PDF format - AU Journal - Assumption University of Thailand

ARE STUDENTS SUFFERING BECAUSE OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHERS’
INADEQUATE TRAINING IN
ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING?
By
Pimpom Chandee
Coordinator, MBA (English)
Graduate School of Business
Assumption University of Thailand
Abstract
English language teaching staff at
twenty tertiary institutions in Thailand
often lack specific education and
training in applied linguistics and
second/foreign language teaching. This
means that they are not in a good
position to evaluate the effectiveness of
current teaching methods and curricula
or to assess the likely effects of various
types of change.
Moreover, there is often little
relationship between what is taught and
what is tested and assessed; a great
deal of faith is placed in specific
purpose language teaching and yet
there seems to be little evidence of real
knowledge or understanding of the
debate surrounding specific purpose
language teaching; the perception of
students and teachers in relation to
what is taught, how it is taught and
what problems students have is often
different; teachers appear to have
accepted the need for change and to
have adopted the rhetoric of change
without necessarily having implemented
major changes and without fully
understanding the issues involved, with
the result that changes may appear to
be unsystematic and/or contradictory.
The main recommendation is that
carefully planned teacher education

programmes in applied linguistics and
English language teaching
supplemented by on-going teacher
development programmes be
implemented.
Introduction
It is one thing to ‘understand’ and
‘appreciate’ the different syllabus types
and approaches, the different testing
and evaluation methods that have been
used in the field of foreign/second
language teaching and learning but
another to put this understanding to use
with learners in real learning situations.
It is, therefore, vital that language
teachers are trained in applied
linguistics specialising in second/
foreign language teaching. Without
such essential background knowledge,
precious time may be lost for both
teachers and learners. With the
appropriate background knowledge,
however, teachers are likely to be both
more discriminating and more creative.
They will be in a position to respond
appropriately to student needs and to
conduct contextually relevant research.
However, they will succeed in this only
if they have the support and
encouragement of administrators whose
attitudes and beliefs are quite central to
the way language teaching is practised
in Thailand. However, it is not evident
from the questionnaire results obtained
from 149 staff and 190 students at
twenty tertiary institutions in Thailand
what degree of support respondents
give to their superiors as the Thai
culture requires that junior teachers be
supportive of the senior teachers,
especially the Heads of the Departments
or the Deans. Moreover, one-way
communication - instructions or
directions from the Head of the
Department to the staff members - is
common in English language staff
meetings. This monologue may be due,
in part, to the fact that the majority of
the staff members lack appropriate
education in Applied Linguistics
specialising in foreign or second
language teaching. Dialogues in
departmental meetings with the junior
staff members making suggestions for
changes or alternative syllabuses,
teaching methodologies and methods of
testing and assessments may be possible
after appropriate in-service training.
Another difficulty is due to the fact that
it is generally difficult to involve senior
staff or educators of high status in a
survey, particularly when the person
performing the survey is not at the same
status level or higher.
The results obtained from the
questionnaires used in this study may
not reveal much of what is currently
happening in the teaching and learning
of English at the tertiary level in
Thailand since, as Andrews (1984)
reports, “what people will admit to in
writing (i.e. in a questionnaire) is
different from what they will admit to
when speaking, and what they will
admit to when speaking informally and
alone is different to what they will
admit in the company of colleagues or
when aware of being recorded” (p.

175). Nevertheless, it has been noted
that “only local lecturers were
sufficiently equipped with local
knowledge to carry out appropriate
curriculum renewal” (Holliday, 1992, p.
419) and “...innovation can be effective
in the long term only if it is appropriate
to the unstated, often opaque, informal
orders of host institutions” (Holliday,
1992, p. 420). If Thai English language
educators at all status levels are aware
of current developments in ELT, the
adoption and adaptation of current
practices or even innovation in this field
may be less problematic.
English Language Educators Need
To Both Adopt And Adapt The
Syllabuses, Teaching Methodologies
And Forms Of Testing And
Assessment Appropriate To The Thai
Context.
It is essential that English language
educators are aware of the need to both
adopt and adapt the syllabuses, teaching
methodologies and forms of testing and
assessment appropriate to the Thai
context. If English language educators
are given more responsibilities for
designing their own syllabuses,
choosing teaching methods that are
appropriate to the particular groups of
students they teach, and write their own
tests for their students based on the
agreed general syllabus, they would
certainly feel a sense of professional
satisfaction. Moreover, if Thai English
language educators are encouraged to
carry out action research and publish
the results of their findings in ELT
journals, they would certainly feel a
sense of professional achievement.
At present, there is still “a
mismatch between the pedagogical
intentions and plans of the educational
institution, curriculum, teacher, and
textbook and the outcomes as realised
through the skills and knowledge that
learners take away from instructional
encounters” (Nunan, 1995, p. 133).
Even though, as Nunan notes, there will
never be a one-to-one relationship
between teaching and learning, teachers
and learners and teaching and learning
can be brought closer together (Nunan,
1995, p. 133).
Allwright (1984) once asked:
“Why don’t learners learn what teachers
teach?” (p. 3). Nunan (1995) suggests a
further question “Why don’t teachers
teach what learners learn?” (p. 155).
This mismatch between teaching and
learning has been noted by a number of
researchers interested in the classroom
(Nunan, 1995). Nunan suggests that the
gap between teaching and learning will
be narrowed when learners are given a
more active role in three key domains
of content, process, and language
(Nunan, 1995, P. 154). However,
although we may have made progress in
our understanding of language learning
and teaching, Nunan notes that it is
highly unlikely that the point will ever
be reached when we can say “Ah, yes,
now I know!” (Nunan, 1995, p. 155).
Our understanding of language,
learners, and the learning process

continues to evolve and the
teaching/learning process continues to
be transformed through practice and
research, nevertheless, the problems
and challenges confronting the
profession will remain. Moreover, as
the problems change, so too will the
solutions (Nunan, 1995, p. 155). As
Nunan observes “it is up to each of us,
as professionals, neither to accept
proposals uncritically, nor to reject
them out of hand but to reflect upon
them and to contest them against the
reality of our own context and
situation” (Nunan 1995, p. 155).
Also, it is not clearly evident, from
the survey results obtained, to what
extent Thai ELT educators do reflect
upon the ELT syllabus design, teaching
methodologies, and testing and
assessment used in the West. This issue
of transferability to the Thai context of
many of the theories and practices has
been noted by a number of theorists.
Holliday (1992), for example, discusses
the idea of ‘tissue rejection’, the term
taken from medicine, “where it is used
to describe cases in which organ
transplant fails because it is not
accepted by the host” (P. 403). Tissue
rejection, according to Holliday, takes
place when the implant, in the form of
courses or materials, or of a fledgling
institution such as a language centre or
department which the project attempts
to set up “does not survive as an
integral part of the host institution, once
project support is taken away”
(Holliday, 1992, P. 403). An
appreciation, suggests Holliday, of the
conventions that organized ELT
practices in Thailand must be within the
experience of the providers of training
if there is to be any transfer (Holliday
1992, P. 403-404). However, the
degree of ‘tissue rejection’ in the Thai
context is uncertain. Further research is
required on this issue so that it is
possible to create “ways in which
specialist practitioners in the field may
reduce, through greater sensitivity to
local cultures, possibly negative effects
of what they are doing, and work to
achieve maximum benefit for local
people” (Holliday, 1992, P. 403).
Linguistic Variables Essentially Need
To Be Considered In Designing a
Syllabus
Also, it is essential to consider
linguistic variables. For example,
Prescott (1995) notes that, “native
speakers of English find some
languages more difficult to learn than
others”. A course must, therefore
“address issues such as linguistic
variables. It must consider how the
linguistic differences between particular
Asian languages and English affect the
learning of English by speakers of those
languages” (P. 97). These differences,
no doubt, will affect methodology.
Cultural Variables Affecting English
Language Teaching
Another important issue is cultural
variables since these affect “the way

