Vol 16 no 7 july 2017 by ijlter.org

IJLTER.ORG

p-ISSN: 1694-2493 e-ISSN: 1694-2116

International Journal of Learning, Teaching And Educational Research

Vol.16 No.7

PUBLISHER London Consulting Ltd District of Flacq Republic of Mauritius www.ijlter.org

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

The International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research is an open-access journal which has been established for the disChief Editor Dr. Antonio Silva Sprock, Universidad Central de semination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the Venezuela, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of field of education, learning and teaching. IJLTER welcomes research articles from academics, edEditorial Board ucators, teachers, trainers and other practitionProf. Cecilia Junio Sabio ers on all aspects of education to publish high Prof. Judith Serah K. Achoka quality peer-reviewed papers. Papers for publiProf. Mojeed Kolawole Akinsola Dr Jonathan Glazzard cation in the International Journal of Learning, Dr Marius Costel Esi Teaching and Educational Research are selected Dr Katarzyna Peoples through precise peer-review to ensure quality, Dr Christopher David Thompson originality, appropriateness, significance and Dr Arif Sikander readability. Authors are solicited to contribute Dr Jelena Zascerinska to this journal by submitting articles that illusDr Gabor Kiss trate research results, projects, original surveys Dr Trish Julie Rooney Dr Esteban Vázquez-Cano and case studies that describe significant adDr Barry Chametzky vances in the fields of education, training, eDr Giorgio Poletti learning, etc. Authors are invited to submit paDr Chi Man Tsui pers to this journal through the ONLINE submisDr Alexander Franco sion system. Submissions must be original and Dr Habil Beata Stachowiak should not have been published previously or Dr Afsaneh Sharif be under consideration for publication while Dr Ronel Callaghan Dr Haim Shaked being evaluated by IJLTER. Dr Edith Uzoma Umeh Dr Amel Thafer Alshehry Dr Gail Dianna Caruth Dr Menelaos Emmanouel Sarris Dr Anabelie Villa Valdez Dr Özcan Özyurt Assistant Professor Dr Selma Kara Associate Professor Dr Habila Elisha Zuya

VOLUME 16

NUMBER 7

July 2017

Table of Contents Exploration of Conceptions of Assessment within High-Stakes U.S. Culture ................................................................ 1 Melanie A. DiLoreto, Ph.D., Christie Pellow, M.A., and David L. Stout, Ph.D. Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Self-Efficacy in Military Cadets ........................................................................... 10 Ole Boe and Hans-Olav BergstĂ¸l Differentiated Instruction in the High School Science Classroom: Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses ............ 30 Jane Pablico. Moustapha Diack and Albertha Lawson An Evaluation of using Games in Teaching English Grammar for First Year English-Majored Students at Dong Nai Technology University.................................................................................................................................................. 55 Lien Cam and Thi Minh Thu Tran Abolition of Agricultural Science as a Single Subject in Basic Schools in Ghana: Implications for Basic Educational Reforms .................................................................................................................................................................................. 72 Martin Bosompem and Theophilus Numo Pre-defined Roles and Team Performance for First-year Students ................................................................................ 84 Jess Everett, Kaitlin Mallouk and Jenahvive Morgan To What Extent Does the Medicalisation of the English Language Complicate the Teaching of Medical ESP to Japanese Medical Students Learning English as a Foreign Language? ....................................................................... 102 Abdullah Alami

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 1-9, July 2017

Exploration of Conceptions of Assessment within High-Stakes U.S. Culture Melanie A. DiLoreto, Ph.D., Christie Pellow, M.A., and David L. Stout, Ph.D. The University of West Florida Pensacola, Florida, United States Abstract. Past quantitative research about students‘ and faculty members‘ conceptions of assessment indicates that faculty believe that one of the primary purposes of assessment is for improvement of both teaching and learning. Students, however, associate a primary reason for assessment in higher education for accountability of both students and the institution. The present study aimed to determine if beliefs were congruent between student and faculty responses to open-ended survey items. Using a phenomenological approach to investigate students‘ and faculty members‘ conceptions of assessment, the researchers found discrepant results when qualitative data were compared to the results of past quantitative studies (Brown, 2004; DiLoreto, 2013; Fletcher, Meyer, Anderson, Johnston, & Rees, 2011). Additional results of this inquiry and implications of these findings for educational settings are discussed. Keywords: conceptions of assessment; teaching; learning; higher education

Introduction Research suggests that conceptions are derived from past experiences. Thus, one‘s past experiences with assessment influences how one conceives the purpose of assessment. Multiple studies conducted in various low-stakes environments around the globe have suggested that a primary purpose of assessment is to improve student learning. However, when a similar study was conducted in the high-stakes assessment and accountability culture found in the United States, students reported a belief that a primary purpose of assessment is to evaluate their performance instead of improve their learning. In order to further investigate how students and faculty conceptualize assessment, this phenomenological study sought to explore deeper meanings of the term as well as the various activities that both students and faculty members associate with it.

Review of the Literature In the realm of education, the conceptions of educators and students alike are often developed and refined through pedagogical endeavours.

Specifically, conceptions of assessment are shaped by the attitudes, beliefs, and perceptual experiences of the perceiver. These preconceived notions can potentially negatively impact student outcomes (Struyyen et al. 2005; Fletcher et al., 2011). Nonetheless, assessment serves a valuable and necessary purpose in the hierarchical chain of higher education. Assessment data can be fundamental to the continuous improvement of both teaching and learning. It is through the use of assessments that data can be gathered to support needed changes in academic courses and programs. Thus, the conceptions of assessment could be considered as important to the current and future health of the academic process. Beliefs are meanings that are based on lived experiences and cultural norms from which sense is made about these experiences (Ekeblad and Bond, 1994, 343-353). Furthermore, conceptions are defined as mental constructs or representations of an individual‘s reality (Brown and Lake, 2006; Fodor, 1998; Kelly, 1991; Lakoff and Johnson 2003; Thompson, 1992, 127-146). Consequently, an individual‘s conception of assessment and its importance are thus invariably connected to learning outcomes. Faculty members are not immune to these predilections either, and their experiences affect the way in which they implement their own assessments in the classroom. Indeed, past research indicates that beliefs about assessment impact the way instructors teach and the way students learn (Brown, 2004; Struyven, Dochy, and Janssens, 2005). Therefore, because conceptions are filtered through an individual‘s belief system, the conceptions of assessment held by students may be different from those held by their teachers (Brown, 2004; Hidri, 2015). Assessment serves multiple purposes for all stakeholders of institutions of higher education. As such, assessment practices have evolved as a result of the demands of external accountability measures imposed by various policymakers. One dilemma faced by stakeholders is the fact that the term assessment is often used within different contexts and with different meanings (Shepard, 2000). Wang and Hurley (2012) indicate that an assessment movement in higher education began in the 1980s with an emphasis on student learning. Since that time, accrediting agencies have required institutions of higher education to implement program-level and institution-level assessment procedures in addition to documenting student learning. Wang and Hurley (2012) found that the way assessment is perceived by faculty might impact student achievement. In a quasi-experimental study, Brown, Chaudhry, and Dhamija (2015) researched the beliefs of teachers about the purposes of assessment and found that such beliefs were impacted by the perceived roles of assessment. Due to a shift in various educational reforms, during the 1990s institutions of higher education began placing a greater emphasis on researchbased practices and quantifiable evidence to demonstrate that students were capable of attaining course learning outcomes. A common practice is to measure the efficacy of students‘ performances on various assessments in order to identify the most effective institutions for subsequent funding and resource allocations. Consequently, high-stakes assessment results seem to have become the key measure of outcomes in today‘s educational climate. Brown (2011) suggests that the increased accountability pressure to have institutions show improvement in student learning outcomes has impacted the

high-stakes classroom environment for teachers and students alike. Due to these external pressures, it is possible that faculty may inflate test results to demonstrate larger gains in student learning with an absence of true comprehension (Brown, 2011). While it seems that the disparity of belief systems and their effects on the conceptions of assessment among the various stakeholders in education is real, it is also clear that the increased accountability pressure (often politicized and marketed as value added) to have institutions, schools, and teachers show improvement in student learning outcomes advocated by politicians, public policy, and parent populations, has impacted learning (Brown, 2011) and its measurement in various ways. The multifaceted purpose of assessment includes obtaining information about student learning, student progress, quality of teaching, as well as program and institutional accountability (Brown, 2010). Each facet of this purpose is affected by the beliefs of those who are implementing the assessments as well as those who are being assessed. Clearly, such research is complicated by these multi-faceted variables. However, Baird (2014) suggests that a standardization of approaches to conducting research on teachers‘ views about assessment would be useful. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that Oprea (2015) found that this complex field of research has produced only a small number of studies that have delved into all the complexities of this topic. An attempt to connect two fields of research was done by Xu and Brown (2016) when they investigated the connection between educational assessment and teacher education. Brown, Lake, and Matters (2011) report that differences in policy, cultures, and the purpose of assessment lead to differences in how assessment is conceptualized by various stakeholders. Specifically, Brown et al. (2011) hypothesize that when there is a high-stakes environment for students associated with the use of assessments, teachers and students will report a student-accountability purpose of assessment. Research studies completed in New Zealand, where a low-stakes assessment environment is routine, confirm that faculty members‘ and students‘ conceptions of assessment differ from those belonging to more high-stakes assessment cultures, such as that of the United States. According to Fletcher et al. (2011), higher education faculty view assessment as an aid to the learning process whereas university students view assessment as needed simply for accountability purposes or even irrelevant to the educational process. The difference lies in the outcome of these assessments based on the educational climate. In low-stakes settings, test scores have little to no impact on students or schools, whereas these scores heavily regulate tenure, promotion, and graduation rates in high stakes climates. Prior research indicates that students, who conceptualize assessment in terms of personal accountability rather than external accountability, achieve more (Brown et al., 2011). Furthermore, researchers found that Australian students became increasingly negative in their attitudes regarding assessment as they progressed in education level and hypothesize that this shift may be the result of students becoming more aware of the pressures and risks associated with the result of assessment. However, research on the impact of students‘ beliefs about assessment is lacking (Brown and Harris, 2012). A simple wording modification of Brown‘s (2006) abridged Conceptions of Assessment III (CoA-

III) instrument was initially intended to be used by the researchers to determine faculty members‘ and undergraduate students‘ self-reported conceptions of assessment. However, in order to gain further insights, to identify trends and to explore faculty members‘ and undergraduate students‘ beliefs about the definition of assessment, an open-ended question developed by the researchers was also added. Specifically, participants were asked what the term assessment means to them. Furthermore, as part of the researchers‘ modification of the CoA-III, participants were asked to select from a list of possible responses what types of activities come to mind when they think of the term assessment. Consequently, the present study used a phenomenological approach to investigate the written responses of the participants in order to illuminate any differences between students‘ and faculty members‘ conceptions of assessment.

Method Participants. Undergraduate students (n = 404) and faculty (n = 156) located within the Southern Association of College and Schools (SACS) region of the United States were invited via email to participate in the study. Faculty members were included in the present study if their primary duty was pedagogy, research, program coordination, or academic dean. Additionally, students were identified as undergraduate students attending one of the institutions within the SACS region. One hundred and eleven institutions were contacted to participate in the study. Of the 111 institutional contacts emailed to participate, a total of ten institutions agreed to allow their students and faculty to take part in the research. Instrument. In order to explore students‘ and faculty members‘ beliefs about the meaning of assessment, both faculty and students were asked to provide a written response to the open-ended question, ―What does the term assessment mean to you?‖ Next, participants were asked to ‗select all that apply‘ to the question, ―What types of activities come to mind when you think of the term assessment?‖ These two items were added by the researchers to the abridged version of the CoA-III (Brown, 2006). These questions were used to gain further insight into what these dichotomous groups conceptualize as the meaning of assessment in a high-stakes testing culture. Design. A cross-sectional design using survey methodology was employed for this study. In an attempt to describe rather than explain the quality of participants‘ responses to written items on an open-ended items on the questionnaire, the researchers used a phenomenological approach to explore the differences, if any, that exist between student and faculty responses to what the term assessment means to them. A phenomenological approach allowed the researchers to identify the specific perceptions held by the participants Procedures. Participation in this study was delimited to faculty members who are employed by, and undergraduate students who attend, institutions of higher education located within the SACS region of the United States. Participants were offered an invitation to be included in a raffle for one of the newest versions of an Apple iPad as an attempt to increase participant response rate.

Participants‘ responses were anonymous and any identifying information inadvertently collected remained confidential. Thus, member checking was not completed. Both student and faculty participant responses to the question, ―What does the term assessment mean to you?‖ were analysed separately and then coded in order to develop themes. Colleagues familiar with such analyses validated the coding and themes.

Conclusion Summary of findings. Responses to the open-ended question demonstrate distinct differences in how faculty members and students conceptualize the term assessment. The word test, testing, quiz, and/or exam appeared infrequently in faculty responses (9%) compared to students (36%). Thus, students used the word(s) test, testing, quizzes, and exams nearly four times more often than faculty. Faculty mentioned the term evaluation in either program contexts or student learning contexts 40 times in the 146 responses (27%). Students, on the other hand, mentioned evaluation only 77 times out of the 394 responses (20%). The vast majority of the evaluation-related responses for both faculty and students referred to the assessment of students‘ knowledge and skill set. A trend was observed where faculty connoted evaluation in respect to a course or program, while students assumed more external responsibility for the purposes of evaluation. Interestingly, faculty participants and student participants rarely mentioned formative assessment, personal feedback, or improvement purposes in their responses. In the overwhelming majority of responses, the term assessment was defined as meeting external demands imposed by someone within or outside of the educational institution. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the findings of the present study have been impacted by the students‘ recent emersion in a high-stakes assessment culture. In order to answer the second research question, a crosstab analysis was employed. The selected responses to ―When you think of the term assessment, what types of activities come to mind?‖ were analysed. Participants were asked to check all that apply from a list of 15 items (standardized test, self-reflection, program evaluation, oral questions/answers, portfolios, homework, course grades, written reports/research, conferencing, teacher made tests, tenure and/or promotion dossier, performance evaluation, accreditation, student evaluation, other). Table 1 contains the frequency of responses to each item by faculty and students. It is evident that the majority of faculty indicated standardized tests, program evaluation, and teacher made tests as the most common activities associated with assessment. Congruent with faculty, students also indicated standardized tests in their conception of assessment most often, along with performance evaluation and course grades.

Table 1: Types of Assessment Activities Faculty Students Item # of Percentage of # of Percentage of Responses Faculty Responses Students (n = 158) (n = 404) Standardized tests 122 77 357 88 Program evaluation 118 75 262 65 Performance evaluation 107 68 301 75 Student evaluation 110 70 262 65 Course grades 103 65 277 69 Teacher made tests 114 72 253 63 Written 109 69 191 47 reports/research Homework 100 63 174 43 Oral questions/answers 98 62 185 46 Portfolios 98 62 139 34 Self-reflection 90 57 141 35 Accreditation 90 57 121 30 Tenure and/or 53 34 42 10 promotion dossier Conferencing 52 33 70 17 Other 15 9 15 4

Researchers identified an unusual discrepancy in self-report responses in the present study compared to previous quantitative research on the topic. When asked to acknowledge the meaning of assessment from a personal standpoint, faculty overwhelmingly indicated that assessment involves the evaluation of programs and/or student learning. Yet, in past quantitative research, faculty indicated that the primary purpose of assessment was for improvement purposes. The discordance in faculty responses between the current research and a prior study was highlighted when faculty were asked to select from a list of activities about assessment. In their responses, standardized tests were selected 77 percent of the time by faculty. Standardized testing activities were followed by program evaluation and teacher made tests — none of which align to what faculty indicated in their responses to the open-ended question earlier on in the survey. Students, on the other hand, were more consistent in their responses to both the open-ended item and the list of activities associated with the term assessment. These results align to both past quantitative studies about students‘ conceptions of assessment as well as the current students‘ definition of the term assessment. Implications. An overarching purpose in the present research inquiry was to understand if and how students and faculty differ in their conceptions of assessment, if responses to survey items are congruent to past quantitative research, and finally, if membership conceptualizations of assessment match the represented activities that come to mind in a practical application. As past research indicates, the term assessment has various contexts and connotations dependent on the individual. Understanding attitudes about the purpose of assessment can help inform policy makers regarding the impact of their policy

decisions and the projected outcome. Knowing that attitudes, beliefs, and past experiences with assessment can affect future learning and outcomes of students (Ajzen 1991; Bandura 1986), and that the assessment practices of instructors can improve student outcomes (Brown and Hirschfeld 2008; Struyven et al. 2005), it is important for policymakers to take into consideration the conceptions of both instructors and students if they expect these implemented policies to have a positive impact on learning and achievement. Limitations. The recruitment of participants limited to the Southeastern region of the United States is a potential limitation in the current research. Furthermore, there is a large disparity between the number of faculty members (n = 159) and undergraduate students (n = 404) who participated in the study. Finally, due to the nature of the data collection, member checking was not possible. Future research should aim to collect a larger number of faculty members to provide additional support for the underlying assumptions of the population. It is also recommended that additional qualitative data be collected via traditional means of data collection (focus groups, interviews, etc.) in order to delve deeper into the meanings of the term assessment held by these individuals.

