AN ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES
Emese Márton and Péter Szaffkó
Introductory Remarks
The multilateral project titled “Who Learns our Languages?” had set out with the primary goal of
conducting a preliminary survey of the status of the national languages spoken in Hungary and the
three other V4 countries (the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland) with special focus on how those
tongues fare in the international language-education market. The findings of the investigation are
expected to provide a potential springboard for a more comprehensive future study.
The project followed a three-step process of preparation, research and post-survey analysis. The
various actors of the language-education market belong to one of two major categories: organizations
providing teaching services (“producers” or institutions) and language learners (“consumers”). This
project exclusively focused on the former category since, from a researcher’s point of view, it
represents a target group that is much easier to define and access, it is much more stable and less prone
to change. The survey made use of a custom-made questionnaire as its research tool.
The following organizations coordinated the survey in their respective countries:
Czech Republic: Akcent International House Prague
Hungary: Debrecen Summer School (project leader)
Poland: The Center for Polish Studies
Slovakia: Jazykova Dielna
The questions targeted four issues:
1. the organizational and operational framework of language education;
2. the training structure of the market players active in the field of language instruction;
3. teacher populations and their professional background;
4. course materials and textbooks.
Before the sample analyzed below was taken, a trial run had been conducted to help fine-tune the items
of the questionnaire.
1
Results
The breakdown of the questionnaires completed by the organizations representing the participating
countries is as follows:
Table 1: The breakdown of completed questionnaires according to the participating countries
Number of completed
questionnaires
%
Hungary
11
50.0
Poland
2
9.1
Slovakia
5
22.7
Czech Republic
4
18.2
Total
22
100.0
Countries
Due to the small number of completed questionnaires, the results are statistically not significant. They
only give vague impressions which, however, may help develop a multi-step, stratified sampling
method to be exploited in a more comprehensive future survey.
The insufficient number does not facilitate meaningful comparisons between the data of the various
participants. Therefore, the available data of individual countries will be analyzed as a whole to
highlight a few perceptible tendencies.
As to the operational and organizational framework of participating institutions, mention must be made
of the following:
Table 2: The breakdown of participating organizations according to where they are based
Number of
organizations
%
Capital city
9
40.9
Town
13
59.1
Total
22
100.0
Based in city/town
Nine respondents said that their organizations are based in capital cities. Thirteen other participating
institutions operate in smaller municipalities. Half of them provide in-house training as well as classes
in external facilities.
2
Table 3: The breakdown of participating organizations according to the venue of their operations
Number of
organizations
Venues of teaching activities
%
Only at the organization’s home base
11
50.0
Also at other venues
11
50.0
Total
22
100.0
Table 4: The breakdown of participating organizations according to their operational status
Operational status of organizations
Number of organizations
%
Institute of higher education
4
18.2
Business venture
9
40.9
Private entrepreneur
4
18.2
Other
4
18.2
Total
21
95.5
n/a
1
4.5
Sum Total
22
100.0
Participating organizations typically operate as business ventures, but institutes of higher education are
also represented in the research sample. See Table 4 above.
Participating organizations typically teach their native languages as well as foreign languages.
Table 5: The breakdown of participating organizations
according to what type of education they specialize in
Type of education
Number of organizations
%
Only language education
12
54.5
Other types also available
9
40.9
Total
21
95.5
n/a
1
4.5
Total
22
100.0
3
Table 6 shows those foreign languages that participating organizations teach in addition to
Czech/Hungarian/Polish/Slovak.
