A Study of Good Practices in Secondary Schools
for Enhancing Students’ English Language Proficiency
Faculty of Education, HKU
Consulting Team
Research Assistant Team
Team Leaders:
Project Manager:
Amy B.M. Tsui, Chair Professor
K.K. Tong, Assistant Professor
Wendy Leung
Research Assistants:
Team members:
Stephen Andrews, Associate Professor
Raymond Lam, Assistant Professor
Albert Wong, Assistant Professor
Gary Harfitt, Teaching Consultant
Nicole Tavares, Teaching Consultant
Margaret Lo, Teaching Consultant
Maria Ng, Faculty Fellow
Cathy Cheung
David Kwan
Gloria Chung
Hayes Tang
Hofan Chau
Joe Wong
Joffee Lam
Scarlet Poon
1
Research Questions

What are the strategies adopted by schools
that show consistent improvement in English
proficiency since the implementation of Firm
Guidance of MOI in 1998?

How effective are these strategies in bringing
about positive learning outcomes?

What conditions maximize the effectiveness
of these strategies in bringing about positive
learning outcomes?
2
Research Design
1.
Identification of schools


2.
HKEAT sample data provided by EMB: 61 schools identified
Collection of complete HKEAT data set by schools identified
in Stage 1 and triangulation with EMB data set: 46 schools
provided data, 14 CMI and 11 EMI schools were identified as
improving schools
TQ survey on practical and psychological dimensions
of ELT

36 out of 46 schools, plus one additional school (388
teachers) participated
Identification of “effective” teachers (ETs)
3.

based on HKEAT scores of their students (Teacher Effective
Index, TEI): 37 (CMI) and 29 (EMI) ETs were identified.
3
Research Design
4. Identification of case study schools and
teachers for case study
5. SQ survey on practical and psychological
dimensions of ELL

S1-S3 students from 12 case study schools
6. Student Learning Outcomes: Pre- and posttest comparisons



All classes taught by ETs
Additional classes of case study schools on
voluntary basis
2 control schools (1 CMI; 1 EMI)
>
4
Research Design: case study schools and teachers

Criteria for identifying case study schools:




Medium of instruction
Student ability (school banding)
No. of “effective teachers” (ETs) based on TEI
Criteria for identifying teachers for case study:
“Effective & marginally effective teachers” (21)
 Teacher Effectiveness Index (TEI)
 Triangulated with recommendations from school
principals and / or panel chairs
 Agreed to participate
“Case study teachers” (9)
 not initially identified because TEI was not available or did
not fully meet the TEI requirements.
 highly recommended by principals and/or panel chairs as
effective teachers
 Agreed to participate
5
Summary of case study schools and ETs
No.
MOI
Banding
EMTP (EMT)*
Case study Ts
1
EMI
1 (Upper)
1 (8)
1
2
EMI
1 (Upper)
3 (7)
0
3
EMI
1 (Lower)
0**
2
4
EMI
1 (Lower)
0 (5)
2
5
CMI
1&2
2 (5)
1
6
CMI
1&2
2 (7)
0
7
CMI
1&2
2 (7)
0
8
CMI
1&2
4 (4)
2
9
CMI
3
2 (6)
1
10
CMI
3
1 (5)
0
11
CMI
4&5
2 (7)
0
12
CMI
4&5
2 (4)
0
21 (65)
9
4 (EMI) 8 (CMI)
*EMTP: No. of ETs and marginally effective teachers participated in the case study;
(EMT) No. of ETs and marginally effective teachers identified
**The Teacher Effectiveness Index (TEI) is not available in School 065
>
6
Quantitative Data Collection

Teacher Questionnaire (May’03 ~ Sept’03)
 388 teachers from 37 secondary schools

Student Learning : Pre-test (Nov’03 ~ Dec’03)
 3691 students from 12 case study schools + 2 control schools
(1 EMI, 12 classes; 1 CMI, 12 classes)

Student Learning: Post-test (May’04 ~ Jul’04)
 3664* students from 12 case study schools + 2 control schools
(1 EMI, 12 classes; 1 CMI, 12 classes)