References Ajzen, Icek. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179-211. Baird, J. (2014). Teachers‘ views on assessment practices. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, Vol. 21, No. 4, Pages 361 – 364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.960689 Bandura, Albert. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Brown, Gavin T. L. (2004). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy and professional development. Assessment in Education, 11(3): 301-318. Accessed September 14, 2016. doi: 10.1080/0969594042000304609 Brown, Gavin T. L. (2006). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Validation of an abridged instrument. Psychological Reports, 99, 166-170. Brown, Gavin T. L. (2010). Assessment: Principles and Practice. In R. Cantwell, & J. Scevak, An Academic Life: A Handbook for New Academics. Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press. Brown, Gavin T. L. (2011). Leading school-based assessment for educational improvement: Rethinking accountability. Keynote address presented to the Third International Conference 'Excellence in School Education', Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India, December 29-31. Brown, Gavin T.L. Chaudhry, H., and Dhamija, R. (2015) The impact of an assessment policy upon teachers‘ self-reported assessment beliefs and practices: A quasi-experimental study of Indian teachers in private schools. International Journal of Educational Research 71, pages 50-64. Brown, Gavin T. L., and Harris, Lois. (2012). Student conceptions of assessment by level of schooling: Further evidence for ecological rationality in belief systems. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 12: 46-59. Brown, Gavin T. L., and Hirschfeld, Gerrit H. F. (2008). Students‘ conceptions of assessment: Links to outcomes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 15(1): 3-17. Brown, Gavin T. L., and Lake, Robert. (2006). Queensland Teachers' Conceptions of Teaching, Learning, Curriculum and Assessment: Comparisons with New Zealand Teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE). Adelaide, Australia, April 19-21. Brown, Gavin T. L., Lake, Robert, and Matters, Gabrielle. (2011). Queensland teachers' conceptions of assessment: The impact of policy priorities on teacher attitudes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27: 210-220. DiLoreto, Melanie A. (2013). Multi-group invariance of the conceptions of assessment scale among university faculty and students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS. Ekeblad, Eva, and Bond, Carol. (1994). The nature of a conception: questions of context. In Phenomenography: philosophy and practice, edited by R. &. Ballantyne, 343353. Australia: Center for Applied Environmental and Social Education Research. Fletcher, Richard B., Meyer, Luanna H., Anderson, Helen, Johnston, Patricia, and Rees, Malcolm. (2011). Faculty and Students Conceptions of Assessment in Higher Education. Springer Science+ Business Media B.V., 64: 119-133. Accessed September 14, 2016. doi: 10.1007/s10734-011-9484-1 Fodor, Jerry A. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Hidri, S. (2015). Conceptions of assessment: Investigating what assessment means to secondary and university teachers. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics e-ISSN

2490-4198 Vol. 1, No. 1, 19-43. Kelly, George A. 1(991). The psychology of personal constructs: A theory of personality. London, UK: Routledge. Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Oprea, Dana (2015) Teachers‘ Conceptions of Assessment. In Chis, V. and Albulescu, I. (Eds.) The 3rd International Conference "EDUCATION, REFLECTION, DEVELOPMENT", 3th - 4th July, 2015, ClujNapoca, Romania, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 209, 229 – 233. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher 29(7): 4–14. Struyven, Katrien, Dochy, Filip, and Janssens, Steven. (2005). Students' perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher educadtion: A review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4): 127-146. Thompson, Alba G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, edited by Douglas A. Grouws, 127-146. New York: Macmillan. Wang, X., & Hurley, S. (2012). Assessment as a scholarly activity: Faculty perceptions of and willingness to engage in student learning assessment. Journal of General Education, 61(1), 1-15. doi:10.1353/jge.2012.0005 Xu, Y., and G. T. L. Brown. (2016). Teacher Assessment Literacy in Practice: A Reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education 58: 149 – 62.10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 10-29, July 2017

Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Self-Efficacy in Military Cadets Ole Boe Department of Military Leadership and Management, Norwegian Defence Staff and Command College, Norwegian Defence University College, Oslo, Norway

Hans-Olav Bergstøl Norwegian Military Academy, Oslo, Norway

Abstract. Within the military profession the will to succeed and to strive for results that go beyond what is expected, is the difference between success and failure. The demands of war can be extreme and a crucial factor for the will to succeed is the education of and training on selfefficacy. Self-efficacy can be obtained either through theory or through practice. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether officer cadets at the Norwegian Military Academy felt that there was a correlation between theory and practice when it came to Bandura’s four factors of how to increase self-efficacy. The four factors were enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and mental states. Method: A self-developed questionnaire with 14 questions was used in order to investigate the research question. 10 questions related to theoretical and practical aspects of self-efficacy was developed. The last question was intended to find out which of the four factors that had the largest impact upon selfefficacy, and respondents were forced to choose one of the four factors. 50 officer cadets at the Norwegian Military Academy participated in the study. Results: A correlation between Bandura’s theory and the practice was found. The factors enactive mastery experiences and vicarious experience were found to have a high correlation between theory and practice. The highest correlation between theory and practice was found for the factor verbal persuasion. The lowest correlation between theory and practice was found for the factor physiological and mental states. However, when forced to choose which factor that in total had the largest impact upon self-efficacy, a clear majority of respondents indicated the factor enactive mastery experiences. Keywords: self-efficacy; enactive mastery experiences; vicarious experiences; verbal persuasion; physiological and mental states; military officers; theory; practice; education

Introduction High standards are required for professionals and it should be obvious that you need a strong self-efficacy to deal with the countless scenarios you may find yourself in as a soldier and officer. Self-efficacy can be defined as; "... [The] beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments" (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). This is not about the abilities and skills one possesses, but about what one considers attainable with the skills one possesses (Bandura, 1986). Believing in one´s own capacities, skills and abilities has been found to be important for Norwegian military officers within diverse subjects such as increasing the will to kill (Boe & Johannessen, 2015), learning aggression and aggression control (Boe & Ingdahl, 2017), preparing for a parachute jump (Boe & Hagen, 2015), and enhancing leadership communication skills (Boe & Holth, 2017; Holth & Boe, 2017). Bandura writes that self-efficacy is a very important factor for people in order to perform (Bandura, 1997). Perceived competence is seen as a major factor in all types of educational processes, and prior research in a military context have found satisfactory concordance between self-reported military competence and demonstration of effort and expertise in military personal (Adler, Thomas, & Castro, 2005). Studying an American Stryker brigade, Hammermeister et al. (2010) found that soldiers with well-developed psychological skills performed better on physical tests than soldiers with less-developed psychological skills. Similarly, in a study of a very physically demanding selection program in the U.S. Special Forces, self- efficacy was found to have a significant impact as to whether the soldiers completed the hard physical selection or not (Gruber, Kilcullen, & Iso-Ahola, 2009). These studies lends support to the notion that psychological skills are important for soldiers and officers. In addition, several meta-analyses have suggested a positive relationship between self-efficacy and performance (Gully et al., 2002; Moritz et al., 2000; Multon, Brown & Lent, 1991; Sadri and Robertson, 1993; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). On the other hand, a study by Buch, Säfvenbom, and Boe (2015) found that self-efficacy seemed less important for an increased perception of military competence in cadets who revealed a higher intrinsic motivation. The picture regarding self-efficacy in the military context is thus not clear-cut. "The rigors in combat can be extreme. In our profession, the will to succeed and to strive towards results that exceed the expected, is the difference between success and failure" (Forsvarsstaben, 2007. p. 160, our translation). The quotation is taken from the Norwegian Armed Forces Joint Operational Doctrine and gives a good picture of why soldiers and officers need a strong self-efficacy when conducting their professional practice. Norwegian soldiers and officers have been participating in several operations in different countries with an increasingly difficult operational environment (Boe, Kjørstad, & Werner-Hagen, 2012). After a conventional "cold war" scenario where the Norwegian soldiers only guarded its own borders, recent international conflicts are of a much higher complexity. The conflicts that the Norwegian Armed Forces have participated in the recent decades has evolved from regular combat operations through stabilization operations to complex peace operations (Forsvarsstaben, 2014).

Military leadership requires a robustness in order to think clearly and effectively, and to master one’s own emotions in the face of complex situations (Forsvarsstaben, 2012). An important factor in the education of soldiers and officers will be to create a high degree of belief in their own abilities (Eid & Johnsen, 2006). The U.S. Army´s field manual 6-22 on Army leadership emphasize the self-development process of military leader. This includes strengths and developmental needs as well as determination and goal setting (U.S. Department of the Army, 2015). To educate soldiers and officer with faith in themselves and their skills is crucial so that different missions can be solved both at home and abroad. The Norwegian Military Academy (NMA) also emphasizes the development of self-efficacy in its cadets. For instance, the combat fatigue course that the cadets have to participate in during their threeyear education at the NMA is an arena aimed at improving the cadet's ability to cope and to develop good and appropriate coping strategies (Krigsskolen, 2010; 2016). By constantly exposing the soldiers to more challenging tasks, it is possible to increase the individual soldier´s psychological as well as physical fitness skills. This will increase the possibility to respond effectively when facing a dangerous situation (Matthews, 2014). Bandura (1997) believes there are four factors if one wants to achieve a better subjective self-efficacy. The four factors are enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and mental states. By understanding and using these, we can perform at our best. As a soldier and officer, being able to perform at your best could be the difference between life and death. It is therefore essential that when the urgency is the greatest, the military professional manages to perform at his or her best. Self-efficacy is not just about controlling your actions and surroundings, but also about being able to control your own thought process, motivation and physiological emotions (Bandura, 1997). Kaufmann and Kaufmann reinforced this impression when they wrote: "research shows that this subjectively experienced self-efficacy capability can often be just as crucial to a person's achievement as the objective problem-solving abilities" (Kaufmann & Kaufmann, 1998, p. 30, our translation). This means that two individuals with the same skill level can perform very differently, because the cognitive factor of self-efficacy play an important role in the performance of the two individuals. Therefore, it is rational to assume that individuals with high self-efficacy will perform better than individuals with low self-efficacy (Wormnes & Manger, 2005). It is further logical to imagine that individuals with a high self-efficacy will be more apt to believe that they can meet labour challenges although various stressors are present (Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, & Primeau, 2001). Much previously conducted research has shown that certain psychological skills are critical in order for experts to perform at their maximum in a variety of tasks and contexts (see for instance Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995; Ericsson & Smith, 1991; Janelle & Hillman, 2003; Williams & Ericsson, 2005). On the other hand, it has been pointed out that the belief in one´s selfefficacy is not necessarily a reflection of reality or the physical capacities that one possesses, because of the tendency to subjectively judge one’s abilities (Bandura, 1997). This means that having a high degree of self-efficacy will not solve all problems. The level of self-efficacy belief varies widely from person to person,

yet there are some characteristics that are more pronounced in both those with good and those with poor self-efficacy. People with poor self-efficacy more easily give up or lower their expectations and efforts in the activity where they will perform the behaviour (Bandura, 1997). In addition, people with low selfefficacy largely wish to refrain from taking part in the activity, and to call attention to the possible consequences and disasters. Those with a strong selfefficacy, however, will see challenges as solvable tasks. Instead of seeing the challenge as a menacing obstacle, they see how it most effectively can be passed (Bandura, 1997). Thus, the four factors may affect our self-efficacy both positively and negatively, depending on how one interprets and relates to them. The following sections will go into detail on each of the four factors in order to give a deeper explanation of what they entail. Four factors are needed in order to increase self-efficacy according to Bandura. He points out that there are four factors that contribute. These are respectively: Enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states. Enactive mastery experiences Enactive mastery experiences are the factor that influences self-efficacy the most (Bandura, 1997). An explanation for this is that the actions you have mastered before, give a pretty good picture of whether you will be able to solve similar tasks (Bandura, 1986). The successful, but also unsuccessful, coping experience will be stored in your memory, so they later may affect your selfefficacy belief. Stated differently, repeated success will build self-efficacy while repeated failure will weaken it. Doss (2007) also places great emphasis on enactive mastery experiences in order to build belief in oneself and one’s abilities. He explains that this way to build self-efficacy is one of the most effective ways to boost your confidence and increase faith in your abilities. Doss thus supports Bandura´s (1997) thinking and emphasizes that it is important for both soldiers and instructors to understand that success comes from being confident in your skills. However, performing very simple tasks over time may result in small defeats creating cracks in one’s self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Therefore, it is important to find a balance between difficult and easy tasks. As an example of what this means, we can envision a cadet who has been a company commander on an infantry exercise. He or she has mastered this role in a satisfactory manner and has experienced success with the goals he or she had decided upon. In the next exercise, the cadet is a platoon leader. The cadet has a good previous experience from being in a leadership role and therefore feels confident in his or her abilities as a platoon leader. At this point the cadet used the good enactive mastery experiences from the company commander role, and therefore became better suited to solve the platoon leader role. A positive experience such as this one will allow the cadets to acquire more faith in themselves and in their abilities when they know that they have mastered a similar role before.

Vicarious experiences The second factor regarding how to increase self-efficacy is vicarious experiences. Seeing others succeed is also an important factor in order to achieve a better self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). The person who looks on will then be able to persuade him- or herself to believe that he or she is capable of doing the same or of performing even better (Bandura, 1986). In addition, if one is able to identify with the person performing, this will provide an even greater impact in achieving a better self-efficacy (Bandura 1997). Doss (2007) also emphasizes observing others as a factor to improve faith in oneself and oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s skills. He writes that observing others can be a good strategy, especially if you can identify with the person you are looking at. On the other hand, this way to build selfefficacy is not thought to be as powerful as enactive mastery experiences (Doss, 2007). As an example of how this factor works in practice, we can imagine a cadet who is about to have his or her exam in close combat. In the beginning, the cadet is looking at other cadets going through the exam situation. The cadet sees one of his or her fellow cadets who performs in an outstanding manner throughout the whole exam. The cadet may think that he or she is as good as the other cadet in all the other things they do, and convince him- or herself that he or she can achieve the same result. In this way, the cadet gained a better selfefficacy, because of convincing him- or herself that it is possible to pass the examination just as the other cadet did.

