serve to identify problems (the HOW and the WHY) and suggest probable answers.
Data will be analyzed in two directions with major themes: difficulties stemming from human factors (teachers and students), and difficulties stemming from non-human factors. In short, the major findings will be presented and discussed in the coming sections.
3.3. Non-Appreciated BE Speaking Practices
3.3. 1. Difficulties Stemming from Human Factors
STUD Q1: Provide three reasons which make you and/or your teacher the only driver of an ineffective BE oral course?
Answers were grouped according to the most important themes provided by the informants[2]
Total Respondents: 72Answers / Number / Percentage
Difficulties
Stemming
from
Teachers / a. Limited teachers’ experience / 13 / 18,05%
b. Low teachers’ Training and Communicative competence / 38 / 52,77%
c. Lack of focus on teaching oral BE / 68 / 94,44%
d. Teacher’s manners and reactions are not suitable / 53 / 73,61 %
e. Teachers’ time to correcting mistakes is not enough / 61 / 84,72%
f. Teacher talk is more important than interaction / 68 / 94,44%
g. Teachers use a high level structures and vocabulary in both GE and BE / 39 / 54,16%
h. Teachers /Students relationship / 45 / 62,5%
Difficulties Stemming from Students / a. Low Students’ participation during BE course activities / 64 / 88,88%
Table 3.1: Teachers and Students’ Inappropriate Practices
3.3. 1.1 Rubric 1: Teachers’ Experience
TEA Q1: How long have you been teaching Business English?
Total Respondents: 11Answers / Number / Percentage
a. Less than 3 years / 6 / 54,54%
b. Between 3 and 5 years / 3 / 27,27%
c. More than 5 years / 2 / 18,18%
Graph 3.1: Experience with Teaching BE
According to the data collected in Graph 3.1, 6 out of 11 teachers (54, 54%) have been teaching English less than 3 years, 27, 27% have an experience of teaching between 3 and 5 years. The rest (18, 18%) have been teaching for more than 5 years. It is concluded that more than half of the teachers at the department of Commercial Sciences have been teaching BE less than 3 years, which is very significant in terms of their language adjustment and experience in teaching speaking to BE students.
This is also indicative of less specialized educational qualifications. The master degree at the department of English (University of Oran) is traditionally a linguistics based program and studies in BE are not included in the MA and BA English programs at the department of English. Therefore, most BE teachers at the department of commercial sciences did not receive specialized education in the area of their practice. This can be explained as a lack of opportunities at both local and International levels.
In fact, ELT conferences and workshops are rare events in Algerian universities; and at international level, most Algerian BE teachers cannot afford attending ELT events because of financial reasons. For those who can afford it, lack of interest in BE or ELT events can be seen as the major driving factor to the lack of training.
3.3. 1.2 Rubric 2: Teachers’ Training
TEA Q2: What is your last degree?
Total Respondents: 11Answers / Number / Percentage
a. BA (License) / 5 / 45,45%
b. MA (Magister/Master) / 6 / 54,54%
c. Ph. D (Doctorate) / 0 / 0%
Graph 3.2: BE Teachers’ Degrees
The above graph provides data about the BE teachers educational qualifications. 54, 54% hold the magister or the master degree, 45, 45% hold the bachelor degree, and none of them hold a PHD. By asking them, informally during the questionnaire administration, about whether they have local or abroad degrees, all of them argued that they have local graduation and local magisters and masters’ degrees.
TEA Q3: have you ever gone through a teaching training course on BE?
Total Respondents: 11Answers / Number / Percentage
a. At a national level / 3 / 27,27%
b. At an international Level / 0 / 0%
c. Both national and international / 0 / 0 %
Graph 3.3: BE Received Training
Graph 3.3 shows data about whether or not BE teachers receive professional training (in the form of conferences and workshops) to update their knowledge and teaching methods. The results indicate that the vast majority (8 out of 11 teachers) did not participate to any of these promotional professional experiences either locally or internationally.
If the data provided in both Graph 3.1 and Graph 3.3 is analysed together, it is evident to identify that a small percentage of BE teachers have basic BE teaching competence as well as professional exposure to their domain of practice. This could be probably attributed to the lack of resources, unavailability of trainings and scientific updating and promotion; or simply to interest from the part of BE teachers. Yet, it seems that all these factors contribute to affect BE teaching practices at levels.
These BE teachers are almost new in this subject area and it was not expected that they would have a long experience in this field. However, this also shows that there is no professional or academic experience.
3.3.1.3 Rubric 3: Focus on Teaching Oral BE
TEA Q4: Are the oral / aural skills one of your major BE teaching concerns?
Total Respondents: 11Answers / Number / Percentage
a. Yes / 2 / 18,18%
b. No / 9 / 81,81%
Graph 3.4: Oral Skill as a Major Teaching Concern
Here BE Oral skill is not a priority for BE teachers at the department of Commercial Sciences. The graph 3.4 indicates that BE teachers do not reserve (81,81% ) much attention to the speaking skill when planning BE courses. Only 2 out of 11 BE teachers (18, 18%) attempt to make BE speaking activities.
This supports previous research findings which relate to the point that most BE teachers at the department of commercial sciences are seriously concerned with general English language proficiency and would devote much of their time to the development of their students General English proficiency rather than the BE one. This could be seen as an indicator of BE teachers’ dissatisfaction with their students’ English level and as a result they are unable to tackle BE speaking activities without focusing and developing GE speaking competence. However, it could also be their vision of BE teaching where BE speaking English is not a priority for future Algerian employees who are invited to use English at workplace.