languages are taught and learned” and
“the expected roles of the teacher and
student” (Prescott, 1995, P. 97).
Students’ respect for teachers differ
considerably in Asian cultures when
compared to that of the Western
cultures. In many Asian cultures, notes
Prescott, “teachers are accorded great
respect. . . In Buddhist Burma, for
example, the students pay obeisance to
their teachers at an annual ceremony...”
(P. 97). Similarly, “in Thailand
teachers are highly regarded” (Prescott,
1995, P. 97) as, annually, a ceremony is
held for students to respect to all
teachers.
Language Learning Is A Complex
Process
Language learning is a complex
process involving many factors:
psychological, cognitive, social, and
linguistic. Unlike first language
learners, foreign and second language
learners usually do not have the luxury
of time or of learning environments
where they can use the second language
in natural contexts. As a result, in
designing a syllabus for these groups of
learners, it is essential for practitioners
to note that, according to Kirkpatrick
and Prescott (1995), “in East Asia,
English is now commonly used as a
lingua franca between Asians. For
example, Thai and Japanese
businessmen in Vietnam will use
English with each other” (p. 104).
Thus, “the cultural baggage of English
becomes irrelevant as regional varieties
of English develop. What becomes
important is the culture of the people
one is speaking to and not the culture of
the language one is speaking in”
(Kirkpatrick & Prescott, 1995, p. 104).
Foreign language learners, therefore,
need “some knowledge of the culture of
the people they are dealing with and
they need to be aware of their own
cultural norms” (Kirkpatrick &
Prescott, 1995, p. 104). They need
English language teaching materials
that contrast their own cultural norms
with those of the people they
communicate with. It is therefore,
essential that syllabuses and teaching
methodologies are designed so that
“content and cultures should inform
course content and practice, that local
expertise should be integral to course
development and delivery” (Kirkpatrick
& Prescott, 1995, p. 104).
It is essential that foreign or second
language teachers be equipped to cope
with the differences between foreign
language teaching in their own cultural
norms and those of the Western
teaching practices and cultural norms.
Further, they need to have knowledge
and understanding that will allow them
to maximise learners’ chances of
success. They will not be in a position
to do this unless adequate pre-service
and in-service educational provision is
made available for them. If teachers of
language in Thai tertiary institutions
continue not to be required to undergo
specific training, they will continue to
be unable to cope fully with the
demands of the profession.

Research Results from the Study of
20 Tertiary Institutions in Thailand
Methodology And Survey Analyses
Questionnaires
A questionnaire consisting of 184
questions on 28 pages was distributed
to English language teaching staff in 20
tertiary institutions in Thailand. In
addition, a questionnaire consisting of
125 questions on 9 pages was
distributed to students. The
respondents answering the
questionnaires were chosen by the
Chairperson of the English Department
or the Deans of the Faculty of
Humanity or the Faculty of Liberal
Arts.
Statistical Analyses of Both the
Qualitative and the Quantitative
Questionnaire Results
T-test, Chi-square and Spearman
Rho Rank Correlations are used where
appropriate to analyse the results of the
questionnaire. T-test is used because it
can be applied to samples of
unrestricted sizes. The test is used to
measure the means of two independent
groups. However, in these cases, the
same sets of questionnaires are used for
different subjects, that is (1) lecturers
from private and state institutions; and
(2) students from private or state
institutions. The results of the
questionnaires match the assumptions
underlying the use of t-test:
1. the scores in each group are
normally distributed and
2 the variances for the scores of
the two groups are equal.
(Myers & Well, 1991, p. 66).
T-test is used in this study to
compare questions where ranking is
involved and the means differences are
examined (for both lecturers’ and
students’ questionnaires).
Chi-square test of independence is
used, for questions requiring Yes/No
answers, to test hypotheses about
proportions based on the frequencies of
the different categories of observational
units observed in the sample. This is to
determine whether or not a significant
difference exists between the observed
number of cases and the expected
number of cases, that is, whether two
variables are related or independent
(Runyon & Haber, 1988, p. 417). A
fundamental assumption in the use of
chi-square is that each observation or
frequency is independent of all other
observations (Runyon & Haber, 1988,
p. 417).
Spearman rho rank-order (or rankdifference)
correlation coefficient is
used with ordinal data (rank ordered)
items for all the questionnaires in this
study. However the data in these
questionnaires are interval rather than
ordinal in nature. The data size for the
questionnaires used in this study is
greater than the specified size of 30
necessary for the application of this

statistical test. The coefficients for rho
range from -1.0 through zero to +1.0.
Rho is an estimate of the tendency of
how two ranks are similar. That is, the
degree of similarity in the ranking
between two variables. Spearman Rho
is used to measure whether there is any
direct relationship between the ranks of
variables, to examine whether they are
in the same rank order, that is, the
extent to which the variables are
monotonically related (Neave &
Worthington, 1992, pp. 169-170).
The Questionnaire for Teachers
(Part A)
Part A of the questionnaire for
teachers consists of 113 questions 17
pages. There were 121 respondents to
this part of the questionnaire. Of these,
97 were female and 24 were male.
These respondents’ ages range from
between 20 and 30 to over 60 (see
Table 1).
Table 1 Respondents’ Age-Ranges
Group Age Range Total
1 20-30 22
2 31-40 52
3 41-50 38
4 51-60 8
5 61-70 1
121
All the respondents are currently
teaching at tertiary level and have been
teaching at this level for a number of
years (see Table 2). Over half of the
respondents (68 or 56.2%) are teaching
in one institution only, 29 (24%) are
teaching in two different institutions, 17
(14%) in three, 3 (2.5%) in four, and
finally, 4 respondents teach in 5
institutions. Generally, however, those
who teach in more than one institution
spend most of their time in one but give
guest lectures in the others.
The number of years respondents
have been teaching at their current
institutions is given in Table 2.
Table 2 Number of Years Taught at
Institutions
Group Number of Total
Years
1 1-10 32
2 11-20 29
3 21-30 26
4 31-40 34
121
Only two respondents have taught
in the polytechnic system. One taught
there for 3 years, the other for 19 years.
Sixteen respondents have taught from 1
to 27 years at secondary school level.
Twelve respondents have taught at
other places (not specified) for a range
of from 1 to 21 years. Less than 30%
have taught for over 21 years or more.
Of the 121 respondents, 105
(86.8%) teach reading comprehension.
Writing skills appears to be second in