Student Questionnaire (May’04 ~ Jul’04)
 6716 students (F.1 ~ F.3) from 12 case study schools
* 27 students were absent from the post-test
7
Qualitative Data Collection
Data collection period ( Oct 03 – Jul 04): “Asking”, “Watching” &
“Examining” (Wolcott, 1992)

No. of participating schools: 12

Interviews:





Observations:



No. of principals interviewed: 12, No. of interviews: 21
No. of teachers interviewed individually: 67, No. of interviews: 170
No. of interviews conducted with English panels: 7
No. of students interviewed: 349
No. of lesson observations: 383
No. of “extra-curricular activities” observations: clubs activities,
performances, lunch-time activities, morning assemblies: 58
Artifacts examined:


Curriculum materials and artifacts: lesson plans, worksheets,
handouts, notices, announcement templates, webpages
Student work: exercises, compositions, minutes of meetings
8
Factor analysis of TQ
12 dimensions differentiating English language teachers
(N=388)












management of learning
management of learning: using English to interact with students at all
times*
enactment of ESL curriculum: planning and classroom implementation
enactment of ESL curriculum: scaffolding*
enactment of ESL curriculum: student empowerment
pre- and post-lesson thinking
dealing with “input for learning”
general teacher efficacy*
English teacher efficacy
self-perception of efficacy in teaching English*
collaborative learning
self-learning tools
*dimensions that discriminated between effective, non-effective and ineffective
teachers
9
TQ Items on 4 Dimensions Discriminating
ITs, NTs & ETs (1)
1. Management of learning: using English to interact with
students at all times
Q69
I insist on the use of English for classroom
management purposes.
Q70r When students have problems understanding
my explanation in English, I repeat my
explanation once again in Cantonese.
Q71
I use English when I talk to my students
outside the classroom.
10
TQ Items on 4 Dimensions Discriminating
ITs, NTs & ETs (2)
2. Enactment of ESL curriculum: proximal and distal
scaffolding
Q73r
Q74
Q75
Q76
Q77
I follow the textbook(s) / coursebook(s) closely.
I give my students time to research the topic and discuss
their ideas with their classmates before they write their
composition.
I ensure that my teaching of a language point takes into
account what has been taught in previous years and how
the point may be revisited in future years.
I give my students very specific comments about the
strengths they demonstrate in their writing tasks.
I give my students very specific comments about the
major weaknesses they show in their writing tasks.
11
TQ Items on 4 Dimensions Discriminating
ITs, NTs & ETs (3)
3. General teaching efficacy
Q79r
Q80r
Q81r
There are limits to what an English teacher can
achieve because a student’s achievement in English
is largely influenced by his/her language
environment.
If parents would do more to help their children to
learn English, teachers could do more.
If students are not motivated to learn English, even
an effective English teacher has little influence on
their achievement in English.
12
TQ Items on 4 Dimensions Discriminating
ITs, NTs & ETs (4)
4. Self-perception of efficacy in teaching English
Q91
Q92r
Q93r
Q94r
Q95:
I understand the English language system well
enough to be effective in teaching English.
I find it difficult to explain to students why a sentence
is grammatically wrong.
When a student has difficulty understanding a
grammatical concept, I am usually at a loss as to how
to help the student understand it better.
I am not sure if I have the necessary skills to teach
English.
I am very effective in involving students in language
activities.
13
Differences in mean scores among teachers on 4 TQ dimensions
Dimension
ET I
( n = 16)
ET II
NT
IT
( n = 46 ) ( n = 169 ) ( n = 22 )
management of learning :
using English to interact with
students at all times*
4.17
4.04
3.50
2.97
Enactment of ESL curriculum:
scaffolding*
4.26
4.06
3.99
3.73
General teaching efficacy*
2.92
2.51
2.44
2.08
Self-perception of efficacy in
teaching English*
4.98
4.68
4.58
4.45
*p < .05
The above 4 dimensions correlate significantly with Teacher Effectiveness Index, TEI, a valueadded index.
An arrow indicates a significant difference between the two groups marked by the beginning and
the end of the arrow.
14
Interpretation of TQ findings
The findings of the TQ analyses suggest that effective
English teachers differ from non-effective or ineffective
teachers in that they

engage students in using English for communicative
purposes by interacting with them in English at all
times;

provide scaffolding (both distal and proximal) in
teaching;

believe that teachers can improve students’
performance in English;

perceive themselves to be effective in English language
teaching.
15
Student Questionnaire:
Reliability coefficients of subscales (N= 6716)
(1)
1. Learning in the English classroom