3.3.1.4 Rubric 4: Mistakes’ Correction and Manner of Correction
TEA Q5: How often do you correct students’ mistakes while they are performing their oral BE tasks?
Total Respondents: 11Answers / Number / Percentage
Never / 0 / 0%
Seldom / 0 / 0%
Sometimes / 1 / 09,09 %
Frequently / 10 / 90, 90 %
Other / 0 / 0%
Graph 3.5: Mistakes’ Correction by Teachers (Teachers’ Views)
STU Q2: How often does your teacher correct students’ mistake while they are performing their oral BE tasks?
Total Respondents: 72Answers / Number / Percentage
Never / 0 / 0%
Seldom / 9 / 12,5%
Sometimes / 59 / 81,94%
Frequently / 4 / 5,55%
Other / 0 / 0%
Graph 3.6: Mistakes’ Correction by Teachers (Students’ Views)
STUD Q3: What is the reaction of your teacher when you make a lot of/repeated mistakes?
Total Respondents: 72Answers / Number / Percentage
The teacher keeps quiet until the students finish their tasks, smile and encourage them to go on (A) / 4 / 5,55%
The teacher stops them and correct mistakes (B) / 59 / 81,94%
The teacher gets annoyed when students keep making mistakes (C) / 9 / 12,5%
Other (D) / 0 / 0%
Graph 3.7: Teachers’ reaction to students’ Mistakes (Students’ Views)
It seems that data from graph 3.6 and graph 3.7 are to a great extent contradictory. Basing on students’ opinion, 81,94% of the students receive , from time to time, mistakes’ correction from the part of their teachers, 12,5% of them receive seldom mistakes’ correction, and the rest ( a very small group : 5,5 %) argue that they are frequently corrected by their teachers. On the other side, 90, 90 % of teachers confirm active participation in correcting their students’ mistakes.
In Graph 3.7, teachers’ reaction towards correcting students’ mistakes are improper. This confirmation of the improper way of correcting mistakes is supported by results from student question 3 which show that there still exist some teachers who may show unsatisfaction and even angriness when a student makes a mistake. In addition to that, some students (5, 55%) argued that very little teachers put students at ease and let them finish their tasks, smile and encourage them to go on. From these statistical data, it can be understood that the ways of mistakes’ correction applied by most of the Oral BE teachers at the department of Commercial Sciences prevented students from speaking freely in oral BE classes
3.3.1.5 Rubric 5: Teacher’ Talk Time
STUD Q4: How long is your teacher’s talk time?
Total Respondents: 72Answers / Number / Percentage
a. 1/4 course time / 0 / 0%
b. 2/4 course time / 13 / 18,05 %
c. 3/4 course time / 59 / 81,94 %
d. 4/4 course time / 0 / 0%
Graph 3.8: Teacher’ Talk Time
Data from Graph 3.8 clearly shows that much of the BE teachers’ participations in the learning process exceed ¾ of the course’s allotted time. This confirms that these teachers are still applying traditional teaching methods where teaching is primarily based on the teacher’s contribution (a teacher-centeredness approach) and which is originally used for teaching EGP (grammar-centeredness approach) .
In such an approach the teacher mainly focuses on explaining, giving the forms of grammar structures and providing the meaning of vocabulary and pronunciation accuracy. As a result of this traditional approach to teaching BE , teachers occupy more class-time than students; they provide new words, explain grammar structures, give examples, and forget that their role is to facilitate the learning process not to spoon-feed the learners.
3.3.1.6 Rubric 6: Teachers’ Input
STU Q5: To what extent do you grasp the input provided by your teacher during BE oral courses?
Total Respondents: 72Answers / Number / Percentage
To 100% / 0 / 0%
To 75 % / 5 / 12,5%
To 50 % / 31 / 5,55%
To 25 % / 36 / 81,94%
From 0 to 25 % / 0 / 0%
Graph 3.9: Teachers’ Input (Students’ Views)
TEA Q6: Do you check understanding during your oral BE courses?
Total Respondents: 11Answers / Number / Percentage
Never / 0 / 0%
Seldom / 0 / 0%
Sometimes / 0 / 0%
Frequently / 2 / 18,18 %
Always / 9 / 81,81 %
Other / 0 / 0 %
Graph 3.10: Checking Understanding of Input during BE Course Time
TEA Q7: To what extent do your students grasp the input you provide during course time?
Total Respondents: 11Answers / Number / Percentage
To 100% / 0 / 0%
To 75 % / 8 / 72,72%
To 50 % / 3 / 27,27%
To 25 % / 0 / 0%
From 0 to 25 % / 0 / 0%
Graph 3.11: Teachers’ Input (Teachers’ Views)
As can be seen from Graph 3.9 a surprisingly great number of students (81, 94%) argue that they suffer from incomprehensible input during BE oral courses. Graph 3.10 and Graph 3.11, on the other hand, provide contradictory data as to teachers’ responsibility in checking understanding and providing comprehensible input during BE course time. In fact, 81, 81 % of the teachers argue that they check understanding during course time and 72, 72% of them assert that they provide comprehensible data to their students.
This could be seen as one of the inappropriate teacher pedagogical practices. This describes inconvenient pedagogical situations where students cannot grasp what the teacher is saying. It is suggested that incomprehensible input can be considered as one of the major contributing factors to students’ difficulties at classroom level[3].
According to Koch & Terrell (1991) [4], learning will occur only when learners acquire language by understanding input that is a little beyond their current level of competence. To achieve comprehensible input transmission, teachers are supposed to not only master the different instances of speech instruction but also make use of the mother tongue from time to time or when necessary[5].