Verbal persuasion The third factor dealing with how to increase self-efficacy is verbal persuasion. To hear praise or encouraging comments is then the third factor that affects self-efficacy. Support from others has been identified as a key element in the NMAs leadership development program (Boe & Hjortmo, 2017). Verbal encouragement is partly used to convince people that they possess skills that will enable them to achieve what they set themselves as goals (Bandura, 1986). Bandura (1997) explains that positive feedback at work or during an ongoing task will encourage people to make a greater effort if the encouragement is realistic. In order for the encouragement to be felt as real, the feedback must be within the limits of what is feasible for the person. Experiencing failure because you were encouraged to take on more responsibility than you yourself thought was realistic could on the contrary have a negative impact on your self-efficacy. Negative comments will also weaken your self-efficacy (Cox, 2007). For example, an instructor or supervisor should avoid commenting on negative behaviour, or refrain from giving negative feedback. On the other hand, there should be room to give feedback that is not positive, but with the intention to help the person to develop. Meanwhile, correct feedback and encouragement causes the focus to be turned away from the difficult and over to how you should do your best to resolve the challenges (Bandura, 1997). An example in this context can be an instructor who encourage a cadet to take on a task with more responsibility. The instructor explains that the cadet is loyal, fair and full of effort and should therefore take on the task. Here the instructor encourages the cadet and explains why he or she believes that the cadet is fit to take on this task. The cadet experiences that the instructor has

credibility and therefore this will increase the belief that he or she can cope with such a task if he or she takes on the responsibility. Here the positive and encouraging words may improve the cadet´s self-efficacy so that he or she will take on the task.

Physiological and affective states The fourth factor dealing with how to increase self-efficacy is physiological and affective states. When people judge themselves and their skills, they often consider information that comes from cognitive and emotional impulses (Bandura 1986). This can be anything from feelings such as stress and anxiety, or other characteristics such as butterflies in the stomach, a positive mood or increased pulse. These cognitive and emotional impulses may over time evolve so much that you will have difficulty functioning in a normal way, or that these impulses will improve the way we function. Feelings and thoughts can therefore contribute to either strengthening or weakening our self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). An example of this is that a platoon leader who is highly stressed before a mission can develop a weak self-efficacy for his or her abilities to solve the mission, and for similar situations, where he or she repeatedly has failed to control himself or herself. The feeling of stress will return in similar situations affecting the platoon leader in a negative way, because he or she recognizes the negative feelings. If the platoon leader repeatedly experiences this without being able to control himself or herself or the situation, this may weaken the selfefficacy (Bandura 1997). On the other hand, the development of personal coping strategies and techniques can be very effective in order to win back control and achieve a better self-efficacy (Yanilov & Boe, in press). For example, practicing mindfulness for two weeks before their first parachute jump resulted in a higher self-confidence in a group of cadets as compared to a group that did not practice mindfulness before the first parachute jump (Boe & Hagen, 2015). In this study, a conclusion was drawn that practicing mindfulness helped to reduce the perception of stress in an acute stressful situation.

The purpose of the study Our purpose in this study was to identify any relationships that existed between theory and practice when it comes to Bandura´s four factors to increase self-efficacy. The following research question was asked: To what degree does NMA cadets feel that there is a correlation between theory and practice when it comes to Bandura’s four factors to increase self-efficacy?

Method To answer the abovementioned research question, a quantitative method was used. This was done in order to find a pattern or a tendency among the population (Kvarv, 2010). A questionnaire was given to 50 cadets at the NMA taking part as respondents in the study.

Participants The population in the present study consisted of cadets from the NMA. The total number of cadets at the NMA is classified information and will therefore not be revealed in this article. Our sample consisted of 50 respondents. When the sample size was evaluated, it was assumed that the population was homogeneous and that the number should not be less than 30 respondents in accordance with the guidelines provided by Johannessen, Tufte, and Christoffersen (2010). Subsequently, a randomized selection procedure resulted in five female cadets and 45 male cadets, which was quite representative of the total population of the NMA cadets consisting of around ten percent women.

Procedure The respondents filled out the questionnaire at the NMA. The respondents were asked to consider their own experiences and perceptions and then to indicate by putting a cross in a box how much they agreed or disagreed with the statements in the questionnaire. The questionnaires were then collected by one of the authors. As six of the respondents were not present when the questionnaire was to be filled out, they were given permission to give their responses via e-mail to one of the authors.

Materials Our starting point for the study was first to interpret Bandura´s theory (1997). Based on our interpretation of Bandura´s theory we then developed a questionnaire. The questionnaire dealt with how much one would agree or disagree that there were any correlations between theory and practice when it came to Bandura’s four factors of increasing self-efficacy. The questionnaire was designed in a structured way with the main emphasis on pre-coded response options. A structured questionnaire contains pre-coded answer alternatives (Johannessen, Tufte, & Christoffersen, 2010). The questionnaire was designed with five categories. The five categories were enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, physiological and mental states, and a general category related to self-efficacy. The first four categories each had two questions, where one question had a theoretical context and the other question a practical context. The aim was to see whether respondents believed that Bandura´s four factors were equally important in theory as in practice, i.e. that theory and practice correlated. The last category had one question more than the other categories and was intended to capture the factor that our respondents believed had the greatest impact on their self-efficacy. Finally, a last question about which factor would be the most important for self-efficacy was included in the questionnaire. Table 1 below gives an overview of the questions included in the questionnaire. The self-developed questionnaire thus consisted of a total of 14 questions. They were structured as follows: Three initial questions were asked about the respondent: First they were asked to indicate their gender, followed by indicating which unit they belonged to at the NMA. In the third question, they were asked to indicate if they had a good understanding of Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory. Here the answer categories were either yes or no. The purpose of this question was to find out if the knowledge of Bandura’s self-

efficacy theory would affect the remaining answers in the questionnaire. The next eight questions (questions 4-11) dealt with the four factors of self-efficacy. For each of the four factors the respondents were asked to ponder upon a theoretical and a practical question. Finally, there were three general questions (questions 12-14) related to self-efficacy. Question 14 was intended to identify the most important factor contributing to self-efficacy. Here the respondents were asked to choose one of five possible options that they thought had the most impact upon their self-efficacy. To measure the relationship between theory and practice, a five-point Likert-scale was used in questions 4 to 13. Here, the respondents had the opportunity to choose between a neutral answer category or two positive or two negative answers. The five answer categories were: totally disagree, partially disagree, neither agree nor disagree, partially agree, and totally agree. The use of these five answer categories was based on the suggestion that five alternative answers would give a respondent an opportunity to respond in a way that was nuanced enough (Johannessen, Tufte, & Christoffersen, 2010). The answers that were obtained from question 4 to 13 were converted to numbers ranging from 1 (totally disagree to 5 (totally agree). In question 14 the respondents could indicate which one of five options they thought had the biggest impact on their self-efficacy. They could only indicate one answer of the following five options: 1. Past experiences (example: I have mastered a similar task before), 2. The achievements of others (example: Seeing that a fellow cadet succeeds with a task), 3. Verbal encouragement from others (example: Positive feedback on my own performance), 4. Physiological and mental states (example: Have a strategy to cope with stress, negative thoughts, etc. so I feel calm and relaxed), and 5. Other (meaning something else). Table 1. An overview of questions given to the respondents. General questions Question 1. Indicate your gender Question 2. Indicate which unit at NMA you belong to Question 3. I have a good understanding of Banduraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s self-efficacy theory Questions related to enactive mastery experiences Question 4. Previous success has a positive impact on my own skills. Previous success means tasks or actions I have succeeded in completing in an earlier stage in life 1 Question 5. A well-executed platoon leader role gives me an increased confidence that I will succeed in a similar role after the NMA2 Questions related to vicarious experiences Question 6. When I see others succeed with their performances, I experience an increased self-efficacy belief in myself1 Question 7. When I see a fellow cadet, I identify with shooting excellently on a shooting test, this increases the belief that I too will succeed2 Questions related to verbal persuasion Question 8. Positive feedback on my performances gives me greater self-efficacy1 Question 9. When competent instructors give me encouraging feedback on my leadership role, I become more confident in my own skills2 Questions related to physiological and mental states and a general category

Question 10. When I get control of my physiological and mental body reactions, I experience an increased belief that I will succeed in the present situation. (Examples of such reactions may include: palpitations, increased heart rate, stress, anxiety, butterflies in the stomach, nervousness, etc.) 1 Question 11. Good coping strategies give me greater self-efficacy when I am about to give a speech in front of the entire NMA2 Questions related more generally to self-efficacy Question 12. Self-efficacy is important for an officer to succeed in his or her profession 1 Question 13. A well-developed self-efficacy has a great significance for my achievements2 Question intended to identify the most important factor in self-efficacy Question 14. Which of these five options do you think has the largest impact on your self-efficacy: (You can only indicate one answer). 1. Past experiences (example: I have mastered a similar task before) 2. The achievements of others (example: Seeing that a fellow cadet succeed with a task) 3. Verbal encouragement from others (example: Positive feedback on my own performance) 4. Physiological and mental states (example: Have a strategy to cope with stress, negative thoughts, etc. so I feel calm and relaxed) 5. Other (meaning something else) 1Theoretical question, 2Practical question. Answers to question 1 was either male or female. Answers to question 2 was either 1, 2, or 3. Answers to question 3 was either yes or no. Answers to questions 4-13 was on a scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Answers to question 14 was either 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.

The results from the questionnaire were based on the subjective opinions of our respondents. To increase the validity of data three elements were emphasized: (1) use of plain language. (2) Formulation of questions so that respondents could intuitively understand what information they had to recall in order to answer. (3) Giving the respondents a benchmark they could relate to when they should respond. In the introduction to the questionnaire it was emphasized that the questionnaire was anonymous. The idea behind this was to influence the respondents to answer as honestly as possible.

Results The data obtained from the respondents’ questionnaires were coded into the statistical program IBM SPSS 23.0. Regarding question 1: “Indicate your gender“, five respondents indicated female and 45 indicated male, as expected. Question 2: “Indicate which unit at NMA you belong to” had three answer options. The answers given by the respondents to these two questions were not used in the data analyses simply because the sample of 50 respondents was so small that it did not make any sense to conduct data analyses based upon groups. The 50 cadets were thus treated as one group. The third question: “I have a good understanding of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory” was intended to rule out any respondents that had a good understanding of Bandura’s selfefficacy theory as this might have affected the answers. However, this question can be interpreted in an ambiguous way. Some of the respondents may have thought that the question was directed towards their understanding of the definition of self-efficacy, while the original idea was that this question should

act as a filter question. Those with a good understanding of Bandura’s selfefficacy theory were to be excluded from the study to avoid the influence of any pre-understanding of the theory. Based upon this insecurity we chose not to use this question as a filter question, and we did not conduct any data analyses based upon this question.

Enactive mastery experiences Two of the questions were related to the factor enactive mastery experiences. Question 4, the theoretical question, was: “Previous success has a positive impact on my own skills. Previous success means tasks or actions I have succeeded in completing in an earlier stage in life.” Here, 70 % of the respondents answered that they totally agreed, while 30 % answered that they partially agreed. The practical question 5 was: “A well-executed platoon leader role gives me an increased confidence that I will succeed in a similar role after graduating from the NMA”. Here 42 % of the respondents answered that they totally agreed, 52 % that they partially agreed, 2 % replied that they neither agreed nor disagreed, while 4 % answered that they partially disagreed. In general, we found that there was a tendency for the respondents to agree more with the theoretical question than the practical question. Furthermore, the greatest difference of response options, 70 % indicating “totally agree” in the theoretical question, and 42 %, in the practical question, corresponds to a difference of 28 %. Questions 4 and 5 both refer to enactive mastery experience based upon Bandura's theory. In general, the results of both questions indicated that respondents agreed that this factor had an influence on their self-efficacy. Probably, the found consensus between the two questions was a result of this, and according to Bandura this factor has the strongest influence on our selfefficacy (Bandura, 1997). On the other hand, a closer look at the results showed that there was a difference between the theoretical and practical question. The difference may be an indication that the respondents do not recognize themselves in the practical question (question 5). Another reason may be that many of the respondents have experienced repeated failures in the role as a platoon leader, which may have led to a weakened self-efficacy. One successful completion as platoon leader will therefore not be sufficient to affect the selfefficacy belief enough. Bandura (1986) also points out that repeated negative experiences will weaken one’s self-efficacy belief. Respondents think that enactive mastery experiences are an important factor in order to improve self-efficacy. To carry out activities such as combat fatigue courses and stress management exercises can make soldiers and officers better able to believe in their own skills in similar conflict environments. With repeated success in training, they can develop a mental confidence in themselves and their skills, which likely will affect performance (Doss, 2007). In summary, the respondents believed that enactive mastery experiences were an important source for increasing their own skills. The mean score for the theoretical question (question 4) was 4.70, and for the practical question (question 5), the mean score was 4.32. The difference between the two averages (0.38) nevertheless showed that there was a high correlation between theory and practice.

Vicarious experiences Two questions were related to the factor vicarious experiences. Question 6 was the theoretical question related to vicarious experiences. Question 6 was: “When I see others succeed with their performances, I experience an increased self-efficacy belief in myself”. 4 % of the respondents answered that they totally agreed, 40 % said they partially agreed, 34 % replied that they neither agreed nor disagreed, 20 % said they partially disagreed, while 2 % responded that they totally disagreed with the question. Question 7 was the practical question related to vicarious experiences. This question was: “When I see a fellow cadet I identify with shooting excellently on a shooting test, this increases the belief that I will succeed too”. Here 16 % of the respondents answered that they totally agreed, 50 % said they partially agreed, 22 % replied that they neither agreed nor disagreed, while 12 % answered that they partially disagreed. In general, we can say that there was a tendency that respondents agreed more on the practical question than on the theoretical question. The mean value of the theoretical question (question 6) was 3.24 and the mean value for the practical question (question 7) was 3.70. The difference between the two average values at 0.46 suggest a somewhat larger difference than the one we found on the first factor, enactive mastery experiences. The difference was also in the opposite direction from enactive mastery experiences, with vicarious experiences having the highest mean for the practical question (M=3.70). For enactive mastery experiences, the theoretical question scored the highest (M=4.70). Questions 6 and 7 both refer to vicarious experiences in Bandura's (1997) theory. In general, the results of both questions suggest that there were very different opinions about the factors contribution to increasing the respondent’s self-efficacy. The answers range from "totally disagree" to "totally agree". Nevertheless, the averages of the two questions that respondents answered were more agree than disagree in that others' success had an impact on their selfefficacy. Bandura (1986) and Doss (2007) point to an explanation of why the difference is so great. Bandura and Doss both state that the factor vicarious experiences will have a greater impact and influence if one can identify with the person one is observing. Taking a closer look at the results, we find an interesting discovery, namely the relationship between factors enactive mastery experiences and vicarious experiences. Doss (2007) explains that observing others' success and then modelling this is not as effective and powerful as the success with one’s own performance. This could be a possible explanation for why enactive mastery experiences have been perceived as more significant than vicarious experiences. This in turn is supported by Bandura (1997), who claims that the enactive mastery experience factor is the strongest and most significant factor in achieving an improved self-efficacy The results show that the average respondent had the belief that other people's success had an impact on their self-efficacy. For example, we can imagine an infantry squad from the Norwegian infantry battalion heading out on an assignment in Afghanistan. For this infantry squad to increase their belief

that they will succeed, the other infantry squads’ performances can be an important factor that affects the soldiers' self-efficacy. If the other infantry squads in the platoon had previously failed to carry out their operations, this would probably have influenced the self-efficacy beliefs of most soldiers in a negative direction. The opposite would probably have been the case if the other infantry squads had achieved success time after time. It is therefore important to get a grasp on the success of others. In summary, the respondents seemed to agree more than disagree that others' success was important for their self-efficacy, despite large variations in responses. The average difference between the theoretical and the practical question (0.46) although in favour of the practical question, showed that there was a relatively good agreement between theory and practice.