Table 6: The breakdown of participating organizations according to the languages they teach
Availability
of languages
English
French
Chinese
Yes
15
4
4
14
No
7
18
18
Total
22
22
22
German Italian
Russian
Portuguese
Spanish
9
8
5
10
8
13
14
17
12
22
22
22
22
22
Table 7: The breakdown of participating organizations according to the size of their study groups
Typical size of
study groups
one-on-one
instruction
%
2-5
students
per group
%
6-10
students
per group
%
11-20
students per
group
%
None
1
4.5
3
13.6
13
59.1
16
72.7
Not typical
1
4.5
4
18.2
3
13.6
-
-
Occasionally
available
4
18.2
3
13.6
1
4.5
-
-
The most typical
size
5
22.7
5
22.7
2
9.1
2
9.1
The only available
size
10
45.5
5
22.7
2
9.1
3
13.6
Total
21
4.5
21
95.5
21
21
95.5
95.5
n/a
1
4.5
1
4.5
1
1
4.5
4.5
Sum Total
22
100.0
100.0
22
100.0
22
100.0
100.0
The most typical classroom arrangement is one-on-one instruction followed by classes for small- and
medium-sized groups.
Table 8: The breakdown of participating organizations according to whether or not they prepare
students for language examinations
Availability of preparatory courses for exams
Number of organizations
%
Yes
14
63.6
No
8
36.4
Total
22
100.0
4
Fourteen respondents said that their organizations are involved in language-exam preparation.
Table 9: The breakdown of participating organizations according to the various levels they teach
Typical levels of
language classes
A1
%
A2
%
B1
%
B2
%
C1
%
C2
%
None
-
-
3
13.6
5
22.7
8
36.4
11
50.0
18
81.8
Not typical
-
-
-
-
3
13.6
1
4.5
4
18.2
1
4.5
Occasionally
available
-
-
2
9.1
2
9.1
4
18.2
3
13.6
-
-
The most typical
level
6
27.3
6
27.3
6
27.3
5
22.7
3
13.6
2
9.1
The only available
level
16
72.7
11
50.0
6
27.3
4
18.2
1
4.5
1
4.5
Total
22
100.0 100.0 100.0
22
100.0
22
100.0
22
100.0
22
100.0
As Table 9 shows, A1 seems to be the most frequently demanded level of language proficiency.
Higher CEF level courses tend to be progressively less in demand.
Table 10:
The breakdown of participating organizations according to the duration of language classes
Typical length of language classes
Number of organizations
%
45 min. per class
6
27.3
60 min. per class
3
13.6
90 min. per class
11
50.0
135 min. per class
1
4.5
Total
21
95.5
n/a
1
4.5
Total
22
100.0
The most typical sessions are 90 minutes in length.
The size of student populations is clearly a function of the institution’s organizational and operative
framework.
5
Table 11: The breakdown of participating organizations according to the size of their student
population
Number of students
Number of organizations
%
0
1
4.5
1-5
4
18.2
6 - 10
3
13.6
11 - 20
2
9.1
21 - 50
4
18.2
101 - 250
4
18.2
251 - 500
1
4.5
501 – 1,000
1
4.5
Total
20
90.9
n/a
2
9.1
Total
22
100.0
The majority of the participants’ student populations study at level A1. The higher the level the fewer
students represent the relevant category.
Table 12: The breakdown of participating organizations according to how many students they taught
at various levels in 2013
Number of students
at various levels
A1
%
A2
%
B1
%
B2
%
C1
%
C2
%
none
1
4.5
5
1
6
27.3
10
45.5
10
45.5
18
81.8
1 - 10
11
50.0
9
11
8
36.4
4
18.2
6
27.3
1
4.5
11 - 50
2
9.1
2
2
3
13.6
4
18.2
2
9.1
1
4.5
51 - 100
4
18.2
4
4
3
13.6
2
9.1
2
9.1
-
-
101 - 250
1
4.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
251 - 500
1
4.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
20
90.9
20 90.9
20
90.9
20
90.9
20
90.9
20
90.9
n/a
2
9.1
2
2
9.1
2
9.1
2
9.1
2
9.1
Total
22
9.1
100.0 22
22
6
22
22
22
As Table 13 shows, three-quarters of the respondents said that specializing in their native language as
a foreign language is not a typical feature of their organizations.
Table 13: The breakdown of participating organizations according to how many instructors teach
their respective native language as a foreign language
Percentage of instructors who teach
Czech/Hungarian/Polish/Slovak as a
foreign language
Number of
organizations
%
Less than 10%
10
45.5
10% to 25%
2
9.1
51% to 75%
2
9.1
More than 75%
5
22.7
Don’t know
1
4.5
Total
20
90.9
n/a
2
9.1
Sum Total
22
100.0
Teachers most typically work for the language-teaching organizations as subcontractors. This is
followed in frequency by tenured posts and employment based on temporary or one-off contracts.