Engagement in using the language
EUL
0.6513

Tailored Curriculum and materials
CM
0.5240

Learning support at school
LSS
0.8246
LSO
0.4794
2. Learning Support Outside the
Classroom
3.
Exposure to English

Exposure to English outside school
EOS
0.7703

Exposure to English at school
EAS
0.7581
16
SQ: Reliability coefficients (2)
Previous
year
4. Self-perception of Learning
This
year

Self-perception of learning in general
SPG
0.6536
0.6540

Self-perception of learning English
SPE
0.6918
0.7093
5. Motivation for Learning English

Attitudes in learning English
AtLE
0.5915
0.6106

Anxiety towards learning English
AnLE 0.7264
0.7231

Perceived control of learning
PCL
0.6904
0.7012

Intrinsic motivation
IM
0.7607
0.7627

Extrinsic motivation
EM
0.7734
0.7655
6. Attribution of English
Performance

Internal factor
IF
0.7687
0.7767

External factor
EF
0.3378
0.3382
17
SQ: Reliability coefficients (3)
Previous
year
7. Self-efficacy of Students
This
year

Internal self-efficacy of students
ISS
0.7793
0.7721

External self-efficacy of students
ESS
0.6185
0.6245
8. Strategies for Learning English

Rehearsal strategy for learning English
RSE
0.8085
0.8078

Cognitive strategy for learning English
CgSE
0.7951
0.7783

Compensation strategy for learning
English
CpSE
0.5987
0.5724

Metacognitive strategy for learning
English
MSE
0.8528
0.8530
9. Use of English in content
subject classroom situations
(for EMI students)
EMI
0.7688
18
Factor analysis of SQ (1)
Factor analysis of SQ showed 3 factors:

Factor 1 Opportunities and Support for Learning English






Engagement in using language
Tailored curriculum and materials
Learning support outside the classroom
Exposure to English outside school
Exposure to English at school
Factor 2 Attitudes toward English and learning English





Self-perception of learning in general
Self-perception of learning English
Attitudes towards English & learning English
Anxiety towards learning English
Perceived control of learning
19
Factor analysis of SQ (2)

Factor 3 Motivation, attribution and strategies for
learning English








Intrinsic motivation
Extrinsic motivation
Attribution of English performance to internal factors
Internal self-efficacy of students
Rehearsal strategy for learning English
Cognitive strategy for learning English
Compensation strategy for learning English
Metacognitive strategy for learning English
20
Triangulation of TQ and S
Q
4 discriminating dimensions of TQ




Management of learning: using English to interact
with students at all times
Enactment of ESL curriculum: scaffolding
General teacher efficacy
Self-perception of efficacy in teaching English
3 dimensions identified in SQ



Opportunities and Support for Learning English
Attitudes towards English and learning English
Motivation, attribution and strategies for learning
English
21
Results of analyses of SQ

Students in 3 schools reported more opportunities and support for
learning English (Factor 1) compared to other schools of similar
banding:



school 112 (CMI)
school 030 (EMI)
school 065 (EMI)

Students in all improving case study schools showed significant
gains in nearly all psychological subscales (Factors 2 & 3)
compared to previous year, except for Attribution to External
Factors and External Self-Efficacy.

Students in 4 classes taught by “effective teachers” reported
larger gain in almost all psychological subscales (Factors 2 & 3)
compared to students taught by other teachers at the same level
in the same school:



school 426 (CMI) class 2B
school 268 (CMI) class 3A
school 114 (CMI) class 1E and 2C
22
Qualitative Data Analysis and Triangulation
with Quantitative Data

Identification of distinctive features of each
case study

Cross case analysis: Identification of
common themes emerging from distinctive
features of all cases