importance, with 94 (77.7%) reporting
that they teach writing. Eighty six
(71.1%) teach conversation and only
66.1% teach listening comprehension.
Over half (57.9%) report that they teach
English for specific purposes. Over
half of the respondents (75.2%) claim to
have been involved in academic work
(research, etc.) related to foreign or
second language teaching.
Table 3 Respondents Educational
Background
English as a Foreign Language. In
total, 44 (19 applied linguists and
25 ELT qualification holders) have
qualifications in either applied
linguistics or English Language
Teaching. A total of 77 respondents
have qualifications not relevant to
foreign or second language teaching.
Unless they have had a great deal of inservice
professional development, over
half appear not to have received
training relevant to their professional
activities.
Applied
Linguistics
19 (121)=
15.7%
English
Language
Teaching
25 (121)=
20.7%
Others
Total
77 (121)
= 63.6% 100%
There has not, apparently, been
much improvement in terms of the
relevance of teachers’ appropriate
qualifications in this field since the
survey carried out by Piromruen et al.
(1986) from 1985 to 1986.
The survey results reveal three
different groups of respondents: applied
linguists, English Language Teaching
qualification holders and those without
relevant qualification (see Table 3).
Only 19 of the 121 respondents (15.7%)
who answered Part A have studied
Applied Linguistics: 7 obtained
bachelor’s degrees and 12 obtained
master’s degrees in the area. Of these,
only one respondent is a doctoral
degree holder in this field. Eleven of
the nineteen also have a Diploma in
Teaching English as a Foreign
Language. One of these eleven also
studied composition writing at
certificate level.
Twenty five lecturers (20.7%)
have qualifications in Teaching
Major Findings of the Research
Results
The research conducted indicates
an enormous gap between theory and
practice in the teaching of English as a
foreign language in Thai tertiary
institutions. Major changes appear to
be needed and these changes must
involve the staff themselves if they are
to be effective. Teaching materials and
syllabus content need to be clearly
specified and need to be clearly linked
to testing and assessment. There need
to be some clear indication of
progression as students move from
course to course. Students need to be
trained to become more independent so
that they will be in a position to

continue to learn outside of the
classroom.
This gap can be bridged if inservice
training and education are
provided for those without relevant
qualifications by those with
qualifications in Applied Linguistics
specialising in foreign or second
language teaching. A number of
significant teacher education issues,
suggest Kirkpatrick and Prescott,
include “persuading teachers of the
achievability and desirability of change,
at the same time endeavouring to
maintain both balance (content v skills)
and flexibility (diverse contexts), the
need to accommodate diversity, the
value of fostering interaction in order to
encourage reflection, the need to
expand teachers’ horizons with respect
to both knowledge and skills”
(Kirkpatrick & Prescott, 1995, p. 104).
English Language Teaching Staff’s
Inadequate ELT Training
twenty tertiary institutions surveyed
often lack specific education and
training in applied linguistics and
second/foreign language teaching(see
Table 4).
This means that they are not in a
good position to evaluate the
effectiveness of current teaching
methods and curricula or to assess the
likely effect of various types of change.
Other findings that seem to be of some
significance are: (i) there is often little
relationship between what is taught and
what is tested and assessed; (ii) the
perception of students and teachers in
relation to what is taught, how it is
taught and what problems students have
is often different; (iii) teachers appear
to have accepted the need for change
and to have adopted the rhetoric of
change without necessarily having
implemented major changes and
without fully understanding the issues
involved, with the result that changes
may appear to be unsystematic and/or
contradictory(see Table 5).
The major finding here is that
English language teaching staff in the
Table 4 Respondents Educational Background
Applied
Linguistics
English
Language
Teaching
Others
Total
19 (121) =
15.7%
25 (121) =
20.7%
77 (121) =
63.6% 100%

Table 5
A Comparison of All Major Variables
Keys:
1 = Applied Linguists Only
2 = Applied Linguists & ELT Qualifications
3 = Qualifications not Relevant to the Teaching of English as a Second or Foreign Language
4 = Private vs. State Tertiary Institutions
5 = Number of years Taught at University
6 = Bachelor Degree Holders
7 = Master’s Degree Holders
8 = Ph.D Degree Holders
9 = Diploma Holders
Probability Values: (χ 2 ) = Chi-Square
‘t’ = t-test
Questionnaire Variables
Have your been involved in any other sort of academic work related to this area of teaching?
academic work related to foreign or second language
teaching
Areas of English taught
5
χ 2 (p)= 0.01581
7
χ 2(p)= 0.01668
English for specific purposes 1
χ 2 (p)=
0.00236
4
χ 2(p)=
0.00052
5
χ 2 (p)=
0.00052
Indicate whether the following items are included in the syllabus of the courses in which you
teach:
grammatical structures for subject 5 1
general vocabulary for subject 4 1
general vocabulary for subject 5 1
subject specific vocabulary for subject 4 1
χ 2 (p)=
0.01192
χ 2(p)= 0.05188
χ 2(p)= 0.01192
χ 2 (p)= 0.03218
4
χ 2 (p)=
0.02644
5
χ 2 (p)=
0.02644
2
χ 2 (p)= 0.03387

subject specific vocabulary for subject 5 2
reading comprehension for subject 5 1
summarising for subject 3 1
summarising for subject 5 1
essay writing for subject 1 7
report writing for subject 2 5
χ 2 (p)= 0.01867
χ 2 (p)= 0.00052
χ 2 (p)= 0.02991
χ 2 (p)= 0.00005
χ 2 (p)= 0.00839
χ 2 (p)= 0.01168
report writing for subject 3 1
χ 2 (p)= 0.04288
speaking for subject 5 1
note taking for subject 4 1
note taking for subject 5 1
Indicate the types of examinations your students sit :
multiple choice 1
short paragraph answers 5
χ 2 (p)= 0.00942
χ 2 (p)= 0.01802
χ 2 (p)= 0.00581
χ 2 (p)= 0.03094
χ 2(p)= 0.00180
true or false questions as included in the
examinations they set.
8
χ 2 (p)= 0.00040
filling in gaps 5
χ 2 (p)= 0.00040
Teach more than one subject 1
χ 2 (p)= 0.00040
Indicate the extent to which you use English Exclusively in the class
English is used all the time 4
χ 2(p)= 0.00221
2
χ 2 (p)= 0.00040
5
χ 2 (p)= 0.00221

English is used some of the time 4
χ 2 (p)= 0.01313
Per cent Thai is used 4
χ 2 (p)= 0.00040
English is not used at all 1
χ 2 (p)= 0.00040
5
χ 2 (p)= 0.01313
5
χ 2 (p)= 0.00040
What kind of class atmosphere do you prefer?
formal class atmosphere 5
χ 2(p)= 0.01274
Indicate how frequently you use each of the following teaching-learning methods:
lecturing or telling 5
t (p)=0.02088
project 7
t (p)=0.00026
What topics are your students particularly interested in talking/reading about during English
classes?
Subject-related studies (e.g. Engineering) 2
χ 2 (p)= 0.01780
9
χ 2 (p)= 0.00209
Your Students and their Learning
Three most frequent problems students encounter
problems with note-taking 9
χ 2 (p)= 0.00209
Rate the importance of the following activities to learning
taking notes quickly and accurately 8
t (p)=0.00328
9
t (p)=0.00331
finishing assignments in a correct and 5
t (p)=0.05169
asking about things students do not
understand
1
t (p)=0.033
2
t (p)=0.049
listening carefully to other language users 6
t (p)=0.00525
finding answers from textbooks and refer 1
t (p)=0.014
9
t (p)=0.01172
6
t (p)=0.00425

trying out new vocabulary and language skills on
their own
9
t (p)=0.00657
Possible causes of learner failure
difficulty with specific language points 6
t (p)=0.00067
objectives inappropriate for learners 6
t (p)=0.00253
material/ learning activities inappropriate 6
t (p)=0.00951
personal problems of learners 8
t (p)=0.02124
failure to use the language outside class 2
t (p)=0.054
Significant changes to aspects of their English Language Courses and Teaching
change in objectives 5
χ 2 (p)=0.03287
changes in teaching and learning methods 1
χ 2 (p)=
0.005
2
χ 2 (p)=
0.05689
5
χ 2 (p)=
0.01469
changes in assessment methods 1
χ 2 (p)=0.005
2
χ 2 (p)=0.04081
nature of change 1
χ 2 (p)=0.00428
present innovation 2
χ 2 (p)=0.01538
There appear to be significant
differences between lecturers with
qualifications in applied linguistics
specialising in teaching English as a
second/foreign language and those with
other qualifications in the way the two
groups responded to a number of
features that are generally now
considered significant in relation to
effective second language teaching(see
Table 6).

