PDF format - AU Journal - Assumption University of Thailand
PDF format - AU Journal - Assumption University of Thailand PDF format - AU Journal - Assumption University of Thailand
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
- Page 1 and 2: ARE STUDENTS SUFFERING BECAUSE OF T
- Page 3 and 4: 175). Nevertheless, it has been not
- Page 5 and 6: languages are taught and learned”
- Page 7 and 8: statistical test. The coefficients
- Page 9 and 10: continue to learn outside of the cl
- Page 11 and 12: subject specific vocabulary for sub
- Page 13 and 14: trying out new vocabulary and langu
- Page 15: Table 7 below shows that Applied li
- Page 19 and 20: Though all four skills appear on oc
- Page 21 and 22: Table 15 Ten Features of Learning T
- Page 23 and 24: and/or without sound empirical or t
- Page 25 and 26: English is used all the time 4 Engl
- Page 27 and 28: Table 18 Innovations and Developmen
- Page 29 and 30: Table 21 Statistical Analyses of Le
- Page 31 and 32: multiple choice 12/19 63.2 % - - 65
- Page 33 and 34: (b) asking questions in English 29.
- Page 35 and 36: often felt to be uninteresting, as
- Page 37: was too difficult for them and stat
Many do not seem to be aware <strong>of</strong><br />
debates surrounding syllabus design, or<br />
<strong>of</strong> the range <strong>of</strong> possible syllabus types<br />
(see Table 11). There is little evidence<br />
<strong>of</strong> familiarity issues relating to lexical<br />
or grammatical selection or <strong>of</strong> the<br />
necessity <strong>of</strong> taking discourse,<br />
pragmatic, sociolinguistic and<br />
psycholinguistic factors into account.<br />
Table 11<br />
Keys:<br />
Responses to Three Most Important<br />
Criteria for Material Selection<br />
1 = Responses from lecturers with Applied Linguistics qualifications (Group A)<br />
2 = No Responses from Group A<br />
3 = Total<br />
4 = Responses from lecturers with other qualifications. (Group B)<br />
5 = No Responses from Group B<br />
6 = Total<br />
Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 2<br />
X Values<br />
Critical<br />
Value at 1 d.f.<br />
Suitable<br />
materials<br />
(language and<br />
contents)<br />
17/19=<br />
89.5%<br />
2/19=<br />
10.5%<br />
100% 28/102=<br />
27.5%<br />
Subject 14/19= 5/19= 100% 13/102=<br />
Specific 73.7% 26.3%<br />
12.7%<br />
Interesting & 13/19= 6/19= 100% 17/102=<br />
Challenging 68.4% 31.6%<br />
16.7%<br />
Relate to 9/19= 10/19= 100% 8/102=<br />
everyday life 47.4% 52.6%<br />
7.8%<br />
Up to date 7/19= 12/19= 100% 9/102=<br />
36.8% 63.2%<br />
8.8%<br />
74/102<br />
=72.5%<br />
100% -<br />
89/102=87 100% -<br />
.3%<br />
85/102=83 100% -<br />
.3%<br />
94/102 100% -<br />
=92.2%<br />
93/102 100% -<br />
=91.2%<br />
Right 4/19= 15/19= 100% 10/102= 92/102 100% -<br />
language level 21.0% 79%<br />
9.8% =90.2%<br />
Clear instructions<br />
and easy<br />
to use<br />
9/19=<br />
7.4%<br />
10/19=<br />
52.6%<br />
100% 5/102=<br />
4.9%<br />
97/102<br />
=95.1%<br />
100% 0.05
Change language