Triangulation with quantitative student data:
SQ and pre- post-test findings

Identification of conditions / strategies for
effective English language teaching and
learning under the six themes
23
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Findings of Cross-case analysis (1)
Common Theme
School
Promotion of reading
065,104 &114
Promotion of writing
065 & 114
Adaptation of curriculum materials
043, 104 & 426
Catering for students of lower
academic ability
030, 043, 214 & 228
Confidence building thro’ student
empowerment and engagement with
the target language
030, 043, 065, 114 &
426
Whole school approach to English
enhancement
065, 112 & 144
<
24
Promotion of Reading

Whole school approach to promotion of reading
 Involvement of all stakeholders: teachers, librarian, students, and
parents
 Teachers as role models
 Librarian as facilitator and resource person
 Parents as supporters and companions
 Students as readers and resource persons

Integration of ER into formal and informal curricula
 Allocate class time for ERS and teacher-student, student-student
story telling
 Story-sharing corner: peer support and peer learning
 Home reading and journal entries / letters to peers on books read:
integration of reading and writing

Incentives for reading
 Reading competition; awards for voracious readers
 Small prizes for telling stories
 ERS achievement as part of assessment

School Library: “moving from backstage to the front” – sch. librarian
 Pleasant and inviting environment to read, e.g. reading corner
 Students, parents, teachers and care-takers recommend books to
librarian
 Several visits to bookstores by student librarians for book
purchase
 Books for parents
25
Promotion of Writing

Process writing: drafting and revising





Revision of drafts in response to peer and teacher
comments
Raised students’ awareness of their own strengths and
weaknesses in writing through evaluating others’ writing
Focusing on content and form separately rather than
simultaneously
Created a sense of audience and ownership of text
Regular writing / free writing



Helps students to develop a habit of expressing themselves
in writing
Provides a venue for personal interaction between the
student and the teacher
Provides a low anxiety environment for risk-taking and
hypothesis testing in language learning
26
Adaptation of Curriculum Materials

Adaptation of textbooks





Exploitation of school resources and public resources for
teaching



Flexible approach to curriculum and scheme of work, e.g. oral
story telling curriculum
Clear objectives: adapting up and adapting down
Careful grading and sequencing of tasks to ensure coherence and
to provide adequate scaffolding
Formative and summative feedback
Public resources: Internet, public talks, workshops, videos, TV
programs and movies, posters
Resources within the school, e.g., school tuck shop and staff,
library, content subject teachers
Collaborative Materials Adaptation


Materials and experience sharing
Collaborative lesson planning
27
Catering for Students of Lower Academic Ability

Alleviating English learning anxiety



Making learning tasks manageable




Create a positive and non-threatening environment for risktaking
Make English learning relevant to students’ daily lives
Use of carefully graded tasks
Use of scaffolding
Use of partitioning strategies
Using focusing strategies


Effective use of blackboard to highlight and focus students’
attention on key learning points
Effective use of mnemonic devices
28
Confidence Building thro’ Student
Empowerment and Engagement with Target Language

Engagement with target language





Maximize opportunities for public speaking for ALL students,
e.g., morning assembly, speech festival, drama festival, etc.
Maximize opportunities for using the language for
communicative purposes, e.g., meetings, agenda and minutes,
ECAs, notices, posters, etc.
Provide adequate scaffolding for speaking tasks
Organize experiential dimension of English learning: overseas
trips to English speaking country and preparatory activities
Student Empowerment: making students responsible
for their own learning



Senior students as mentors to junior students
Students take responsibility for organizing English activities
Peer learning: peer feedback on performance in English
29
Whole School Approach to English Enhancement

Motivating and involving all stakeholders



Infra-structure and human resources deployment




Identification of key personnel as change agents
Infra-structure for planning, teaching, assessment and
feedback
Effective deployment of NET
Consensus building in resource allocation


Involvement of content subject teachers
Developing positive attitudes towards English learning
English chat room, teaching assistants, renovation of library,
time-tabling, etc.
Integration of Formal and Informal Curricula