Table 6
Ten Features Essential for Effective Second Language Teaching
Keys:
1 = (Group A) Applied Linguists’ and English Language Teaching Qualification Holders’
Responses (Total=44)
2 = Group A’s No Responses
3 = Total for Group A
4 = (Group B) Others’ Responses (Total =77)
5 = Group B’s No Responses
6 = Total for Group B
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 Chi-Square
values and
probabilities
Teaching
Approaches
95.5%
(42/44)
4.5%
(2/44)
100% 27.3%
(32/77)
72.7%
(45/77)
Speaking Skills 59% 41% 100% 67.5% 32.5%
practices (26/44) (18/44)
(52/77) (25/77)
Learner-Centred 54.5% 45.5% 100% 29.9% 70.1%
Activites/ (24/44) (20/44)
(23/77) (54/77)
learning
Teaching 27.3% 72.7% 100% 20.8% 79.2%
Materials (12/44) (32/44)
(16/77) (61/77)
Teaching Aids 20.5% 79.5% 100% 28.6% 71.4%
(9/44) (35/44)
(22/77) (55/77)
Meaning-based 15.9% 84.1% 100% 16.9% 83.1%
drills/ (7/44) (37/44)
(13/77) (64/77)
learning
Structural-based 15.9% 84.1% 100% 29.87% 70.13%
learning/ (7/44) (37/44)
(23/77) (54/77)
activities
Skills-based 11.4% 88.6% 100% 5.19% 94.81%
Activities (5/44) (39/44)
(4/77) (73/77)
Miscellaneous 11.4% 88.6% 100% 11.7% 88.3%
(5/44) (39/44)
(9/77) (68/77)
Creating good 6.82% 93.18% 100% 2.6% 97.4%
attitudes (3/44) (41/44)
(2/77) (75/77)
to English
100% 30.1
(p=0.005)
100% -
100% 7.2 (observed)
(p=0.01 [6.635
critical])
100% p = 0.001
100% -
100% -
100% -
100% -
100% -
100% -

Table 7 below shows that Applied
linguists are, for example, more
inclined towards communicative
approaches than respondents with other
qualifications.
Table 7
The 13 Respondents Who Approach an Acceptable Definition for
the Term ‘Communicative Approach’
3 M.A.s only (As stated
by respondents)
10 Degrees in English
or English Teaching
1 M.A. English 1 M.A. Teaching
English
1 B.A. Teaching
English
1 B.A. Linguistics &
M.A.Linguistics
2 B.A. &
M.A. Teaching
English
1 B.A. Teaching
English &
2 Diplomas
1 B.A. Linguistics &
M.A.Linguistics &
TEF/SL
1 B.A. &
M.A. English
1 M.A. Applied Linguistics
1 B.A. English &
M.A. Tertiary Education
1 B.A. English/ French &
M.A. Tertiary Education
1 B.A.International Politics &
M.A. TEFL
Traditional teacher-centred
classroom orientation is more evident
among respondents with qualifications
not relevant to the teaching of English
as a foreign or second language.
Moreover, the survey results also show
that most of the teaching time is spent
on teacher talk rather than students’
active participation irrespective of
teacher background even though
respondents believe that they spend at
least as much time on student-centred
learning(see Table 8).
Table 8
A Comparison of Teaching Method Preferences
Variables
Total Usage
(from 121)
Not Used Total Quite frequently &
Always
discussion 98.4% 1.6% 100% 64.5%
review 97.6% 2.4% 100% 62.0%
assigned tasks 97.5% 2.5% 100% 64.4%
lecturing 95.9% 4.1% 100% 67.0%
role-play 90.1% 9.9% 100% 24.8%
simulation-games 89.2% 10.8% 100% 28.9%
project 88.4% 11.6% 100% 30.5%
showing 88.4% 11.6% 100% 28.9%
modelling 85.9% 14.1% 100% 20.6%

Most language teachers in Thai
tertiary institutions do not appear to use
English as the medium of instruction
for most of their teaching time. It is
clear, however, from conflicting reports
that there is a general feeling that the
medium of instruction should be
English more of the time than it
currently is (see Table 9).
Table 9
Percentages Thai and English are Claimed to be Used
Variables
Percentage
Percentage Thai is claimed to be used
do not use Thai at all 30.60%
from 50% to 90% of the time 29.80%
from 10% to 40% of the time 23.20%
use Thai less than 10% of the time 9.10%
Did not answer 7.30%
Total 100%
Percentage English is claimed to be used
all the time 52.90%
some of the time 40.50%
almost all the time 7.40%
Total 100%
The majority of respondents’ claim
to prefer a combination of an informal
class atmosphere and a traditional
classroom setting - a combination that
may not be reflected in what actually
happens on a day-to-day basis (see
Table 10). However, stated preferences
may be almost as significant as is the
reality in that they may indicate an
attitudinal change which is likely
ultimately to be reflected in teaching
style.
Table 10
Class Atmosphere and Classroom Setting
Variables Yes Percentage No Percentage Total
classroom setting 117/121 96.7% 4/121 3.3% 100%
informal class 107/121 88.4% 14/121 11.6% 100%
atmosphere preferred
a language laboratory 61/121 50.4% 60/121 49.6% 100%
setting
formal class 17/121 14.0% 104/121 86.0% 100%
atmosphere preferred
other setting 12/121 9.9% 109/121 90.1% 100%

Many do not seem to be aware of
debates surrounding syllabus design, or
of the range of possible syllabus types
(see Table 11). There is little evidence
of familiarity issues relating to lexical
or grammatical selection or of the
necessity of taking discourse,
pragmatic, sociolinguistic and
psycholinguistic factors into account.
Table 11
Keys:
Responses to Three Most Important
Criteria for Material Selection
1 = Responses from lecturers with Applied Linguistics qualifications (Group A)
2 = No Responses from Group A
3 = Total
4 = Responses from lecturers with other qualifications. (Group B)
5 = No Responses from Group B
6 = Total
Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 2
X Values
Critical
Value at 1 d.f.
Suitable
materials
(language and
contents)
17/19=
89.5%
2/19=
10.5%
100% 28/102=
27.5%
Subject 14/19= 5/19= 100% 13/102=
Specific 73.7% 26.3%
12.7%
Interesting & 13/19= 6/19= 100% 17/102=
Challenging 68.4% 31.6%
16.7%
Relate to 9/19= 10/19= 100% 8/102=
everyday life 47.4% 52.6%
7.8%
Up to date 7/19= 12/19= 100% 9/102=
36.8% 63.2%
8.8%
74/102
=72.5%
100% -
89/102=87 100% -
.3%
85/102=83 100% -
.3%
94/102 100% -
=92.2%
93/102 100% -
=91.2%
Right 4/19= 15/19= 100% 10/102= 92/102 100% -
language level 21.0% 79%
9.8% =90.2%
Clear instructions
and easy
to use
9/19=
7.4%
10/19=
52.6%
100% 5/102=
4.9%
97/102
=95.1%
100% 0.05