The last category of questions refers to course materials and textbooks. Half of the respondents said
they are not involved in developing and/or publishing such materials. Seven respondents reported the
existence of their own materials developed to be used exclusively in-house.
Table 14: The breakdown of participating organizations according to the course books they use
Course books
Number of organizations
%
No self-developed books
10
45.5
Self-developed books for in-house use only
7
31.8
Self-developed books also for publication
4
18.2
Total
21
95.5
n/a
1
4.5
Total
22
100.0
7
The majority of respondents selected self-developed items as their teaching material of choice.
Table 15: The breakdown of participating organizations according to other course materials they use
Other course materials
Number of organizations
%
No supplementary materials used
4
18.2
Self-developed materials
9
40.9
Printed materials from outside sources
7
31.8
Total
20
90.9
n/a
2
9.1
Total
22
100.0
8
Conclusions and Afterthoughts
The relative failure of the present survey is a warning sign to consider the lack of interest and
motivation of the targets of questionnaires as a major risk in any future research. In spite of this, it is
important to note that the trial run of the questionnaires was very helpful in eliminating problems
deriving from cultural differences and personal/institutional experiences in defining and/or interpreting
the individual questions.
In summary, based on the answers to the questionnaires, we can come to the following general
conclusions:
1.
While
there
is
quite
a
high
number
of
schools
and
institutions
offering
Czech/Hungarian/Polish/Slovak as a foreign language in the respective V4 countries, private courses
most likely dominate over group courses.
2. Beginner’s courses generally outnumber more advanced courses in all four countries.
3. Probably as a result of the above situation, the number of beginner’s textbooks in all four languages
surpasses that of the more advanced ones.
4. It can also be seen from the survey and related sources that there is a tendency in schools to use selfcompiled materials instead of published textbooks. (See the Appendix)
5. There is hardly any school or institution in the V4 countries which would offer only the respective
native language, which seems to be an economic constraint not necessarily supporting high-quality
work in a general sense.
6. Although it was not a question to examine in the project, it was quite interesting to find that there
are certain “fashionable” languages (e.g. Chinese, French or Portuguese) which seem to be more
popular with the young generation than the traditional ones (e.g. German, Spanish, Italian etc).
9
Appendix
Some Thoughts on Teaching Materials in General
To complement the results of the relatively unsuccessful survey, we asked Dr Edit Dobi, Assistant
Professor of Hungarian Linguistics (University of Debrecen) and Language Course Director of
Debrecen Summer School, to make further comments on the situation of language learning materials
in the V4 countries in general and in Hungary in particular. After consulting with textbook authors and
language teachers in Hungary and beyond, she had the following comment to add to the project:
Textbooks require special professional and financial background and it is true of language books as
well. In Hungary and in the other three Visegrad countries the two rarely go together: many wellestablished and prestigious schools and institutions of high quality are often in need of financial
resources while those with favourable economic conditions may lack the necessary professional
background to create proper textbooks. Whatever the case, we all know that there is no foreign
language study book perfect for both teacher and learner. Despite this fact, there are some points of
reference which must be organizing principles in such works.
As a matter of fact, the current situation—at least in Hungary—may be characterized by the presence
of a few widely known but—methodologically and culturally—outdated textbooks which are still
used by teachers together with their own complementary materials to update the information.
There are quite a number of newly devised textbooks in each country but most of them bring students
only to level A2. Furthermore, some of these beginner’s books have been written for a clearly defined
group of language learners (e.g. medical students, economists, immigrants etc) and their professional
quality is at best varying.
Finally, it must be noted that there is no clear description of a unified set of grammatical and thematic
requirements for Czech, Hungarian, Polish and Slovak as a foreign language corresponding to CEF
which is yet another barrier for potential authors. All in all, the situation of language textbooks would
certainly deserve yet another research project.
10