Verbal persuasion Another two questions were related to the factor verbal persuasion. Questions 8 and 9 refer to verbal persuasion within Bandura’s (1997) selfefficacy theory. Question 8: “Positive feedback on my performances gives me greater self-efficacy” was the theoretical question, whereas question 9: “When competent instructors give me encouraging feedback on my leadership role, I become more confident in my own skills”, was the practical question. For the theoretical question (question 8), 74 % of the respondents answered that they totally agreed, 22 % answered that they partially agreed and 4 % replied that they neither agreed nor disagreed on the issue. Regarding the practical question (question 9), 72 % of the respondents answered that they totally agreed, while 28 % answered that they partially agreed. In general, the results indicated that there was a broad agreement that this factor affected the respondents' self-efficacy. The reason for the high score of totally agree in both questions can be the focus the NMA puts on feedback and feedback culture. The NMA attaches great importance to establishing a good feedback culture to promote personality and leadership growth (Andersson et al., 2009). For example, after the different exercises, time is set aside to give and receive feedback. This culture may have influenced the respondents while they were answering the questionnaire, and may therefore be a cause of the high degree of correlation of the two questions. On the other hand, the high score could also be attributed to the respondents’ need for their opinions to be of importance and to be recognized. Verbal persuasion is a factor that cannot be controlled by the respondents, unlike the other three factors. For most of us it is important to get feedback, because it gives us a sense of being valued or seen. The significance of this is of course subjective, but probably it is important for most of us. As a cadet, it is desirable to be recognized, just to get a confirmation on that matter, and this may be one reason why this factor was so highly correlated on both questions. The tendency among respondents showed that this factor was important for their self-efficacy and it therefore supports Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory. Furthermore, another interesting finding can be seen by comparing the mean values of enactive mastery experiences and verbal persuasion. The mean values were 4.70 for the theoretical question and 4.32 for the practical question related to enactive mastery experiences, and 4.70 for the theoretical question and 4.72 for the practical question related to verbal persuasion. When we put the two

the mean values up against each other, we see that the factor verbal persuasion has a higher degree of unity between the theoretical and practical questions than the factor enactive mastery experiences. In Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory this has not always been found, as Bandura thinks enactive mastery experiences is the one factor that aids in the strongest growth of self-efficacy. One possible reason for this finding may be the poor wording of the practical question related to enactive mastery experience (question 5), which could have caused the respondents to give a lower mean score to enactive mastery experience in total. The significance of the factor verbal persuasion in practice is not hard to understand. In a combat situation with little food and water, positive feedback could be a "boost" for one´s self-efficacy belief and accomplishments. In moments where you are exhausted, this form of self-efficacy could help to provide an extra motivation to carry on and do your best. In summary, the respondents highly agreed that verbal persuasion was important for their self-efficacy. The mean score on the theoretical question related to verbal persuasion was 4.70, and the mean score on the practical question was 4.72. The difference between the two questions in average (0.02) shows that there was a very high correlation between theory and practice regarding the importance of the factor verbal persuasion.

Physiological and affective states Two questions were related to the factor physiological and affective states. Questions 10 and 11 dealt with the physiological and mental states within Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory. Question 10 was the theoretical question. The question was: “When I get control of my physiological and mental body reactions, I experience an increased belief that I will succeed in the present situation. (Examples of such reactions may include: palpitations, increased heart rate, stress, anxiety, butterflies in the stomach, nervousness, etc.). Question 11 was the practical question. The question was: “Good coping strategies gives me greater self-efficacy when I am about to give a speech in front of the entire NMA”. Regarding question 10 (the theoretical question) 46 % of the respondents answered that they totally agreed, 44 % replied that they partially agreed, while 10 % responded that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the question. Question 11 was the practical question. To this question, 8 % of the respondents answered that they totally agreed, 34 % replied that they partially agreed, 46 % replied that they neither agreed nor disagreed, 10 % replied that they partially disagreed, and 2 % said they totally disagreed with the question. In general, we can say that there were wide variations in how the respondents answered the two questions. Averages showed that the respondents agreed more than disagreed, in that this factor had a positive effect on their own skills. Probably the low scores result from what Bandura (1986) wrote that ”people rely partly on information from their physiological state in judging their capabilities” (p. 401). This quote can be interpreted so that the factor physiological and mental states can be seen as less meaningful than the other three factors, and that it therefore gets generally low scores from the respondents. On the other hand, a closer look revealed that there was a big difference between the theoretical and the practical question, which may have affected the

overall impression of this factor. For the theoretical question related to the factor physiological and affective states (Question 10), 90 % of the respondents partially or totally agreed. If we look further on the practical question related to the factor physiological and affective states (Question 11), over 50 % of the respondents answered that they partially disagreed or neither agreed nor disagreed. These results showed a clear gap between theory and practice. Intuitively, one reason for this could be that the practical question was not very well developed so that the two questions were perceived to be unrelated. On the other hand, it may be that the respondents believed that coping strategies did not affect their performance. Another possibility may be that the respondents do not use coping strategies or know what this is. If the latter option is the case, this may have influenced the respondents to indicate neutral on this question. In general, there were relatively large differences in the respondents’ answers to the two questions. The largest difference is between the response option; totally agree. Here there was a difference of 38 %. Average scores for the theoretical question related to the factor physiological and affective states was 4.36 and 3.36 for the practical question. The difference between the two averages was 1.0 indicating that there was a large difference between theory and practice on this factor.

General questions related to self-efficacy Three questions were more generally related to self-efficacy. Question 12 was: “Self-efficacy is important for an officer to succeed in his or her profession”, and question 13 was: “A well-developed self-efficacy has a great significance for my achievements”. Question 12 was the theoretical question, and 74 % of the respondents totally agreed, while 26 % answered that they partially agreed with the question. Question 13 was the practical question. 44 % of the respondents answered that they totally agreed, while 56 % answered that they partially agreed. Mean values for the two questions were respectively 4.74 and 4.40 with the theoretical question getting the highest mean scores. The difference in averages between the two questions was 0.34, which means there was a high correlation between the theoretical and the practical question.

The most important factor contributing to self-efficacy in military cadets Question 14 consisted of the following: “Which of these five options do you think has the largest impact on your self-efficacy: 1. Past experiences (example: I have mastered a similar task before), 2. The achievements of others (example: Seeing that a fellow cadet succeeds with a task), 3. Verbal encouragement from others (example: Positive feedback on my own performance), 4. Physiological and mental states (example: Have a strategy to cope with stress, negative thoughts, etc. so I feel calm and relaxed) and 5. Other (meaning something else). To this question, 78 % of the respondents answered past experiences, 0 % answered the performance of others', 4 % answered verbal encouragement, 14 % answered physiological and mental states, while 4 % said other, indicating that something else had a great impact upon their self-efficacy. Most respondents answered alternative 1 (past experiences), which means that enactive mastery experiences were the factor that had the largest impact on self-

efficacy. This factor is known as the strongest of the four factors (Bandura, 1997) and explains the tendency we found. It is nonetheless interesting that the factor enactive mastery experiences did not receive the same weight as the factor verbal persuasion received when looking at the four different self-efficacy factors. Why most respondents chose the factor enactive mastery experiences as the most important factor in question 14, but not when they answered the other questions related to self-efficacy, may have several reasons. Despite this discrepancy, these results eliminate the argument that verbal persuasion is a larger and more important factor than enactive mastery experience. A short overview of the results of the theoretical and practical questions related to self-efficacy Table 2 below gives a short summary of the answers given to the questions related to the four factors of how to increase self-efficacy and to the two questions that were more generally related to self-efficacy (questions 4-13). For reasons of simplicity, the questions are not fully written out in the table (see table 1 for the full wording of the questions). Table 2. Mean values (Mv) of answers given to the questions related to self-efficacy (n=50). Questions Mv Questions related to enactive mastery experiences Question 4. Previous success has a positive impact on my own skills1 Question 5. A well-executed platoon leader role gives me an increased confidence that I will succeed in a similar role after the NMA2

4.70

4.32

Questions related to vicarious experiences Question 6. When I see others succeed with their performances, I experience an increased self-efficacy belief in myself 1 Question 7. When I see a fellow cadet, I identify with shooting excellently on a shooting test, this increases the belief that I will succeed too2

3.24

Questions related to verbal persuasion Question 8. Positive feedback on my performances gives me greater selfefficacy1 Question 9. When competent instructors give me encouraging feedback on my leadership role, I become more confident in my own skills2

4.70

Questions related to physiological and mental states Question 10. When I get control of my physiological and mental body reactions, I experience an increased belief that I will succeed in the present situation 1 Question 11. Good coping strategies give me greater self-efficacy when I am about to give a speech in front of the entire NMA2

4.36 3.36

Questions related more generally to self-efficacy Question 12. Self-efficacy is important for an officer to succeed in his or her profession1

4.74

Question 13. A well-developed self-efficacy has a great significance for my achievements2 1Theoretical question, 2Practical question.

3.70

4.72

4.40

As can be seen from table 2, the highest correlation between the theoretical and the practical questions was found for the factor verbal persuasion (Mv=4.70 and Mv=4.72), followed by the factor enactive mastery experiences (Mv=4.70 and Mv=4.32). Regarding the correlation between the theoretical and the practical questions for the factor vicarious experiences, the correlation was high, but in the opposite direction of the three other factors (Mv=3.24 and 3.70). The lowest correlation between the theoretical and the practical questions was found for the factor physiological and mental states (Mv=4.36 and 3.36). It was also found that the respondents to a very high degree agreed that selfefficacy was important for an officer in his or her profession (Mv=4.74), and that a well-developed self-efficacy had a great significance for their achievements (Mv=4.40). Also for these last two general questions (questions 12 and 13) related more generally to self-efficacy there was a high correlation between the theoretical and practical question.

Conclusions This article had the following research question: To what degree do NMA cadets feel that there is a correlation between theory and practice when it comes to Bandura’s four factors to increase self-efficacy? To answer this research question, we used a self-developed quantitative questionnaire and gave this to 50 respondents at the NMA. The answers from the respondents were analysed and then discussed against Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory. In general, the results showed that there was a good correlation between theory and practice when it came to Bandura’s four factors to increase selfefficacy, except for the factor physiological and mental states. In addition, there was also a variation between the level of correspondence between the different factors with regard to the theoretical and practical impact this had upon selfefficacy.. The most noteworthy differences we found were between the theoretical and practical questions for each of the four factors, with the exception of the factor verbal persuasion, where the mean values were almost the same for the theoretical and practical question. Respondents thus generally seemed to believe that the remaining three factors of how to increase self-efficacy were more important in theory than in practice. This may indicate a weakness in the formulation of the situations in the practical questions. On the other hand, these situations were constructed so that the respondents would be able to recognize the situations. The largest difference between theory and practice was found for the factor physiological and mental states, while the smallest difference was found for the factor verbal persuasion. Probably, the diverging results for the factor physiological and mental states were large because of the uncertainty surrounding the use of coping strategies. Meanwhile, it could also be a result of the respondents struggling to recognize themselves in the situation. When looking at the factor verbal persuasion, the low difference between the theoretical and the practical question may simply be a result of the welldeveloped feedback culture that the respondents are accustomed too. The factor enactive mastery experiences revealed that the respondents believed this factor to be of great significance in relation to their self-efficacy.

The average values were not very different between theory and practice, indicating that there was a relatively good correlation between theory and practice. The factor vicarious experiences showed that the respondents agreed more than disagreed with how this factor affected their self-efficacy. Yet it turned out that the practical question had a greater score than the theoretical one. This may be because the respondents agreed more that the identification element had more to say for one´s self-efficacy belief, as compared to observing a random person. The factor verbal persuasion showed that respondents believed this factor had a great influence on their self-efficacy. This factor scored higher than enactive mastery experience when it came to the practical question, while the score on the theoretical question was equal to the score on the theoretical question for the factor enactive mastery experiences. The factor verbal persuasion thus revealed a very high correlation between theory and practice. The factor physiological and mental states had large variations in the responses to the two questions. Nevertheless, respondents agreed more than they disagreed, in that this factor had an impact on their self-efficacy. Despite this, respondents agreed more to the theoretical question than to the practical question. The reason for this may probably be a poorly formulated practical question. Regarding the questions that were more generally related to self-efficacy, the results here also showed a high degree of correlation between the theoretical and practical question. A clear majority of respondents totally agreed that selfefficacy was important for an officer to succeed in his or her profession (the theoretical question). For the practical question related to self-efficacy, stating that a well-developed self-efficacy had a great significance on their achievements, about half of the respondents totally agreed, and the remaining respondents partially agreed to this question. When the respondents were asked to choose which of five options they thought had the largest impact on their self-efficacy, it was found that 78 % of the respondents answered past experiences. This indicates that enactive mastery experiences were the most important factor related to self-efficacy. However, although most respondents choose the factor enactive mastery experiences as the most important factor for this question, answering the other questions related to self-efficacy revealed that the strongest factor with the highest correlation between the theoretical and the practical question was verbal persuasion. We draw the conclusion that enactive mastery experience in total was the most important factor for increased self-efficacy. The reason for this is that when forced to choose among the different factors it was very clear that the factor enactive mastery experience had the largest impact upon the respondents’ selfefficacy. In summary, our findings illustrates that there is a connection between theory and practice when it comes to Banduras (1997) four factors to increase self-efficacy. As this article has mapped the correlations between theory and practice of Banduras (1997) four factors to increased self-efficacy, it could in turn be interesting to make a qualitative study on the same subject. This might bring out

the underlying thinking in the respondents and thus create a deeper understanding of why they respond as they do. This would also at the same time give a deeper understanding which factors increase self-efficacy and why this is important for military officers. Acknowledgements This research work was supported by the Norwegian Military Academy and the Norwegian Defence University. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not represent any official position by the Norwegian Army or the Norwegian Armed Forces. The authors wish to thank senior lecturer Merete Ruud at the Norwegian Military Academy for valuable help with the language of this work.