Testing And Assessment as Used in
The Thai Tertiary Institutions
Testing and assessment as used in
the Thai tertiary institutions in this
study may involve both productive
and receptive skills to some extent
(see Table 12). However, it is not clear
whether what is assessed is what is
specified in the syllabus or whether
what is specified in the syllabus is what
is taught. Nor, indeed, is it clear
whether syllabus specifications, in
many cases, relate to language learning
rather than to knowledge of the content
of texts used in the language classroom.
Table 12
The Types of Examinations Students Sit
Keys:
1 = Responses
2 = Percentage
3 = No Responses
4 = Percentage
Variables 1 2 3 4 Total
1 short paragraph answers 99/121 81 0% 22/121 19.0% 100%
2 multiple choice 98/121 80.3% 23/121 19.7% 100%
3 filling in gaps 96/121 78.7% 25/121 21.3% 100%
4 short answers 87/121 71.3% 34/121 28.7% 100%
5 essay writing 76/121 62.3% 45/121 37.7% 100%
6 true/false questions 76/121 62.3% 45/121 37.7% 100%
7 oral reports 47/121 38.5% 74/121 61.5% 100%
8 interviews 35/121 28.7% 86/121 71.3% 100%
9 other. 24/121 19.7% 97/121 80.3% 100%
Note: 1 It is not possible to tell what proportion of which type of question
appears in specific examinations.
2 Respondents may answer more than once.

Though all four skills appear on
occasion to be tested in examinations, it
is not clear whether testing places
emphasis on productive capacity and
communicative use(see Tables 13 and
14). Indeed, the stress appears to be on
reading and writing at the expense of
listening and speaking skills.
Table 13
The Types of Examinations Students Sit
Keys:
1 = Responses
2 = Percentage
3 = No Responses
4 = Percentage
Variables 1 2 3 4 Total
1 short paragraph answers 99/121 81 0% 22/121 19.0% 100%
2 multiple choice 98/121 80.3% 23/121 19.7% 100%
3 filling in gaps 96/121 78.7% 25/121 21.3% 100%
4 short answers 87/121 71.3% 34/121 28.7% 100%
5 essay writing 76/121 62.3% 45/121 37.7% 100%
6 true/false questions 76/121 62.3% 45/121 37.7% 100%
7 oral reports 47/121 38.5% 74/121 61.5% 100%
8 interviews 35/121 28.7% 86/121 71.3% 100%
9 other. 24/121 19.7% 97/121 80.3% 100%
Note: 1 It is not possible to tell what proportion of which type of
question appears in specific examinations.
2 Respondents may answer more than once.

Table 14
Skills Tested in Examinations
Keys:
1 = Responses
2 = Percentage
3 = No Responses
4 = Percentage
Variables 1 2 3 4 Total
speaking 54/121 44.6% 67/1121 55.4% 100%
listening 66/121 54 0% 55/1121 46.0% 100%
reading 104/121 85 0% 17/1121 15.0% 100%
writing 105/121 86 0% 16/1121 14.0% 100%
100
86 85
80
60
40
54
44.6
20
0
writing reading listening speaking
Note: that this table merely indicates the percentage of lecturers reporting that these
skills are tested.
Is There Still a Need for Change in
Teaching Methodology?
There is a need for a move away
from traditional structural and
grammar-translation and audiolingual
methods of teaching to more communicative
and student-centred learning
experiences based on authentic
materials(see Table 15). This move
cannot be effectively made unless the
teachers understand the basis of change
of this type and have some
understanding of its likely effects.

Table 15
Ten Features of Learning Tasks and Experiences Essential to
Students’ Being Successful Foreign Language Learners
Variables Responses Percentage
discussion 29 24.0%
students’ asking questions 22 18.2%
comprehension check questions 18 14.9%
simulation and role-play 15 12.4%
encouraging students to express opinions 10 8.3%
encouraging students to ask and answer
questions (a different set of respondents
from those who encouraged students to ask
questions only)
6 5.0%
regular consultation with teachers 4 3.3%
student-centred learning 4 3.3%
communicative approach 2 1.7%
problem solving 1 0.8%
speech contests 1 0.8%
brainstorming 1 0.8%
encouraging students to use English as
much as possible
1 0.8%
self-correction 1 0.8%
encouraging communication rather than
task-completion
1 0.8%
getting students to write to people 1 0.8%
contexualisation and elicitation 1 0.8%
eliciting the background knowledge from
students before relating what students
already know to what they do not know
1 0.8%
did not answer 2 1.7%
Total 121 100%
Note:
Respondents may answer more than once

There Is A Mismatch Between
Lecturers’ And Students’ Perception
Of The Problems Students
Encounter.
There is a mismatch between
lecturers’ and students’ perception of
the problems students encounter(see
Table 16). These discrepancies in
perception indicate the need for a more
learner-centred approach. Since most
of the student respondents appear to
believe that their problems lie mainly in
the reading and speaking skills, it is
clear that they would welcome more
emphasis on these skills. Unless
syllabuses, materials and methodologies
are reviewed, effective innovation is
unlikely. However, any review of
teaching approach and content must be
accompanied by a review of assessment
since students have the right to expect
not only that objectives will be clearly
and realistically stated, but also that
assessment will be related directly to
course objectives and will be conducted
in a way that has more than face
validity.
Table 16
Both Lecturers’ and Students’ Ratings of the Three Most
Frequent Problems Students Encounter
Problem Areas Lecturers’ Rating Problem Areas Students’ Rating
grammar 63.6% reading public notices 96.3%
speaking fluently 59.5% understanding the general
meaning of a reading passage
94.2%
writing 57.9% talking about their academic
subjects in English
90.0%
Note: The percentage for each variable is independent of all the other variables. Each set of
percentage ratings represents the percentage of lecturers rating each category versus those who did
not rate the same category. Hence 63.6% rated grammar whilst 36.4% did not. The same applies to
the other three ratings.
Little Evidence of Substantial
Changes in Syllabus Design
There is little evidence that
respondents have already made
substantial changes in terms of
syllabus design, teaching approaches,
methodologies and testing and
evaluation(see Table 17). Some of the
changes that have been made indeed,
appear to be contradictory, inconsistent

and/or without sound empirical or
theoretical foundation.
However, a higher number of
respondents with appropriate
qualifications seemed to be aware of the
changes that are taking place elsewhere
than are others and more of them seem
to be involved in implementing change.
Furthermore, lecturers in state
institutions seem to be more active in
making changes in teaching and
learning methods and forms of
assessment than do those in the private
sector.
Table 17
A Comparison of All Major Variables
Keys:
1 = Applied Linguists Only
2 = Applied Linguists & ELT Qualifications
3 = Qualifications not Relevant to the Teaching of English as a Second or Foreign Language
4 = Private vs.State Tertiary Institutions
5 = Number of years Taught at University
6 = Bachelor Degree Holders
7 = Master’s Degree Holders
8 = Ph.D Degree Holders
9 = Diploma Holders
Probability Values: (χ 2 ) = Chi-Square
‘t’ = t-test
Questionnaire Variables
Have your been involved in any other sort of academic work related to this area of teaching?
academic work related to foreign or second language
teaching
Areas of English taught
5
χ 2 (p)= 0.01581
English for specific purposes 1
χ 2 (p)=
0.00236
4
χ 2(p)=
0.00052
7
χ 2(p)= 0.01668
5
χ 2 (p)=
0.00052
Indicate whether the following items are included in the syllabus of the courses in which you
teach:
grammatical structures for subject 5 1
χ 2 (p)=
0.01192
4
χ 2 (p)=
0.02644
5
χ 2 (p)=
0.02644