Focusing on accuracy in the classroom and fluency in ECAs
ECAs as an extension of the formal curriculum
30
Student Learning Outcomes: Results of analyses of
pre- and post-tests
 The students in the following classes showed positive
value-added indices in all English skills / domains:
Value-added indices in English
Band School
Class
Total
score
Reading
Writing
Listening
EMI
Up
043
3B
+
+
++
++
CMI
1&2
114
2C
++
++
+++
+
Function
Form
+
+
++
 The indices were based on comparison with classes of the same ability banding.
 Positive value-added indices
Negative value-added indices
small positive effect + .30 to .49
small negative effect
0
-.30 to -.49
medium positive effect ++ .50 to .79
medium negative effect 00
-.50 to -.79
large positive effect +++ .80 or higher large negative effect
000 -.80 or higher
<
31
Triangulation of Data: an example (Sch 065) (1)
Qualitative Data Analysis: Distinctive Features Identified in 065
 Promotion of reading
 Innovative writing curriculum
 Using EMI for content subjects
Quantitative Data Analysis: Pre- and Post-test comparisons

Reading comprehension
 Case study class vs other classes in same school: ES = 0.71
 Case study class vs classes in similar banding: ES = 0.48

Writing
 Case study class vs other classes in same school: ES = 0.98
 Case study class vs classes in similar banding: ES = 0.67
ES = Effect size
Small: 0.3 to 0.49
Medium: 0.5 to 0.79
Large: 0.80 or above
32
Triangulation of Data: an example (Sch 065) (2)
Quantitative Data Analysis: SQ scores (n = 15 junior classes)

12 classes showed significant gain in self-perception of
learning English (SPE) scores compared to previous year

11 classes showed significant gain in the following
subscales compared to previous year:
 internal self-efficacy of students (ISS)
 metacognitive strategy for learning English (MSE).

10 classes showed significant gain in the following
subscales compared to previous year:
 extrinsic motivation for learning English (EM)
 cognitive strategy for learning English (CgSE)
33
Triangulation of Data: an example (Sch 065) (3)
Using EMI for content subjects: Study skills

All S.2 classes were taught study skills for learning content
subjects in English. One period per cycle was allocated to each
class.

More S2 classes showed significant gains than S1 and S3
classes in the following subscales compared to previous year.
 Self-perception of learning
 Motivation for learning English
 Attribution of English Performance
 Self-efficacy (internal self-efficacy)
 Strategies for Learning English

All five S.2 classes showed statistically significant gain on all
the items (except for one item for 2E) in the subscale ‘Strategies
for Learning English’.

The mean score of S2 on ‘Use of English in Content Subject
Classroom Situations’ is higher than those of S1 and S3.
<
34
Improvement in psychological and cognitive subscales: S2
F.1 (5 classes)
F.2 (5 classes)
F.3 (5 classes)
5.1 SPG
0
1+
0
5.2 SPE
4+
5+
3+
6.1 AtLE
0
2+
1+
6.2 AnLE
1+
3+
2+/1-
6.3 PCL
2+
4+
0
6.4 IM
3+
5+
0
6.5 EM
4+
4+
2+
7.1 IF
0
4+
1+
7.2 EF
1-
1+
0
8.1 ISS
4+
5+
2+
8.2 ESS
1-
3-
0
9.1 RSE
2+
5+
1+
9.2 CgSE
3+
4+
3+
9.3 CpSE
1+
5+
2+
9.4 MSE
4+
5+
2+
back
35
Facilitating Conditions and Strategies for
Effective EL Teaching & Learning
1. A positive, non-threatening and collaborative
school culture for risk-taking
2. Involvement of all stakeholders
3. Flexibility in the English curriculum
4. Maximisation of opportunities and resources for
learning English
5. Integration of the formal and informal curricula
6. Provision of scaffolding: distal and proximal
36
Implications of findings for
medium of instruction policy

The six dimensions are relevant to all schools.

The related good practices can be implemented in all
schools regardless of MOI.

Exposure to English and engagement with the target
language can be achieved through means other than
using English as MOI.

For students whose English proficiency has not
reached the threshold level for using it as a medium
for learning, it would be more beneficial for them to
maximize opportunities for learning English in their
specific contexts, and for schools to ensure that
students’ learning is adequately supported.
37
Overview of 15 exemplars
Themes
CMI schools EMI schools
participated participated
Number of
exemplars
Reading
1
2
3
Writing
1
1
2
Adaptation of curriculum
materials
1
3
4
Catering for students of lower
academic ability
2
0
1
Whole school approach to
English enhancement
2
1
3
Building confidence through
student empowerment &
engagement with the target
language
1
2
2
8
9
15
38
Thank you