References Adler, A. B., Thomas, J. L., & Castro, C. A. (2005). Measuring Up: Comparing SelfReports With Unit Records for Assessing Soldier Performance. Military Psychology, 17(1), 3-24. Andersson, B., Auran, B. G., Boe, O., Eidhamar, A., Gravem, F., Holmøy, R. E., Holth, T., Kjenstadbakk, T. J., Kjevik, J., Lilleng, H., Lundberg, L. K., Nilsen, F. A., Osberg, O., Stenvik, K., Vindenes, N. F., Warø, H. & Øyen, O. M. (2009). Lederutvikling i Hæren: Krigsskolens program for lederutvikling. Emneplan for ledelsesfaget ved Krigsskolen (Leadership development in the Norwegian Army: the Norwegian Military Academy´s program for leadership development. Subject plan for the leadership subject at the Norwegian Military Academy). Oslo: Krigsskolen. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Boe, O., & Hagen, K. (2015). Using mindfulness to help reducing the perception of stress during an acute stressful situation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 858-868. Boe, O., & Hjortmo, H. (2017). The Norwegian Military Academy`s concept of leadership development. EDULEARN Proceedings, 4887-4894. Boe, O., & Holth, T. (2017). Is guidance as a tool for leadership communication for military leaders effective? Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 8(2). Boe, O., & Ingdahl, A. (2017). Educating monsters with brakes: Teaching soldiers aggression and aggression control. Kasmera, 45(3), 1-30. Boe, O., & Johannessen, A. H. (2015). The effects of the role of the group, the role of the leader, the emotional distance to the enemy, and the aggressive predisposition upon killing. Kasmera, 43(6), 125-144. Boe, O., Kjørstad, O., & Werner-Hagen, K. (2012). Løytnanten og krigen: Operativt lederskap i strid (The lieutenant and the war: Operational leadership in combat). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Buch. R., Säfvenbom, R., & Boe, O. (2015). The Relationships Between Academic SelfEfficacy, Intrinsic Motivation, and Perceived Competence. Journal of Military Studies, 6(1), 1-17. Cox, R. H. (2007). Sports psychology – concepts and applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.  Doss, W. (2007). Condition to win: Dynamic techniques for performance oriented mental conditioning. New York: Looseleaf Law Publications, Inc. Eid, J., & Johnsen, B. H. (2006). Operativ psykologi (Operational Psychology) (2nd ed). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211-245. Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Prospects and limits of the empirical study of expertise: An introduction. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Towards a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 1-38). New York: Cambridge University Press. Forsvarsstaben. (2007). Forsvarets fellesoperative doktrine (Norwegian Armed Forces Joint Operational Doctrine). Norwegian Armed Forces Defence Staff: Oslo. Forsvarsstaben. (2012). FSJ grunnsyn på ledelse i Forsvaret (The Norwegian Armed Forces Chief of Defence basic view of leadership in the Armed Forces). Norwegian Armed Forces Defence Staff: Oslo. Forsvarsstaben. (2014). Forsvarets fellesoperative doktrine (Norwegian Armed Forces Joint Operational Doctrine). Norwegian Armed Forces Defence Staff: Oslo. Gruber, K. A., Kilcullen, R. N., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (2009). Effects of Psychosocial Resources on Elite Soldiers’ Completion of a Demanding Military Selection Program. Military Psychology, 21, 427-444. Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team- efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819832. Hammermeister, J., Pickering, M. A., McGraw, L., & Ohlson, C. (2010). Relationship between psychological skill profiles and soldier physical fitness performance. Military Psychology, 22(4), 399-411. Holth, T., & Boe, O. (2017). Enhancing the Leadership Communication Skills of Norwegian Military Officers. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 8(1), 1-6. Janelle, C. M., & Hillmann, C. H. (2003). Expert performance in sport: Current perspectives and critical issues. I K. A. Ericsson & J. Starkes (Eds.), Recent advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 19-48). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Jex, S. M., Bliese, P. D., Buzzell, S., & Primeau, J. (2001). The impact of self-efficacy on stressor-strain relations: Coping style as an exploratory mechanism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 401-409. Johannessen, A., Tufte, P. A., & Christoffersen, L. (2010). Introduksjon til samfunnsvitenskapelig metode (Introduction to social science methodology) (4th ed). Oslo: Abstrakt forlag. Kaufmann, G., & Kaufmann, A. (1998), Psykologi i organisasjon og ledelse (Psychology in organization and leadership) (2nd ed). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad & Bjørke AS. Krigsskolen (2010). Studiehåndbok Krigsskolen 2010-2011 Bachelor i militære studier, ledelse, og landmakt, treårig utdanning (Study handbook for the Norwegian Military Academy 2010-2011 Bachelor in military studies, leadership, and land power three-year program). Oslo: Krigsskolen. Krigsskolen (2016). Studiehåndbok Krigsskolen 2016-2017 Bachelor i militære studier, ledelse, og landmakt, treårig utdanning (Study handbook for the Norwegian Military Academy 2010-2011 Bachelor in military studies, leadership, and land power three-year program). Oslo: Krigsskolen. Kvarv, S. (2010). Vitenskapsteori: Tradisjoner, posisjoner og diskusjoner (Theory of Science: Traditions, positions and discussions). Oslo: Novus forlag. Matthews, M. D. (2014). Head strong: How Psychology is Revolutionizing War. Oxford University Press: New York, USA. Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R., & Mack, D. E. (2000). The relation of selfefficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(3), 280-94.

Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38. Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Self-efficacy and Work-related Behaviour: A Review and Meta-analysis. Applied Psychology, 42(2), 139-152.  Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240-261.  U.S. Department of the Army. (2015). FM 6-22. US Army Field Manual 6-22. Army Leadership. Washington, USA: Department of Army. Williams, A. M., & Ericsson, K. A. (2005). Perceptual-cognitive expertise in sport: Some considerations when applying the expert performance approach. Human Movement Science, 24(3), 283-307. Wormnes, B., & Manger, T. (2005). Motivasjon og mestring: Veier til effektiv bruk av egne ressurser (Motivation and coping: Methods to make efficient use of your own resources). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Yanilov, E., & Boe, O. (in press). Combat Mindset and Mental Conditioning: Beating Stress in Business, Family, and Social Settings. Tel Aviv: Dekel Publishing House.

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 30-54, July 2017

Differentiated Instruction in the High School Science Classroom: Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses Jane Pablico Walker High School Walker, Louisiana, USA Southern New Hampshire University Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Moustapha Diack and Albertha Lawson Southern University and A & M College Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA

Abstract. This study aimed to determine the effect of Differentiated Instruction (DI) on learning outcomes of high school science students using a convergent, parallel, mixed method research. The qualitative component of the research was a phenomenological approach which explored individual beliefs, experiences and perceptions of teachers about DI. The quantitative part involved a comparison in the End-ofCourse (EOC) performance of biology students exposed to DI versus those not exposed to DI. Personal interviews with six science teachers and survey results from 65 biology students revealed that teachers and students alike have positive perceptions of DI. The teachers perceived DI as an effective instructional method for improving student engagement and academic performance. More students scored Good/Excellent in the DI group (76.9%) compared with the Non-DI group (67.6%). However, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) suggests that at 5% level, the DI group did not perform significantly higher than the non-DI group (p=.12). This implies that there is no significant effect of DI on student learning outcomes measured by EOC. Although the quantitative result of the study did not show a significantly higher EOC score in the DI group, differentiated instruction positively impacted the learning process by increasing student engagement in class. Keywords: differentiated instruction, high school science, teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x; perceptions, teaching strategies

1. Introduction Students come to class bringing with them their diverse cultural background, learning styles, interests, abilities and multiple intelligences. The diversity of

students in the classroom can result in a significant challenge for teachers when it comes to meeting the needs of all students. Some students may find the lesson too easy while some find it too hard; some may find the topic interesting while some find it boring. It is the goal of differentiated instruction (DI) to reach out to each student and approach the lesson in a way that fits their learning styles, interests, abilities or multiple intelligences. Differentiated instruction has a strong theoretical basis that includes constructivist theory, brain-based research and multiple intelligences (Felder & Soloman, 2004; Gardner, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978). However, the philosophy of differentiation is lacking empirical validation (Ducey, 2011; Subban, 2006; Tulbure, 2011). Many of the studies are qualitative in nature indicating positive emotional outcomes in terms of motivation, task commitment, and excitement about learning (Burkett, 2013; Maeng, 2011). On the quantitative studies determining the effectiveness of differentiated instruction, some studies revealed the effectiveness of differentiated instruction over traditional instruction (Aliakbari & Haghigi, 2014; 2010; Dosch & Zidon, 2014; Joseph, et al., 2013; Stavroula, et al., 2011), but some showed no significant difference with the traditional instruction (Ducey, 2011; McCoach, et al., 2013; Maxey, 2013; Vincent, 2012). Studies on differentiated instruction are mostly focused on the elementary and middle-school level and are very rare on the high school level (Maeng, 2011). Furthermore, differentiated instruction occurs most often in reading, writing and math classrooms and is seldom applied to other subject areas including science (Eady, 2008; Tobin & Tippett, 2014). The limited literature on the use of differentiated instruction in high school science classes and the conflicting results of previous quantitative research calls for more studies to be conducted. The gap in the literature has motivated the researchers to conduct this study.

2. Research Questions A public school district in southern Louisiana began implementing differentiated instruction during the 2014-2015 school year. School administrators were first trained, who in turn, trained the teachers in their respective schools. Full implementation of differentiated instruction in the district occurred in the 2014-2015 school year. During that school year, differentiation strategies for content, process and product, were explicitly described in the teachers‟ lesson plans. This study aimed to determine the teachers‟ and students‟ perceptions of differentiated instruction after their exposure to it, and to determine the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in improving student learning outcomes. Specifically, it sought to address the following questions: 1. What are the science teachers‟ perceptions of the effect of differentiated instruction on student learning? 2. What are the students‟ perceptions of differentiated instruction in their science classes?

3. Is there a significant effect of differentiated instruction on student learning outcomes measured by EOC (end-of-course) test scores?

3. Review of Literature 3.1 Theoretical Foundations of Differentiated Instruction Differentiated instruction (DI) is a term introduced by Tomlinson in 1999 that has gained popularity in education. It is a teaching philosophy that provides different avenues in presenting the content, making sense of ideas and assessing learning outcomes (Tomlinson, 2001). Although it is relatively a new term to most educators in the regular classroom, DI is not a new concept at all (Tomlinson, 1999; Roe & Egbert, 2010). Dedicated teachers may knowingly or unknowingly practice DI in one way or another as they manifest their commitment in educating their students. In differentiating the content, process and product of instruction, the teacher needs to consider the students‟ readiness, interest and learning profile (Tomlinson, 1999; Tomlinson, 2001; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). Differentiated instruction is a philosophy of teaching based on well-established theories. One learning theory that supports DI is the Sociocultural Learning Theory which is based on the work of Lev Vygotsky (1978), a Russian psychologist. The Sociocultural Learning Theory holds that social interaction plays a fundamental role in the development of cognition. Another aspect of Vygotsky‟s theory is the idea of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). ZPD is an area of exploration for which the student is cognitively prepared and for which development is attained with the help of social interaction (Vygotky, 1978). The Sociocultural Learning Theory and the aspect of zone of proximal development (ZPD) are the theoretical bases in differentiating instruction by readiness level. There is a zone where the student is cognitively ready to do a specific task where he can be successful with the help of his social support system. If a student is not in that zone yet, the instruction needs to be adjusted to a level that the student is cognitively ready to take. Strategies that can help facilitate the intentional learning of a student include collaborative learning, discourse, modeling, and scaffolding (Tomlinson, 2001). The constructivist learning theory is another theoretical basis of DI. It is a learner-centered theory that suggests that humans construct knowledge and meaning from their own experiences. A constructivist classroom provides opportunities for the students to experience multiple perspectives and emphasizes authentic assessment rather than traditional paper/pencil exams (Information Resources Management Association, 2015). Constructivism supports the practice of DI. It provides the theoretical basis for differentiating instruction by students‟ readiness and interest. Learning styles are the ways in which learners prefer to learn. In 1987, Neil Flemming introduced the acronym VARK and it appeared in a publication in 1992 (Flemming & Mills, 1992). VARK encompasses four types of learning

preferences which stand for visual, aural, read/write and kinesthetic. These learning styles and modalities are being considered in differentiated instruction. In order to maximize learning for everyone, the lessons should be adjusted to accommodate these differences because learners with different styles might benefit from different ways of presenting the material (Willingham, 2009). Another source of differences in the classroom is the students‟ multiple intelligences. Howard Gardner, a professor at Harvard University, published his theory of multiple intelligences in the mid 1980‟s (Willingham, 2009). He defined intelligence as a biopsychological potential to process information in certain ways. He proposed that there were seven multiple intelligences, and later turned into eight. The eight areas of intelligences include linguistic, logicalmathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, musical, naturalistic and spatial (Gardner, 1993; Von Karolyi, Ramos-Ford & Gardner, 2003). Multiple intelligences inventory is a good way for teachers to get an initial assessment for the students. This could be a tool to be used is designing classroom activities that lead to differentiated instruction.

3.2. Related Studies The studies being reviewed in this section range from 2007 to 2017, and are comprised of journal articles and doctoral dissertations. The qualitative results are presented first followed by the quantitative results. In 2010, King examined teachers' knowledge and their perceptions regarding the implementation of differentiated instruction. She surveyed 220 high school regular education and special education teachers who were certified to teach core academic subjects (English, math, science, and social studies) from 10 high schools in middle Tennessee in Davidson and Rutherford counties. The findings revealed that factors such as content knowledge/skills, teacher-student ratios, availability of time and state standards and assessments, affect teachers‟ decisions to implement differentiated instruction (King, 2010). Differentiated instruction occurs on a limited basis and only in a few content areas (Eady, 2008). The respondents in King‟s study expressed that their ability to differentiate instruction was impeded by their lack of knowledge regarding it (King, 2010). Differentiation is also perceived as time consuming and challenging due to diverse populations (Maddox, 2015; Wan, 2017). Studies then recommended professional development of teachers in the area of differentiated instruction (Koeze, 2007; Langley, 2015; Maeng, 2011; Robinson, 2013; Sizemore, 2015). According to Dixon, Yssel, McConnell & Hardin (2014), teachers who had more professional development in differentiation felt more efficient in differentiating instruction in their classes. Whipple (2012) conducted a survey to explore teachers‟ understanding of differentiated instruction and their perceptions of their ability to implement differentiated instruction. Participants comprised of 88 teachers in grades kindergarten through sixth throughout the Leighton Public Schools in southern

Massachusetts. Overall, the participating teachers had a high level of understanding of the concepts of differentiated instruction and the methods of how to implement it in the classroom. The researcher also found that, although the teachers had a high level understanding of differentiated instruction, their rate of implementation was low. This shows a disconnection between understanding differentiated instruction and implementing differentiated instruction. In another study conducted by Wan (2017), the findings indicated that teachers were more inclined to use teacher-centered approach although they were generally ready for using DI strategies. University instructors also struggled with implementing differentiated instruction, despite knowing the importance of modeling it in a teacher education program (Lockley, J., Jackson, N., Downing, A., & Roberts, J. , 2017). Martin & Pickett (2013) conducted an action research study to increase student motivation and engagement among 25 gifted students. During direct instruction, the math and music teachers noted several off-task behaviors (hyperactive, withdrawn, poor attention, disruptive, uncooperative). As an intervention, the teacher-researchers implemented differentiated instruction by flexible grouping and giving choices. After three months of differentiated instruction, student motivation and engagement has improved. More students felt that they were being appropriately challenged when they were given choices of assignments in class. The teacher-researchers concluded that the intervention positively impacted changes in students' perception of their engagement and motivation. Quantitative Studies were also conducted to determine the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in different subject areas and at different levels. A study was conducted in a language institute in Iran to determine the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in enhancing reading comprehension among elementary students. This quasi-experimental research consisted of a control and an experimental group, with each group having one male and one female classroom. Results of ANOVA showed that students who received differentiated instruction outperformed those who were exposed to traditional instruction, with the female students performing better than the male students (Aliakbari & Haghighi, 2014). Koeze (2007) conducted a study to determine if differentiated instruction had an effect on student achievement. The study consisted of both quantitative and qualitative parts where the quantitative part was used to frame the qualitative aspect of the study. Quantitative data were collected using student scores in the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) in math, reading, and writing, and combined ELA scores. Correlation analysis and t-tests were conducted to determine if the number of occurrences of differentiation had an effect on student achievement. Qualitative data were gathered using classroom observation and interviews. The population consisted of 4th grade students and teachers in a public school in Michigan. T-test findings revealed that there were no significant differences in MEAP scores in math, reading, writing and ELA scores between the differentiated classroom and traditional classroom. However, regression analysis revealed that one independent variable, which is learning

style, was statistically significant to reading achievement. Since differentiating for learning styles may also be seen by students as differentiating for choice and interest, the researcher concluded that differentiating for choice, interest, and learning styles all likely have an impact on student achievement (Koeze, 2007). A quasi-experimental study conducted by Stavroula, Leonides & Mary (2011) involving 24 elementary classes of 479 Cypriot students revealed that the classes who received differentiated instruction scored significantly higher in the posttest than those who were taught using traditional lecture method. Quantitative data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA. The researchers also discussed how differentiated instruction promoted equity and quality for all types of learners. Chamberlin & Powers (2010) examined the use of differentiated instruction in an undergraduate mathematics course for improving studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x; mathematical learning. The participants were elementary education majors enrolled in a mathematics course covering the topic of number and operations. The quasiexperimental part of the study utilized the pretest-posttest control group design. Results showed that students exposed to differentiated instruction performed significantly higher in the posttest than the control group. A study of differentiated instruction in a teacher education setting was conducted by Joseph, Thomas, Simonette, & Ramsook (2013). The researchers compared the final grades at the end of the semester of the students taught using differentiated instruction (DI) and those taught using the traditional wholegroup instruction. A total of 434 students in the curriculum studies course on two education campuses participated in the study. Findings of the study revealed that the majority of students in the differentiated classrooms demonstrated sound understanding of major concepts taught in the curriculum studies course. The DI group performed better than the non-DI group based on their semester grades. Dosch and Zidon (2014) conducted a mixed-method research study to explore the implementation of differentiated instruction in higher education. The participants were two different sections of the same Educational Psychology course taught by the same instructor. Thirty-nine students were in the experimental group (DI group) and 38 were in the control group (NDI group). The control group was taught in a teacher-centered, traditional lecture format with students taking notes and did not have choices on how to complete assignments. The experimental group was taught using a constructivist, studentcentered format with many hands-on activities, choices for completing assignments, and instruction altered based on formative assessments. Results of independent-samples t-tests revealed a significant difference in the aggregate mean group scores on the six assignments and the three exams. This implied that the experimental group outperformed the control group. The students in the experimental group also shared that they appreciated having choices and they felt it improved their learning of the material.