general vocabulary for subject 4 1
general vocabulary for subject 5 1
subject specific vocabulary for subject 4 1
subject specific vocabulary for subject 5 2
reading comprehension for subject 5 1
summarising for subject 3 1
summarising for subject 5 1
essay writing for subject 1 7
report writing for subject 2 5
χ 2(p)= 0.05188
χ 2(p)= 0.01192
χ 2 (p)= 0.03218
χ 2 (p)= 0.01867
χ 2 (p)= 0.00052
χ 2 (p)= 0.02991
χ 2 (p)= 0.00005
χ 2 (p)= 0.00839
χ 2 (p)= 0.01168
report writing for subject 3 1
χ 2 (p)= 0.04288
speaking for subject 5 1
note taking for subject 4 1
note taking for subject 5 1
Indicate the types of examinations your students sit :
multiple choice 1
short paragraph answers 5
true or false questions as included in the
examinations they set.
filling in gaps 5
Teach more than one subject 1
χ 2 (p)= 0.00942
χ 2 (p)= 0.01802
χ 2 (p)= 0.00581
χ 2 (p)= 0.03094
χ 2(p)= 0.00180
8
χ 2 (p)= 0.00040
χ 2 (p)= 0.00040
χ 2 (p)= 0.00040
Indicate the extent to which you use English Exclusively in the class
2
χ 2 (p)= 0.03387
2
χ 2 (p)= 0.00040

English is used all the time 4
English is used some of the time 4
Per cent Thai is used 4
English is not used at all 1
What kind of class atmosphere do you prefer?
formal class atmosphere 5
χ 2(p)= 0.00221
χ 2 (p)= 0.01313
χ 2 (p)= 0.00040
χ 2 (p)= 0.00040
χ 2(p)= 0.01274
Indicate how frequently you use each of the following teaching-learning methods:
lecturing or telling 5
project 7
t (p)=0.02088
t (p)=0.00026
5
χ 2 (p)= 0.00221
5
χ 2 (p)= 0.01313
5
χ 2 (p)= 0.00040
What topics are your students particularly interested in talking/reading about during English
classes?
Subject-related studies (e.g. Engineering) 2
χ 2 (p)= 0.01780
9
χ 2 (p)= 0.00209
Your Students and their Learning
Three most frequent problems students encounter
problems with note-taking 9
χ 2 (p)= 0.00209
Rate the importance of the following activities to learning
taking notes quickly and accurately 8
t (p)=0.00328
finishing assignments in a correct and 5
t (p)=0.05169
asking about things students do not
1
understand
t (p)=0.033
listening carefully to other language users 6
t (p)=0.00525
9
t (p)=0.00331
2
t (p)=0.049
9
t (p)=0.01172
finding answers from textbooks and refer 1
t (p)=0.014
6
t (p)=0.00425

trying out new vocabulary and language skills on
their own
9
t (p)=0.00657
Possible causes of learner failure
difficulty with specific language points 6
objectives inappropriate for learners 6
material/ learning activities inappropriate 6
personal problems of learners 8
failure to use the language outside class 2
t (p)=0.00067
t (p)=0.00253
t (p)=0.00951
t (p)=0.02124
t (p)=0.054
Significant changes to aspects of their English Language Courses and Teaching
change in objectives 5
changes in teaching and learning methods 1
changes in assessment methods 1
χ 2 (p)=0.03287
χ 2 (p)=
0.005
nature of change 1
present innovation 2
χ 2 (p)=0.005
χ 2 (p)=0.00428
χ 2 (p)=0.01538
2
χ 2 (p)=
0.05689
5
χ 2 (p)=
0.01469
2
χ 2 (p)=0.04081
Evidence of In-Service Training
The longer lecturers have been
teaching, the higher the likelihood that
they will have undertaken specific study
related to foreign or second language
teaching(see Tables 18 and 19).
Furthermore, the survey results indicate
that the longer the length of service, the
more likely it is that teaching staff will
be involved in innovation. This may
relate, in part, to the fact that longer
length of service equates to hierarchical
advancement which, in turn, provides
the authority that may help in relation to
acceptance of innovation. It may be
that it is not length of service but
relevant education (which seems to
equate, in part, to length of service) that
encourages innovation. What is clear is
that innovation will not be likely to be
effective unless it involves all teaching
staff in unthreatening partnership and
unless it honestly addresses the issues
and is soundly based.

Table 18
Innovations and Development
Variables Yes No Not
answered
Total Total
Number of
Respondents
Changes in course objectives 46 50 25 100% 121
=38% =41.3% =20.7%
Changes in teaching and learning methods 65 32 24 100% 121
=53.7% =26.4% =19.8%
Changes in assessment methods 57 40 24 100% 121
=47.1% =33.1% =19.8%
Changes in materials and tools 80 19 22 100% 121
=66.1% =15.7% =18.2%
Changes in computer hardware 1 120 0% 100% 121
=0.8% =99.2%
Changes in computer software 3 118 0% 100% 121
=2.5% =97.5%
Changes in books 78 43 0% 100% 121
=64.5% =35.5%
Changes in video 42 79 0% 100% 121
=34.7% =65.3%
Other changes 17 104 0% 100% 121
=14% =86%
Innovation in the past 43 78 0% 100% 121
=35.5% =64.6%
Present innovation 28 51 42 100% 121
=23.1% =42.1% =34.8%
Major changes in the last twenty years 63
=52.1%
25
=20.7%
33
=27.2%
100% 121
Table 19
Current New Ideas
Variables Responded Not Responded Total
Learner-centred Learning 15/121 106/121 100%
=12.4% =87.6%
Communicative use of English: 5/121=4.1% 116/121 100%
=95.9%
-to encourage students to use English 3
-stimulate students to speak English 1

-use English in real life situations 1
Communicative techniques 14/121
=11.6%
-changing syllabus with an emphasis
3
on active learning strategies
-communicative approach 2
Not Responded 34/121
=28.1%
107/121
=88.4%
87/121
=71.9%
100%
100%
ESP Course at Thai Tertiary Institutions
Thai tertiary institutions provide ESP courses for both academic and occupational
purposes(see Table 20).
Table 20 Evidence of Institutional Goals or Policies Which Encourage
English Language Teaching Programmes to Include ESP Courses
Variables
Private
Universities
No
Responses
State
Universites
No
Responses
Chi-
Square
Probability
Policies supporting
ESP
15/56
(26.8%)
41/56
(73.2%)
38/65
(58.5%)
27/65
(41.5%)
Curriculum 4/52 52/56 2/65 63/65
(7.1%) (92.8%) (3%) (97%)
External Contacts 1/56 55/56 0.0% 65/65
(1.8%) (98.2%)
(100%)
Material Writing 0% 100% 2/65 63/65
(3%) (97%)
In-Service Training 1/56 55/56 1/65 64/65
(1.8%) (98.2%) (1.54%) (98.5%)
12.3
(p=0.005)
=7.879
In some institutions, these courses
appear to cater before being admitted to
the ESP course and it appears then to be
assumed that all participants will have a
more or less equal chance of success.
Diagnostic testing is not in evidence to
any significant extent, nor is there
evidence that individual differences are
acknowledged or catered for in any
central sense.

Table 21 Statistical Analyses of Lecturers with Applied Linguistics
Qualifications (Group 1) and Lecturers with no Relevant
Qualifications (Group 3)
Variables
Group
1
Group
2
Group
3
Percent
Percent
Percent
Total
No Responses
Percent
Res-
Total
ponses
(i) items included in the syllabus in one of the courses that they teach:
English for
specific purposes
17/19 89.5
%
21/25 84.0
%
53/77 68.8
%
30/121 24.8
%
91/121
= 75.2%
100%
for subject 4
reading
12/19 63.2
- - 24/77 31.2
85/121 70.2
36/121
100%
comprehension for
subject 5
%
%
%
= 29.8%
general
vocabulary for
subject 4
11/19 57.9
%
15/25 60% 35/77 45.5
%
60/121 49.6
%
61/121
= 50.4
100%
summary writing
for subject 3
10/19 52.6
%
13/25 52% 28/77 36.4
%
70/121 57.9
%
51/121
= 42.1%
100%
subject specific
9/19 47.4
8/25 32% 16/77 20.8
88/121 72.7
33/121
100%
vocabulary for
subject 4
%
%
%
= 27.3%
note-taking for
subject 4
9/19 47.4
%
24/25 96% 8/77 10.4
%
88/121 72.7
%
41/121
= 33.9%
100%
summary writing
8/19 42.1
13/25 52% 8/77 10.4
92/121 76% 29/112
100%
for subject 5
%
%
= 23.9%
general
8/19 42.1
15/25 60% 17/77 22.1
51/121 42.1
70/121
100%
vocabulary for
subject 5
%
%
%
=57.9%
speaking for
7/19 36.8
16/25 64% 13/77 16.9
85/121 70.2
36/121
100%
subject 5
%
%
%
=29.8%

note-taking for
7/19 36.8
- - 12/77 15.6
102/121 84.3
19/121
100%
subject 5
%
%
%
=15.7%
report writing for
7/19 36.8
- - 13/77 16.8
101/121 83.5
20/121
100%
subject 3
%
%
%
=16.5%
subject specific
vocabulary for
subject 4
- - - - 24/77 31.2
%
102/121 84.3
%
24/121=
19.8%
100%
subject specific
10/19 52.6
5/25 20% 12/77 15.6
94/121 77.7
27/121
100%
vocabulary for
subject 5
%
%
%
=23.3%
grammatical
structures for
- - - - 17/77 22.1
%
17/121 14
%
104/121
=85.9%
100%
subject 4
grammatical
8/19 42.1
16/25 64% 12/77 15.6
36/121 29.8
85/121
100%
structures for
subject 5
%
%
%
=70.2%
changes in:
teaching and
learning methods
16/19 84.2
%
2/25 8% 31/77 40.3
%
49/121 40.5
%
72/121
=59.5%
100%
forms of
assessment
6/19 31.2
%
15/25 60% 39/77 50.7
%
61/121 50.4
%
60/121
=49.6%
100%
objectives - - 17/25 68% 39/77 50.6
56/121 46.3
65/121
100%
%
%
=53.7%
topics students are interested in:
-subject-related
studies
- - - - 25/77 32.5
%
25/121 20.7
%
96/121
=79.3%
100%
-subject-related
studies
9/19 47.4
%
9/25 36% 16/77 20.8
%
87/121 71.9
%
34/121
=28.1%
100%
items included in the examinations their students sit:
short paragraph
- - 24/25 96% - - 97/121 80.2
24/121
100%
answers
%
=19.8%

multiple choice 12/19 63.2
%
- - 65/77 84.4
%
44/121 36.4
%
77/121=
63.6%
100%
students do not have problems with:
note-taking 6/19 31.6
%
17/25 68
%
71/77 92.2
%
27/121 22.3
%
94/121
=77.7%
100%
teach more than
one subject
14/19 73.7
%
14/25 56
%
31/77 40.3
%
62/121 51.2
%
59/121
=48.8%
100%
Published materials are used for
ESP courses and for language
laboratory use. Courses not for
language laboratory use, however, are
often compiled by the lecturers. The
majority of the lecturers report that the
teaching materials they select are
adequate to cover the needs of the
course. More than half of the teacher
respondents report that they carry out
ESP materials writing projects and do
ESP research in their institutions.
However, it is difficult to tell precisely
what individuals mean when they use
the term ESP and there is little evidence
of awareness of debates surrounding
this area. The majority of respondents
clearly perceive ESP courses as being
different from GPE courses as relating
closely to students’ major subject areas
but it is clear that these courses are
often G.P.E. courses which use subject
specific materials.
Results of Students’ Responses
The questionnaire for students
consists of 107 questions on 8 pages.
One hundred and ninety students (190)
responded to the Questionnaire for
Students. There were 65 males and
125 females. The students’ ages ranged
from 17 to 25. All of the students have
completed at least one English course at
university level. The students were
chosen by the lecturers responding to
the questionnaires. There were 83
students from private universities and
107 students from state universities.
Over seventy percent of student
respondents reported having difficulty
with specific aspects of the four skills
(see Table 22). This finding contradicts
the majority view that they do not have
serious problems with the four skills
themselves in a general sense. The
majority of students report spending
only up to six hours each week on
academic work. This seems to indicate
a serious lack of motivation.

Table 22 Self-Diagnosis of the Four Skills
Variables Most of the time and all of the time
Self-diagnosis of reading difficulties
(g) following instructions 59.5%
(j) reading public notices 52.8%
(k) problem with too many words I do not understand 47.6%
(l) understanding all the information in a text 37.3%
(i) understanding official letters or forms 31.9%
(a) understanding the general meaning of a reading passage 25.1%
(h) reading stories or novels 24.6%
(b) picking out the main information 23.6%
(c) understanding the details 16.7%
(d) following the points in an argument 13.2%
Self-diagnosis of listening comprehension difficulties
(a) weather broadcast in English 40.8%
(c) lectures in English 39.2%
(d) English TV programmes 35.5%
(b) conversation between English speaking people 28.6%
Self-diagnosis of writing difficulties
(c) writing essays in English 44.4%
(d) taking notes in English 34.6%
(a) spelling in English 20.1%
(b) punctuation 18.5%
Self-diagnosis of speaking difficulties
(d) talking about my academic subjects in English 64.4%
(a) answering questions in English 29.8%

(b) asking questions in English 29.3%
(c) expressing things about myself in English 19.9%
Students’ Responses to the Teaching
and Testing They Encountered
Students enjoy receiving
immediate rather than delayed feedback
and prefer to correct their own work
rather than having other students
correcting their work for them(see
Table 23).
Table 23
Students’ Preferences for Feedback Method
Keys:
1 = like very much 2 = quite like
3 = neutral 4 = dislike
5 = dislike very much 6 = did not answer
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
How do you feel when:
waiting to receive
feedback/grades?
being told that you have
made progress?
feeling more confident in
situations that you found
difficult before?
33=
17.3%
109 =
57.1%
76 =
40%
46 =
24.1%
60 =
31.4%
80 =
42.1%
When you speak how would you like to be corrected:
immediately,in front of
everyone?
immediately but in
private?
(c)later, at the end of the
activity, in front of
everyone?
58 =
30.4%
70 =
36.6%
36=
18.8%
(d) later, in private? 54=
28.3%
How do you feel about:
53=
27.7%
55=
28.8%
63 =
33%
58=
30.4%
52 =
27.2%
18 =
9.4%
29 =
15.2%
51=
26.7%
40=
20.9%
63 =
33%
55=
28.8%
26 =
13.6%
3 =
1.6%
3 =
1.6%
22=
11.5%
22=
11.5%
21 =
11%
14 =
7.3%
32 =
16.8%
1 =
0.5%
100%
- - 100%
2 =
1%
5=
2.6%
3=
1.6%
7=
3.7%
9 =
4.7%
- 100%
1=
0.5%
100%
- 100%
- 100%
- 100%