Not all studies on differentiated instruction revealed its dominance over nondifferentiated instruction. In 2011, Ducey (2011) conducted a study to determine the effectiveness of differentiated instruction as a classroom methodology for high school physics students. Findings revealed that differentiated instruction provided no significant advantage when compared to traditional instruction for this group of students, regardless of course level (honors or standard). Additionally, the students were surveyed regarding their perception of match of the received differentiated instruction to their educational needs and values. Ducey determined that differentiated instruction provided no significant difference in student perception of match to educational needs and values. An action research study entitled, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Effects of Differentiating Instruction by Learning Styles on Problem Solving in Cooperative Groupsâ&#x20AC;? was conducted by Westbook (2011). A pretest-posttest control group design was used in the study, with 28 students in both of the groups. The subjects of the study were ninth grade students taking a Math I class taught by the same teacher. Students in the treatment group were clustered by learning styles (auditory, kinesthetic, and visual) and were exposed to differentiated instruction. Data analysis revealed that the treatment group did not perform significantly higher in the posttest compared to the control group. In 2012, Vincent studied the effects of implementing differentiated instruction on learners' reading achievement. A quantitative, ex post facto design was used in the study. The reading scores of a treatment group comprised of 3rd and 4th grade students from one school, were compared to the reading scores of a control group comprised of the same grade levels from another demographically-similar school. The students in the treatment group were taught using the mandated implementation of differentiated instruction in one school. The Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) reading achievement scores were compared for the control and treatment groups, taking the 2nd grade Stanford Achievement Test Series 10 (SAT-10) result and socioeconomic status as covariates. Results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed no significant difference between the reading achievement scores of the treatment group and the control group. Williams (2012) conducted a quantitative quasi-experimental research study to examine the effects of differentiated instruction on seventh grade student performance on standardized mathematics assessments using a repeatedmeasures design. The study was inconclusive due to inconsistent results on the test of significance on the difference in performance between the experimental and control groups. Using a causal-comparative design, Maxey (2013) examined the effect of differentiated instruction in math achievement of students in primary school on a U. S. military base overseas. Ten sections (about 20 students each) of secondgrade students and 12 teachers participated in the study. Five sections were assigned as the experimental group that received differentiated instruction while the other five served as the control group. The STAR Math posttest scores of the

two groups were compared using ANCOVA, with the pretest scores taken as the covariate. The researcher also examined math achievement of students in the three ability groups within the treatment group to see if there was any difference in the amount of progress students made over the course of the school year. Results of ANCOVA revealed that there was no significant difference in the math achievement between the control and experimental groups. This indicates that differentiated instruction did not make a difference in end of the year achievement for these students. McCoach, Gubbins, Foreman, Rambo, & Rubenstein (2013) examined the impact of implementing pre-differentiated mathematics curricula in algebra, geometry and measurement, and graphing and data analysis on the achievement of grade 3 students, after controlling for pretest achievement scores. After a series of three-level regression modeling using the Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM 7.01) software, the study concluded that, in general, the post-Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) scores of students in the treatment group were equal to those in the control group. However, it appeared that high-achieving students in lowachieving schools benefitted more from the differentiated curricula. In 2011, Tulbure synthesized previous empirical studies from 1985 to 2010 and investigated the impact of differentiated instruction upon the results obtained in tertiary education. Among 16 studies, 10 concluded that differentiated instruction based on personal learning styles leads to an improvement in the level of learning results. Three of the studies found that differentiated instruction based on learning styles does not affect the level of learning, and the other three concluded that the lack of concordance between learning styles and didactic strategies stimulates and makes the learning process flexible. At the time of the research by Tulbure (2011), the results of studies concerning the impact of differentiated instruction upon the academic success on the level of tertiary education were controversial despite figures showing more research results in favor of differentiated instruction. Just like the reviewed studies in Tulbureâ&#x20AC;&#x;s synthesis research, the empirical studies reviewed in this section also have different findings. In the quantitative studies determining the effectiveness of differentiated instruction, some studies revealed the effectiveness of differentiated instruction over traditional instruction (Aliakbari & Haghigi, 2014; Chamberlin & Powers, 2010; Dosch & Zidon, 2014; Joseph, et al., 2013; Koeze, 2007; Stavroula, et al., 2011), while some showed no significant difference with the traditional instruction (Ducey, 2011; McCoach, et al., 2013; Maxey, 2013; Vincent, 2012; Westbook, 2011; Williams, 2012). The limited literature on the effectiveness of differentiated instruction and the conflicting results of previous research called for more studies to be conducted.

4. Methodology 4.1. Description of Subjects Six high school science teachers and 65 students in a public high school in southern Louisiana participated in the study. The teachers (four female and two male) implemented differentiated instruction in their classes as required by the school administration during the school year 2014-2015. All of the six teachers are certified to teach one or more areas of science in the state of Louisiana and have good knowledge of the tenets of differentiated instruction. The student-participants were in three sections of biology classes taught by the same teacher in the Spring of 2015. Out of 82 students, 65 of them participated in the survey. The biology classes were purposely chosen since biology is the only science course that undergoes the state-mandated End-of-Course (EOC) testing. The EOC results were used by the researchers to measure student learning outcomes. The EOC results of the three sections of biology classes in Spring 2015 (82 students) were compared with the EOC results of three sections in Spring 2014 (74 students). Students in Spring 2015 were exposed to differentiated instruction while the students in Spring 2014 were not.

4.2 Research Design This study employed both qualitative and quantitative methods of research. It particularly used the convergent, parallel, mixed method of research. In this research approach, both qualitative and quantitative data are collected, separately analyzed, and results are compared to see if they confirm or disconfirm each other (Creswell, 2014). The qualitative part involved a phenomenological approach that focused on individual beliefs, experiences and perceptions of teachers about differentiated instruction. The quantitative part focused on the effect of differentiated instruction on student learning. Figure 1 shows a flow chart that represents the research framework.

Figure 1. The Research Framework.

Phenomenology is a qualitative approach in research that seeks to describe rather than explain the experiences and perceptions of individuals from their own perspectives (Lester, 1999). Qualitative phenomenological research aims to describe a "lived experience" of a phenomenon. According to Creswell (2014), a typical phenomenological research has participants that range from three to ten. A variety of methods can be used in phenomenologically-based research, including interviews, conversations, participant observation, action research, focus meetings and analysis of personal texts (Lester, 1999). In this study, personal interviews and review of documents such as lesson plans were used to gather qualitative data. After implementing differentiated instruction, the teachers were interviewed to explore the strategies they used, the factors that influenced them to implement DI and their perceptions of DI based on their experience. At the start of the semester, the students in the three sections of Biology class were asked to complete learning styles and multiple intelligences inventories. Fleming‟s VARK Questionnaire (Fleming, 2014) and McKenzie‟s Multiple Intelligences Inventory (McKenzie, 1999) were used. These inventories provided insight for the teacher as to the appropriate grouping and activities that fit the students‟ learning preferences. At the end of the semester, after being exposed to differentiated instruction, the students completed a survey questionnaire that explored their perceptions of differentiated instruction.

The purpose of the quantitative study was to determine if the implementation of differentiated instruction had an effect on student learning outcomes as measured by the EOC scores. The EOC scores in Spring 2015 were compared with the EOC scores in Spring 2014, when DI was not yet fully-implemented. To establish the comparability of the two groups, the same textbooks were used and the same teacher used the same scope and sequence and the same lesson materials. The only variation was the implementation of DI during Spring 2015 as opposed to traditional delivery during Spring 2014.

4.3. Statistical Treatment A Survey Questionnaire on Student Perceptions of Differentiated Instruction was validated by research and education experts and was found reliable after pilot-testing to a group of high school students. The Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient resulted to .808, which suggests that the instrument is appropriate for research. Mean was used to analyze student responses to the survey. To establish the comparability of the DI group to the non-DI group, initial conditions such as the students‟ Science LEAP (Louisiana Educational Assessment Program) scores and proficiency pretest were compared using t-test. The t-test resulted to no significant difference in the Science LEAP scores (p=.272) of the two groups and a significant difference in their proficiency pretest scores (p=.021). Table 1 shows the t-test summary. Table 1. T-test Results Comparing the LEAP Scores and Proficiency Pretest Between Non-DI Group (2014) and DI Group (2015)

Initial Non-DI Conditions Mean Score 66.18261 LEAP Proficiency Pretest

30.86301

DI ttMean Score Computed Critical -1.10235 1.97823 67.61538 34.63077

-2.05629

1.98422

pValue 0.27233 0.02119

The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used in comparing the EOC scores, taking the proficiency pretest scores as covariate. This is due to the significant difference in the proficiency pretest scores of the two groups. By using ANCOVA, the comparability of the two groups is established by eliminating any effects of the difference in the proficiency pretest. Science LEAP scores were not anymore used as covariate because the t-test result revealed no significant difference between the two groups.

4.4 Hypothesis The following hypothesis is tested at 5% level of significance: There is no significant effect of differentiated instruction on the learning outcomes of students based on EOC test scores.

5. Results 5.1. Science Teachers and DI Strategies Six science teachers currently implementing differentiated instruction in a public high school in southern Louisiana were interviewed for this study. The sample was composed of two male and four female teachers. For the purposes of this study, each participant was assigned a label to protect their identity. Teacher A is a male teacher and has been teaching for twenty-four years, the last five of which were in the current school. He has a bachelor‟s and a master‟s degree and is certified to teach General Science, Health and Physical Education. He has taught Physical Science, Environmental Science and Physical Education at the high school level. Teacher A describes differentiated instruction as “teaching to the individual‟s learning style, interest or readiness level.” He says “it‟s different from traditional lessons in the fact that individuals are given choices and it is not a group lesson.” Teacher A differentiates the process of instruction by grouping students according to readiness level and then assigning questions to each group based on their readiness. He uses formative assessment as his basis for student grouping. He also differentiates according to student interest by having different roles within a group such as organizer, presenter and artist. Teacher B is a female teacher who has been teaching for twelve years in the current school. She holds a bachelor‟s degree in Animal Science and received an alternative teaching certification from Louisiana State University. She has taught eight-grade Earth Science, high school Environmental Science, Anatomy and Physiology, Biology I and II, and Advanced Placement Biology. Teacher B describes differentiated instruction as “being able to offer a child a different option from what is considered traditional teaching method.” Teacher B differentiates the product of instruction mostly by providing choice using a tic-tac-toe board. She also differentiates the process by using Socratic Seminar on some relevant topics. She finds it difficult to differentiate content because to her argument, science is such a “content-based field.” She said “with science, they (students) still have to know the information.” “It‟s really hard to find DI stuff for science. It‟s not readily available like for English stuff, and it‟s really disappointing.” She added “it can be a challenge, but it‟s getting better.” Teacher C has a master‟s degree in education. She is certified to teach elementary grades as well as high school general science and biology. She has been teaching for ten years and has taught students ranging from elementary, middle and high school. She has taught Physical Science, Life Science, Earth Science, Chemistry, and Biology I and II. She has been in the current school for three-and-a-half years. Teacher C describes differentiated instruction as “providing students with a choice in their work.” She adds “it‟s different from traditional lessons where students complete the same assignments.”

Teacher C provides choice in some of her lessons as to the format of their assignments. Students are given the rubric and guidelines and they choose what they want to do for their project or activity such as making a poem, song, skit, and others. She differentiates by readiness level by assigning different levels of scientific articles to read, reflect upon, and discuss. She uses differentiated roles in group and laboratory activities. To accommodate different learning styles, teacher C also differentiates the mode of instruction by using video clips in teaching and assesses students regularly by using different closing activities. Teacher D is a female teacher who has been in the teaching profession for nine years. She has a bachelor‟s degree and master‟s units in Agricultural Science. She has taught Agricultural Sciences and Environmental Science in the current school. Teacher D describes differentiated instruction as “varying instruction by student interest.” Teacher D differentiates product by student interest. She lets the students choose a topic to work on. One example was when she made the students choose traits from 16 breeds to cross. She claimed that the students liked it. Teacher D said she differentiates instruction depending on the topic and on the type of students. “If the students are weak, I don‟t differentiate the content,” she said. Teacher E has been teaching for five years and is in her first year teaching at the current school. She holds a bachelor‟s degree in Secondary Education with a concentration in Biology. She has taught sixth-grade Science and high school Chemistry and Biology. Teacher E describes differentiated instruction as “providing a variety of instructional strategies based on the needs of students, or their interests and readiness.” Her ideas of differentiated instruction include “providing the students a choice or assigning them assignments based on what they need.” Teacher E differentiates by choice of assignment, choice of format of assignment, by varying the complexity of questions, and by having different roles within a group. She sets up small stations for the students to work in small groups. Teacher E said, “On a test, I give several questions that are asking the same concepts and the students choose the questions to answer. Sometimes, even just the wording of the question can make a difference for the student.” Reviews of lesson plans from Teacher E also revealed that she uses flexible grouping by assigning students of varied ability levels in a group in order to facilitate peer tutoring. Her lesson plan also reflects her use of Bingo activity to provide her students with a choice of assignments. The sixth teacher, Teacher F, is the second male teacher in the sample. He has been teaching for one-and-a-half years at the current school. He has a bachelor‟s degree in Life Science. He teachers Robotics and Biology I. Teacher F describes differentiated instruction as tailoring his teaching and assessment strategies to meet the diverse learning styles, needs and academic abilities of his students. He

said that differentiated instruction “does not use a „shotgun‟ teaching method where all of the students are learning and being assessed the same way.” Teacher F differentiates the process of instruction by using tic-tac-toe menus. Each student must pick a low, intermediate and advanced assignment to complete from a list. The students then choose depending on their interest and learning styles. Teacher F also uses flexible grouping. He assigned heterogeneous groups to allow for the possibility of peer tutoring.