Other students
Correcting your written
work?
(b) the teacher
sometimes asking you to
correct your own work?
18 =
9.4%
65 =
34%
30 =
15.7%
65 =
34%
Even so, they still appear, in
general, to prefer a rather passive style
of learning involving listening and
taking notes rather than, for example,
correcting their own writing(see Table
24). They also prefer learning by
listening to reading and making notes.
The majority of students do, however,
enjoy role play although over half
still find memorising conversations/
76 =
39.8%
39 =
20.4%
37 =
19.4%
14 =
7.3%
27 =
14.2%
7=
3.7%
1=
0.5%
100%
- 100%
dialogues helpful. Interestingly, not
withstanding their preference for
listening and taking notes, the majority
of students perceive the speaking skill
to be a little more important than the
skills of writing, reading and listening.
It may be that they have some fear of
speaking activities for a range of
reasons. This clearly needs to be
investigated.
Table 24
Students’ Preferences for Learning Method
Variables
Percent (quite like or
like very much)
learning by reading 58.1%
learning by repeating what students hear 52.3%
learning by listening 51.9%
reading and making notes as a learning 49.7%
method.
problem solving tasks as a learning method 46.6%
listening and taking notes as a learning method 45.6%
getting information for yourselves. 44.5%
memorising 34.6%
copying from the board 34.0%
According to the students, factors
that hinder the learning of a foreign
language are student-related,
classroom-related and resource-related.
Students also feel that there are
inadequate native speaker teachers and
insufficient consultation hours. Nor
does it help that teaching methods are

often felt to be uninteresting, as are
teaching materials. Furthermore, there
is a clear indication that students regard
course objectives as being ill-defined.
Students seem to have difficulty
understanding English materials that are
Table 25
not class related (see Table 25). This
seems to suggest they cannot make
effectively use of what has been
taught/learnt in class in real life
experience.
Students’ Perceptions of the Three Most Frequent Problems
They Encounter
Variables
Percentage of a lot of
difficulties
speaking about their academic subjects in 64.4%
English
reading public notices 52.8%
finding too many words I don’t understand 47.6%
following instructions (when reading) 47.6%
Students’ Motivation for Taking
English Courses
Many lecturers report that students
take English courses only because they
are compulsory and appear to blame
students for their failure to reach a high
level of proficiency. In this context, it
is worth noting that student motivation
for learning is largely instrumental (see
Table 26). Furthermore, if given a
choice, about thirty two percent of the
student respondents would prefer to
learn a language other than English.
Moreover, sixty eight percent stated
that when applying for a job, English
would give them advantage over those
who do not know English.
Table 26
The Reasons Students Learn English
Variable Responded Not Total
Responded
English is useful 97=51.1% 94=48.9% 100%
enjoy learning English 42=21.9% 149=78.1% 100%
to improve skills in English 25=13.0% 166=87.0% 100%
further studies 14= 7.3% 177=92.7% 100%
an advantage in job application 13= 6.8% 178=93.2% 100%

an important language for Thailand and 10= 5.0% 181=95% 100%
Thai business dealings and information
do not like other languages 2=1.0% 189=99% 100%
to be able to speak many languages 1=0.5% 190=99.5% 100%
to improve one’s social status 1=0.5% 190=99.5% 100%
to be different from other people 1=0.5% 190=99.5% 100%
Summary of Research Findings and
Suggestions for Further Research
What is clear is that (a) there is
very little detailed, reliable research
evidence about how English is actually
taught/learned at schools and
universities in Thailand, (b) there is
very little evidence that standards are
improving significantly. The objectives
outlined in the various curricula at
different levels of education in Thailand
cover a wide variety of skills and, if
successfully achieved, should ensure
that students are highly proficient in
English. However, there is a wide gap
between general objectives statements
and specific achievement. To address
the above problems, it is suggested that
further research be carried out to
answer the following questions: what is
actually happening in relation to the
teaching of English in the Thai school
and university systems? What exactly
are the syllabus contents currently being
used at both school and university
levels and how effective are the various
courses?
In the area of examinations,
research is need to answer the following
questions: what factors are most likely
to lead to successful examination
performance by students? What type of
examinations should be made
available?
Follow up studies of actual
classroom behaviour and perception of
teachers and students about what is
being taught and learnt are clearly
required. This study indicates that
teachers may not necessarily be doing
what they believe they are doing, or
believe they ought to be doing. Only
observation of what is actually
happening in classrooms will reveal the
extent to which perception and reality
match.
Anecdotal Evidence
Many comments were made (and
negative reactions received) about the
length and purpose of the
questionnaires used in this study. One
or two lecturers asked if the researcher
was testing their knowledge of the
theories of second/foreign language
teaching. Several expressed suspicion
about the researcher’s motivation,
believing she wanted to obtain inside
information about the teaching and
learning of English in their institutions.
Some teachers said the questionnaire

was too difficult for them and stated
that they were unable to answer the
theoretical questions. A number of
respondents stated that they did not
have any knowledge at all about ESP.
On the whole, it was extremely
difficult to motivate the staff of tertiary
institutions to respond to the
questionnaire. This seems to have
related to a number of factors. What is
evident is that many felt that the
questionnaire was simply an intrusion
into an already over-loaded schedule.
The combination of over-work, fear,
suspicion and anxiety that language
teachers in Thai tertiary institutions
appear to suffer from is not conducive
to effective innovation. Only when
teachers feel adequately trained and
experienced and effectively supported
by their institutions are they likely to
be willing to discuss possible
improvements openly and with
confidence. Only when they feel that
innovation involves unthreatening
partnership are they likely to welcome
it. Successful innovation is likely to
take place where there is confidence,
trust and professional security.
Thailand must acknowledge that the
process of change is likely to be a long
and gradual one and that it must involve
the acknowledgment of the need for
true professionalism in language
teaching and, therefore, of the need for
a comprehensive policy on language
teacher education - a policy that offers
opportunities to everyone involved.
References
Allwright, R. (1984). “Why don’t
learners learn what teachers teach?:
The interaction hypothesis.” In D.
Singleton & D. Little (Eds.).
Language learning in formal and
informal contexts (pp. 3-18).
Dublin: IRAAL.
Andrews, S. (1984). “The effect of
arabicization on the role of service
English.” In J. Swales & H.
Mustafa, (Eds.). ESP in the Arab
world (pp. 172-84). Birmingham:
Language Services Unit, University
of Aston.
Holliday, A. (1992). “Tissue rejection
and informal orders in ELT
projects: Collecting the right
information.” Applied Linguistics,
13 (4), pp. 403-424.
Kirkpatrick, A & Prescott, D. (1995).
“Whose course is it anyway? Why
we need a new ELT teacher
education course.” Expanding
horizons in English language
teaching (pp. 95-107). Selected
Papers Presented at CULI’s Third
International Conference 27-29
November 1995, Bangkok Thailand.
Nunan, D. (1995). “Closing the gap
between learning and instruction.”
TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1), 133-158.
______