5.2. Teachers’ perceptions of the effect of DI on student learning Teacher A perceives differentiated instruction as an effective way of promoting student engagement and class performance. He said, “Over time, I noticed that some students perform better when they have a choice.” He believes that student engagement has increased because the students had an opportunity to express themselves. He also noticed that their grades improved, which means learning has increased. Teacher B thinks that DI has a positive effect on student engagement. Her students got to choose their research and some topics, and according to her, they really enjoyed it. “I do see how the kids take ownership of their learning,” she pointed out. “I think they got to show their creative side, and that increases their engagement in the assignment.” It was her first time to fully implement DI and she self-reported not having issues or problems with it aside from the time requirements. She just wished there were more DI strategies in science available for reference. She likes doing it in her classes and she really thinks it (DI) has merit. Based on her experience with implementing DI, Teacher C said that DI promotes a more positive learning environment. She said that students react to assignments better when they have a say in what they are doing. The students are more engaged in class if they get to choose an area of interest to them. She definitely agrees that DI has increased student engagement in her classes. Teacher D also noticed that DI has a positive effect on student engagement. When she let the students choose a topic to work on, the students liked it. There are more “aha” moments and the students get more out of it than the regular uniform instruction for all. Teacher D said that “kids are getting more into it, they are learning more, they have less questions, and they are more engaged.” She has no issues in implementing DI. She said, “I like doing it and the kids like it too.” Teacher E thinks that students are more likely to buy in if they feel that they are part of the decision-making process. She explained, “If it‟s just you telling them what to do, they have the tendency to not care that much. If you‟re giving them a choice, even though the questions are the same but just worded differently, they care more and they engage more.” She said that the hardest part of DI is it requires some creativity to plan activities. The pressure of time is also an issue

because of all the topics that need to be covered in the curriculum. Implementing DI is sometimes time-consuming. Teacher E, however, said that DI is good and she likes it. “I definitely think it benefits the students and it‟s worth the extra time you have to put in to creatively plan something -- it‟s definitely worth it,” she said. Teacher F said that not every DI lesson is successful, but each time he tries, he learns more about how to implement it more effectively. He has seen positive effects on both student interest and academic achievement when he uses DI strategies. He said, “I find that when I use more DI strategies when teaching a difficult topic, the test scores are generally higher than those of lesson in which I don‟t use DI, or only use it sparsely.” An issue he has with DI is finding the time to do it effectively. He is positive, however, that the more experience he has with DI strategies, the faster it will become to implement in his class. Table 2. Summary of Teachers’ DI Strategies and Perceptions of the Effect of DI on Student Learning

Teacher

DI Strategies

Perceptions of the Effect of DI

-Assigning questions of varying difficulty -Formative assessment -Flexible grouping -Differentiated roles -Tic-tac-toe menus -Socratic seminar

Improves student engagement Improves academic performance

-Choice of assignment format -Assigning different levels of assignment -Differentiated roles -Various teaching modes -Formative assessments -Choice of assignment

Promotes positive learning environment Improves student engagement

-Choice of assignment -Choice of assignment format -Varying complexity of questions -Differentiated roles -Tic-tac-toe menus -Varying complexity of assignment -Flexible grouping

Improves student engagement It benefits the students

B C

D E

Improves student engagement

Improves student engagement More student learning

Improves student interest in class Improves academic performance

5.3 Emergent Themes Qualitative data analysis (QDA) involves the transformation of qualitative data into some form of explanation, understanding or interpretation. It is based on interpretive philosophy that aims to examine the meaningful and symbolic content of qualitative data (Taylor & Gibbs, 2010). Qualitative data analysis for phenomenological research involves the analysis of significant statements, the generation of meaning units, and the development of an essence description (Creswell, 2014). After analyzing the statements from the six science teachers, common themes were found to fully describe the teachers‟ experiences with the implementation of differentiated instruction. The following major themes emerged from the study. Differentiated instruction improves student engagement and academic performance in class. All six teachers claimed that students were more engaged in class if they used differentiated instruction. Teacher A mentioned that students performed better when they have a choice. He added that student engagement increased because the students had an opportunity to express themselves. Teacher B thinks that there is positive effect of DI on student engagement. She added that when she uses DI, “the kids got a chance to show their creative side.” Teacher F specifically said that he had seen a positive effect on both student interest in class and academic achievement when he used DI strategies in his lessons. Differentiated instruction motivates the students. The teachers claimed that the students enjoyed learning when the lesson was differentiated. Teacher B said the students took ownership of their learning when they had a choice on their research topic. Teacher C said that “students react to assignments better when they have a say in what they are doing.” She added that differentiated instruction promotes a more positive learning environment as they are given a chance to choose an area of interest to them. Teacher D mentioned that there were more “aha” moments for the kids when the lesson was differentiated. Teacher E stated that differentiated instruction helps with assessment. She explained that “For students who do not do well in multiple-choice questions, they have the opportunity to demonstrate their learning or progress.” These statements from teachers all point to the idea that differentiated instruction is beneficial for the students. Through differentiated instruction, students enjoy learning and are more empowered in the learning process. Differentiating by choice is the most common way to differentiate. Five of the six science teachers indicated their use of differentiation by choice. Teachers B and F used tic-tac-toe menus to provide students with options according to their learning styles, interests and multiple intelligences. Teachers D and E indicated their use of assignment choices. Teachers C and E mentioned that they utilized a choice of assignment format. In a lesson plan provided by teacher E, she used a Bingo activity to provide her students with choices of assignments to do.

Teacher A did not explicitly mention differentiating by choice when asked about his differentiation strategies, but he mentioned in his observation that “some students perform better when they have a choice.” Administrative support has major influence in the implementation of differentiated instruction. Teachers A, B and E said that they implement differentiated instruction because of the school administration. Teacher B expressed that she implements differentiated instruction mainly because the administration requires the teachers to do it. The school administration has conducted professional development trainings dedicated to educate teachers about differentiated instruction and to equip them with strategies to implement differentiated instruction. Teachers A and E mentioned that the professional development trainings helped them to gain more knowledge about implementing differentiated instruction. Teacher E said that her concept of differentiated instruction was different before the school provided professional development sessions. Implementation of differentiated instruction increases teacher efficiency. Teachers C and D indicated that they implement differentiated instruction because of Compass evaluation. Compass is an instrument used in the state of Louisiana to evaluate the performance of teachers. This is used by the school administrators when they observe classes. The instrument includes differentiation and student engagement on the areas to be rated. This means that if the teacher is implementing differentiated instruction at the time of class observation, the teacher is likely going to have a higher efficiency rating. Differentiated instruction requires more time and creativity. Teachers B, E and F expressed that the time required for preparing and implementing differentiated instruction is a major issue. Teacher B mentioned that sometimes, she does not have time to implement differentiated instruction, especially with seniors having to leave two weeks prior to everybody else. Teacher C stated that, “the greatest challenge is the pressure of time, getting through the curriculum and covering all the lessons before the students have to take the proficiency test.” Teacher F expressed that the obstacle he is facing with DI is finding the time to do it effectively. Aside from the issue of it being time-consuming, according to Teacher B, DI strategies are hard to find for science. She exclaimed, “It‟s not readily available like for English stuff, and it‟s really disappointing.” Because of the limited availability of DI strategies for science, Teacher E said it requires some creativity to be able to plan and design differentiated lessons.

5.4. Students’ Perceptions of Differentiated Instruction A survey questionnaire was used to determine the level of students‟ perceptions of differentiated instruction. Sixty-five students in three sections of high school Biology class participated in the survey. The survey questionnaire was validated by research and education experts and was found reliable after pilot-testing to a group of high school students. The Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient resulted to .808, which means that the instrument is appropriate for research.

The survey consists of 10 items describing perceptions of differentiated instruction, each of which was rated using a five-point Likert scale described as follows: 1 = strongly disagree ; 2 = somewhat disagree ; 3 = no opinion/not applicable ; 4 = somewhat agree ; and, 5 = strongly agree. Table 3 shows the mean of students‟ responses on the survey. Table 3. Student Perceptions of Differentiated Instruction

Perceptions of Differentiated Instruction

Mean Student Rating

1. I learn more effectively if the lesson is delivered using my own learning style.

4.06

2. I like it when my teacher uses materials that present content in a variety of format (e.g., text, video, audio, web-based).

4.12

3. I feel challenged when my teacher presents content at varying levels of complexity.

3.39

4. I like being grouped with students who have similar interest and abilities as me.

4.35

5. I am more engaged in the learning process if I am given a choice of assignment to do.

4.13

6. I like working in a variety of group format in completing assignments (e.g., small group, partners, individual).

3.81

7. Learning is more fun if activities/assignments have format options (e.g., write a paper, create a model, design a poster, give a presentation).

3.94

8. All teachers should be aware of their students‟ interests, readiness and learning profiles.

4.31

9. All teachers should consider students‟ interests, abilities and learning profile when preparing lessons and assignments. 10. The use of differentiated instruction has stimulated my interest in the class. Overall Mean

4.46 3.72 4.03

The mean ratings suggest that students liked the features of differentiated instruction, such as having lessons delivered using their own learning styles (mean=4.06) and in a variety of formats (mean=4.12). They liked being grouped

with students having similar interests and abilities (mean=4.35). They also liked being given a choice on the assignments (mean=4.13) and on the format of groupings (mean=3.81) and assignments (mean=3.94). The students agreed that all teachers should be aware of their students‟ learning preferences (mean=4.31) and that they should consider those learning preferences when preparing lesson plans and assignments (mean=4.46). It is interesting to note that students neither agreed nor disagreed when asked if they feel challenged when their teacher presents content at varying levels of complexity (mean=3.39). Overall, the students agreed that differentiated instruction has stimulated their interest in the class (mean=3.72). To interpret the students‟ perceptions of differentiated instruction, the following scale was used: 1.0 – 1.4 = strong negative; 1.5 – 2.4 = negative; 2.5 – 3.4 = neutral; 3.5 – 4.4 = positive; and 4.5 – 5.0 strong positive. Table 3 reflects an overall mean of 4.03 which implies that students have positive perceptions of differentiated instruction.

5.5. Effect of Differentiated Instruction on Student Learning Outcomes Measured by End-of-Course Test Scores The end-of-course test scores served as a measure of student learning since it is a standardized test administered at the end of the school year. In this study, the researcher wanted to find out if the students in spring 2015 (DI group) scored better than the students in 2014 (Non-DI group) in their EOC test. The statistical test was based on the null hypothesis that there is no significant effect of differentiated instruction on student learning outcomes as measured by EOC test.

Relative Frequency (%)

Comparison of EOC Results 60

52.7

50 40

29.3

28.4

17.1

20 10

47.6

14.9

4.1 6.1

2015

0 Needs Improvement

2014

Fair

Good

Excellent

Performance

Figure 2. Comparison of EOC test scores between DI Group (2015) and Non-DI group (2014)

Figure 2 shows that more students scored Good/Excellent in the DI group (76.9%) compared with the Non-DI group (67.6%). The mean EOC score in 2014

was 88.95 while it was 90.05 in 2015. T-test results reflect a p-value for one-tailed test of 0.046 (p<0.05) which suggests that the DI group performed significantly higher than the Non-DI group at 5% level of significance. Table 4 shows a summary of the t-test results. Table 4. T-test Results Comparing EOC Scores Between Non-DI Group (2014) and DI Group (2015)

Result EOC Mean Score

Non-DI (2014) 88.95

t Stat

DI (2015) 90.05

-1.6947778 1.6550074 0.0460894

t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) one-tail

The result of the t-test implies that at 5% level of significance, the EOC test scores in the Spring of 2015 (DI group) are significantly higher than the scores in 2014 (Non-DI). However, a previous t-test also revealed that the students in the Spring of 2015 had a higher proficiency pretest than the students in the Spring of 2014 (p=.021). This makes the two groups statistically not equivalent because of the significantly higher pretest scores in the Spring of 2015. In order to make the two groups statistically comparable, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed, taking the proficiency pretest as a covariate. This statistically eliminates any possible effect of the pretest scores on the result of the EOC on the two groups. Table 5 presents a summary of the ANCOVA test.

Table 5. ANCOVA Summary Comparing EOC Scores Between Non-DI Group (2014) and DI Group (2015)

Source of Variation

Adjusted SS df

Adjusted MS

Pvalue

Between Groups

0.0388999

0.03889987

2.42301 0.121672 3.9042017

Within Groups

2.4081539

150

0.01605436

Total

2.4470538

151

F crit

The adjusted mean in the EOC scores in the Spring of 2014 was 87.81, while it was 87.78 in the Spring of 2015. The ANCOVA test resulted in a p-value of .12, which is higher than the selected level of significance (p>.05). This means that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Thus, there is no significant difference in the EOC scores in the Spring of 2014 and in the Spring of 2015.

6. Summary of Findings The following are the salient findings of the study. 1. Data analysis indicated that teachers have positive perceptions of differentiated instruction. Teachers feel that differentiated instruction improves student engagement in the class as they are being empowered to choose activities that suit their interests and learning preferences. Just like the other studies in the literature, differentiating by choice is a common practice among the teachers in the study. A common issue found was the amount of time required to plan and implement DI strategies. The teachers need to be creative because there are not many available resources for differentiating in the science classroom. The following were the major themes that emerged from the qualitative part of the study: a) Differentiated instruction improves student engagement and academic performance in class; b) Differentiated instruction motivates the students; c) Differentiating by choice is the most common way to differentiate; d) Administrative support has a major influence on the implementation of differentiated instruction; e) Implementation of differentiated instruction increases teacher efficiency; and, f) Differentiated instruction requires more time and creativity. 2. The student survey revealed an overall mean of 4.03 which means that the students have positive perceptions of differentiated instruction. Students have positive or strong positive perceptions on nine out of 10 components of differentiated instruction on the survey. 3. More students scored Good/Excellent in the DI group (76.9%) compared with the Non-DI group (67.6%). However, t-test also revealed that at 5% level of significance, the proficiency pretest of the DI group is significantly higher than the Non-DI group (p=.021). Because of this, the proficiency pretest was used as covariate in comparing the EOC scores of the two groups. The mean EOC score for the DI group was 90.05 while the mean for the Non-DI group was 88.95. A t-test revealed that at 5% level of significance, the DI group scored higher in the EOC than the Non-DI group (p=.046). However, when an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was employed taking proficiency pretest as covariate, the adjusted means changed to 87.78 for the DI group and 87.81 for the NonDI group. The ANCOVA resulted in a p-value of .12 which implied that there was no significant difference in the EOC scores between the DI group and the Non-DI group.

7. Conclusion Based on the qualitative findings of the study, it can be concluded that teachers have positive perceptions of differentiated instruction. When teachers use varied

differentiated instructional strategies, student engagement and performance in class are improved. Students also have positive perceptions of differentiated instruction. They feel that they learn more effectively if the lesson is delivered using their own learning styles and if assignments are in varied format. They feel more engaged in the learning process if they are given a choice on what assignment and activities to do, and on what type of group format to work with. They agree that teachers should be aware of studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x; learning preferences and should use that information to design activities suited for them. On the other hand, the quantitative findings did not confirm that differentiated instruction improves student performance. The ANCOVA result suggests that although the DI group performed higher on the EOC, their exposure to differentiated instruction did not contribute to their higher EOC scores. At 5% level of significance, there was not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Thus, it is concluded that there is no significant effect of differentiated instruction on student learning outcomes measured by EOC.

8. Recommendations Based on the results of the study, the following recommendations are made: 1. More teacher-training should be conducted focusing on DI strategies for science classes. The science teachers in the study differentiated mostly the process and product of instruction but seldom on the lesson content. Teacher training should focus more on strategies to differentiate science content. 2. Track student performance in the End-of-Course test for the next three years. The effect of newly introduced teaching strategies may not be seen in a year and may require a long term study. 3. Differentiated instruction should be continually implemented in high school science classes. Although the result of the study suggests that differentiated instruction did not significantly increase student learning outcomes as measured by the End-of-Course test, it positively impacted the learning process by increasing student engagement in class. 4. Further empirical studies should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in improving student learning outcomes.

References Aliakbari, M., & Haghighi, J. K. (2014). On the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in the enhancement of Iranian learners reading comprehension in separate gender education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 182-189. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.405 Burkett, J. A. (2013). Teacher perception on differentiated instruction and its influence on instructional practice. (Order No. 3588271, Oklahoma State University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 117. Chamberlin, M., & Powers, R. (2010). The Promise of Differentiated Instruction for Enhancing the Mathematical Understandings of College Students. Teaching Mathematics And Its Applications: An International Journal Of The IMA, 29(3), 113139. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated Instruction, Professional Development, and Teacher Efficacy. Journal For The Education Of The Gifted, 37(2), 111-127. Dosch, M., & Zidon, M. (2014). "The Course Fit Us": Differentiated Instruction in the College Classroom. International Journal of Teaching And Learning In Higher Education, 26(3), 343-357. Ducey, M. N. (2011). Improving secondary science achievement through the implementation of differentiated instruction. (Order No. 3485882, The University of Memphis). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 141. Eady, K. V. (2008). Differentiated instruction: An implementation review. (Order No. 3320642, Capella University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 130. Felder, R. & Soloman, G. (n.d.). Learning styles and strategies. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSdir/styles.ht m. Fleming, N.D. (2014). The VARK questionnaire. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://vark-learn.com/the-vark-questionnaire/ Fleming, N.D. and Mills, C. (1992), Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection, To Improve the Academy, Vol. 11, 1992., page 137. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Information Resources Management Association (2015). Curriculum Design and Classroom Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. IGI Global. Joseph, S., Thomas, M., Simonette, G., & Ramsook, L. (2013). The Impact of Differentiated Instruction in a Teacher Education Setting: Successes and Challenges. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(3), 28-40. King, S. (2010). Factors associated with inclusive classroom teachers' implementation of differentiated instruction for diverse learners. (Order No. 3433402, Tennessee State University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 134. Koeze, P. (2007). Differentiated instruction: the effect on student achievement in an elementary school (Doctoral Dissertation, Eastern Michigan University). Retrieved from http://commons.emich.edu/theses/31 Langley, M. L. (2015). Secondary english teachers' perceptions of differentiated instruction for limited english proficient students (Order No. 3689776). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1677544257). Lester, S. (1999). An introduction to phenomenological research. Taunton: Stan Lester Developments.

Lockley, J., Jackson, N., Downing, A., & Roberts, J. (2017). University Instructors' Responses on Implementation of Differentiated Instruction in Teacher Education Programs. Online Submission. Maeng, J. L. C. (2011). Differentiating science instruction: Success stories of high school science teachers. (Order No. 3484516, University of Virginia). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 292. Martin, M & Pickett, M. (2013). The Effects of Differentiated Instruction on Motivation and Engagement in Fifth-Grade Gifted Math and Music Students. Online Submission. Maddox, C. (2015). Elementary (K-5) teachers' perceptions of differentiated instruction (Order No. 3685629). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1664610841). Maxey, K. S. (2013, January 1). Differentiated Instruction: Effects on Primary Students' Mathematics Achievement. ProQuest LLC. McCoach, D. B., Gubbins, E. J., Foreman, J., Rambo, K. E., Rubenstein, L. D., & Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. (2013). Evaluating the Efficacy of Using Pre-Differentiated and Enriched Mathematics Curricula for Grade 3 Students. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. McKenzie, W. (1999). Multiple Intelligences Inventory. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://surfaquarium.com/MI/inventory.htm. Robinson, L. (2013). A study of teachers' attitudes, thoughts, and perceptions about successful implementation of differentiated instruction. (Order No. 3602624, Walden University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 136. Roe, M. F., & Egbert, J. (2010). Four faces of differentiation. Childhood Education, 87(2), 94-97. doi:10.1080/00094056.2011.10521452 Sizemore, E. A. (2015). A phenomenological study of differentiated instruction for fifth grade gifted and high ability learners through "math in focus" (Order No. 3732639). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1757808219). Stavroula, V., Leonidas, K. & Mary, K. (2011). Investigating the impact of differentiated instruction in mixed ability classrooms: Its impact on the quality and equity dimensions of education effectiveness. Paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Cyprus. Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal, 7(7), 935-947. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ854351. Taylor, C. and Gibbs, G.R. (2010) "What is Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA)?" Online QDA Web Site, [http://onlineqda.hud.ac.uk/Intro_QDA/what_is_qda.php] Tobin, R., & Tippett, C. D. (2014). Possibilities and Potential Barriers: Learning to Plan for Differentiated Instruction in Elementary Science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 423-443. Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms (2nd Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C., & Imbeau, M. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tulbure, C. (2011). Differentiating instruction upon learning styles in Higher Education: A controversial issue. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov. Series VII: Social Sciences. Law, (53), 79-84. Vincent, C. (2012). Effects of implementing differentiated instruction on learners' reading achievement. (Order No. 3498656, Walden University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 155.

Von Karolyi, C., Ramos-Ford, V. & Gardner, H. (2003). Multiple intelligences: A perspective on giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (3rd Ed.), Handbook of gifted education (pp.100-111). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wan, S. W. (2017). Differentiated Instruction: Are Hong Kong In-Service Teachers Ready?. Teachers And Teaching: Theory And Practice, 23(3), 284-311. Westbrook, A. F. (2011, April 25). The Effects of Differentiating Instruction by Learning Styles on Problem Solving in Cooperative Groups. Online Submission. Whipple, K. A. (2012). Differentiated instruction: A survey study of teacher understanding and implementation in a southeast Massachusetts school district. (Order No. 3525802, Northeastern University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 139. Williams, K. G. (2012). The effect of differentiated instruction on standardized assessment performance of students in the middle school mathematics classroom (Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University). Willingham, D. (2009). Why donâ&#x20AC;&#x;t students like school? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 55-71, July 2017

An Evaluation of using Games in Teaching English Grammar for First Year English-Majored Students at Dong Nai Technology University Lien Cam and Thi Minh Thu Tran Dong Nai Technology University Bien Hoa city, Dong Nai Province, Vietnam

Abstract. English is taught as a compulsory subject from primary schools to universities in Vietnam. When learning English, students need to learn grammar. Grammar, as an integral part of a language, plays a crucial role in the language learning process. Without some knowledge of grammar, it would be impossible to have language comprehension as well as language production. The lack of grammar knowledge affects all the four language skills. That‟s why grammar learning is an important and indispensable part of any language learning process. Actually, there are a considerable number of studies examining how to use games in teaching grammar in many contexts. However, a few articles address how effective games are in grammar instruction. Therefore, the current paper aims to fill the gap by analyzing the application of games in teaching grammar for English majored freshmen at Dong Nai Technology University. A mixture of both quantitative and qualitative methods was applied in the paper. The finding indicates both advantages and disadvantages as teaching grammar through games for teachers and students. Therefore, game application is advised to be adopted by English teachers. It also proves students‟ attitude positively toward grammar lessons. Keywords: teaching English; English grammar; games application

1. Introduction In recent years, English has been considered as one of the most popular languages. It is now the key factor of globalization- of political views, international business as well as education (Johnson, 2009). Thanks to the development of economic with oversea investment and tourism more and more people spend time and money taking English classes at schools or private centers with the hope that they can better their communication in English so that they are able to study abroad, and look for good jobs with high income. Realizing how important English is in education, Ministry of Education and Training in Vietnam has many policies to develop both teachers and students‟

English proficiency. For instance, the project of improving teachers‟ English proficiency following The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) standard by the end of the year 2020 has been carried out recently to provide further training for those who are not qualified enough. Furthermore, students in Dong Nai province have opportunities to study with foreign teachers especially Filipino teachers. Teaching English has some improvement recently in the light of studentcentered approach in which “students are involved in the learning process and become committed to improving their English” and “in a student-centered classroom, students get more „talking time‟” stated by Jones (2007, p. 40); however, teaching and learning English at Dong Nai Technology University has not developed students‟ communicative abilities, motivation, and activeness. Although there is a considerable studying time, many Vietnamese students are not able to communicate in English fluently and confidently. According to Nguyen (2008, p. 265) “numerous learners in Vietnam have degrees of competence level or advanced level; however they cannot produce correct and meaningful utterance or sentences”. In fact, in most public and private schools in Vietnam, teachers who are in charge of giving instructions are the center of the classroom, while students are interested in taking notes rather than speaking up their ideas and taking part in the lessons. Pradeep (2013) also states that grammar is a very important part that cannot be neglected in teaching and studying English. Students are able to speak English more correctly if they are proficient in grammar. However, Denham (1992) highlights the fact that teachers instruct most of their lessons through Grammar Translation Method approach (GTM) which is known as teacher-centered instead of giving students chances to communicate in English. This suggests that it‟s high time for teachers to teach grammar in variety ways to allow students to accurately and clearly express their ideas in English. Thus, it is necessary to carry out this study to make practical benefits for students by applying games, and offer observations or evidence proving whether games are helpful to the English language learning of English majors in Vietnamese universities. From the reasons mentioned above, the topic of using games to teach grammar for freshmen at Dong Nai Technology University is clarified so that relevant games will be used in order to help all students practice English more naturally and accurately and help them know the way to use exactly grammar rules. Furthermore, games also better students‟ grammar acquisition as well as motivate them to study English. Consequently, lecturers can design lessons, gain experience and make more contribution to teach grammar better. Moreover, students‟ attitudes are addressed toward the application of games and activities in classroom. In fact, it is also an evaluation of the effectiveness of teacher‟s pedagogy. The study firstly introduces the rationale and theoretical perspectives. Secondly, it has a clear and straightforward description of the classroom research. Thirdly, it clearly describes the use of different methods and different data sets in the study. Fourthly, it presents the findings and discussion of this study. Finally, it summarizes what the evaluation has found.

2. Literature review 2.1. Rationale Games have been applied broadly in instructing English, especially in teaching grammar. When conducting grammar lessons, teachers utilize games or gamelike activities to develop studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x; motivation and make the learners relaxed and eager to take part in the lessons. The advantages of games in teaching grammar have been demonstrated in several previous studies. Furthermore, there are many articles which supply adequate games and activities that can be taken into consideration when instructing grammar. This research will continue studying about four innovatory reasons of using games in teaching grammar. First of all, games provide good opportunities for students to use target language in real life contexts. According to Yolageldili & Arikan (2011, p. 220) students are engaged to the learning environment of target language when participating in games. The students tend to use various language sources to complete the given tasks, for instance, solving a problem. Moreover, games are often designed within certain real life situations. It is true that when teachers hold whatever games with clear objectives, students are able to get many advantages. First-year students are not confident enough to communicate or express ideas in English. They are accustomed to do exercises and take note when teachers are giving instructions. Therefore, using games is a good solution to provide students real life contexts in which they have to interact with others in English. In addition to the practice of English, using games helps students practice and review on language use. Wang (2010, p.130) specifies that communicative activities used as games construct context in which learners are involved in practicing the target language for sharing information, negotiating meaning as well as contacting with others in meaningful context . By this way, teachers can use games to engage students in implementing the target language within all skills like speaking, reading, listening and writing. Games can be easily applied whenever necessary and appropriate, for example games can be used for warming up, instructing new structures or revising previous language points, and even using as follow-up activities to end a lesson. This implement supports students a lot in learning like memorizing new words, or practicing new grammar structures effectively in class. Thirdly, games create a supportive learning environment with fun, enjoyment and excitement. According to Wang (2010, p.131) teachers encourage learners to contact in target language rather than fix up errors in game situations. This could help students learn language more naturally and practically because games can reduce the fear of making mistakes. In contrast, many students feel bored and uncomfortable with tradition teaching approach. Inside non-stressful learning environment, students are optimistic and confident to work with others to learn new language freely. As a result, students will be more active to involve in the lessons Finally, games or game-like activities build up interpersonal relations among students. According to Lee (1995, p. 1), games promote more interaction and group work not only among students, but also between the teacher and students. As a matter of fact, most classes are often divided into small groups or

pairs when teachers conduct whatever games. In this way, students have many chances to communicate with others naturally in order to finish the games. Hence, students‟ social and emotional development may be encouraged in the light of such positive collaboration and companionship.

2.2. Theoretical perspectives 2.2.1. The position of grammar in instructing and learning English Harmer (1987, p.12) points out “Without some understanding of Grammar, students would not be able to do anything more than utter separate items of language for separate functions. The expression of functional language is only possible through the use of the Grammar of the language” Firstly, instructing grammar helps learners know in which way the language works. In addition to mastering vocabulary, students are required learn grammar to understand how words are combined together in a sentence so that they can understand the correct meaning. In fact, lacking grammar knowledge, it is easy for students to get stuck with complicated sentences. Therefore, if grammar is taught within communicative and meaningful contexts, it will promote students‟ communicative goals and sufficient accuracy and fluency in language use. Secondly, Larsen and Freeman (1986, p.13) also reinforce how important grammar is in English teaching and learning. They affirm that grammar can be considered as a skill rather than a language area. Obviously, learners store knowledge language and its usage. Thus, they need to be provided opportunities of real life situations to practice their grammar knowledge. It is true to say that grammar is considered the fifth skill apart from four basic skills speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Grammar need to be taught when the students acquire a new language so that they can use the grammar item in writing, listening, and speaking as well. Therefore, grammar is regarded as a concrete foundation for mastering other skills. In general, it is important to have a good knowledge of grammar because it is hard to develop language skills without some knowledge of grammar. Teacher should help students to acquire grammar knowledge through meaningful contexts.

2.2.2. Benefits of games in teaching grammar Normally, when studying at high school; students just sat on the desk, wrote, corrected, and rewrote sentences in order to learn proper grammar structure and usage in most grammar lessons. Though, many teachers still convey grammar lessons by this way, there is an effort in instructing grammar through games. Some research proves excellent value of games or game-like activities when teaching grammar. "Games and problem-solving activities... have a purpose beyond the production of correct speech, and are examples of the most preferable communicative activities" said Saricoban and Metin (2000). Obviously, students are more eager and motivated to join games than they are with doing numerous exercises. The authors also state that students not only enhance knowledge but also apply in their learning when studying with relevant grammar games.

Additionally, Ersoz (2000) illustrates that challenging and amusing games are highly motivating. When teachers announced that it was time for games, students were very excited. In fact, teachers can use games to create motivation and enjoyment through competition or to make bonding among students in class. According to Saricoban and Metin (2000) “the use of such activities both increases the cooperation and competition in the classroom." Games also allow meaningful use of the target language in a real life context. Generally speaking, using games is needed for promoting students‟ motivation and improving their comprehension of the lesson. “It has been indicated that language learning performed in a „playful‟ atmosphere resulted into a) stimulating student‟s motivation, b) making students feel confident and c) creating their positive attitudes to foreign language learning” stated Griva, Semoglou and Geladari (2010, p. 3704). Teachers, however, have to be careful in using games. According to Khan (1996), “Teachers need to consider which games to use, when to use them, how to link them up with the syllabus, textbook or program and how, more specifically, different games will benefit students in different ways”. Therefore, successful games must be well- designed, wellorganized, clear, and funny.

3. The study 3.1. Description of the context This study takes place at Dong Nai Technology University which is located in Bien Hoa City. There are twenty five students in each grammar class. The students attend grammar class twice a week. The tests almost pay much attention to the acquisition of form or structure and the aim is to verify the apprehension of the learners in grammar. Nonetheless, a lot of students do not have clear awareness of the importance of studying English; therefore they think it is not as stimulating as others subjects. In addition, they have been studying English for seven years so far, but, their English proficiency is quite inadequate. The working environment supports continuously teachers‟ teaching process. Students are nice, easy to motivate and reflective. Moreover, great support from all colleagues in sharing teaching experiences is notable. However, the budget is restricted so it influences materials and the freshness of materials. All of these pros and cons above are just the observations during the time working here. Nevertheless, when this research is applied, it also has other possible benefits and drawbacks. With the hope to help student better their grammar knowledge, games and games-like activities are applied in teaching grammar for the first year English majored students. This work plans to access the impact of games on learners‟ communicative skills, their grammar acquisition and students‟ attitude toward games by examining the answers of the two research questions below: 1. How can games help students acquire grammar? 2. What are the learners‟ attitudes to the games?

3.2. Evaluation methods 3.2.1. Participant and materials In this study, 25 freshmen who have been studying English for seven years at class 16DTA3 were selected. The course book Grammar Practice for Intermediate Students (Walker & Elsworth, 2000) was used. Besides, those students learned with various activities or games related to a certain grammar lesson. Actually, games and other activities were chosen from the books Games for Grammar Practice (Zaorob & Chin, 2001) and Grammar-Focused Interactive ESL/EFL Activities and Games (Kealey & Inness, 2008).

3.2.2. Methodology and methods In this study, quantitative and qualitative methods were exploited. Definitely, these methods are different significantly. However, there is a tendency for researchers to practice more than one research method in a paper. According to Hinchey (2008), it is possible for researchers to apply three methods in each study which is named triangulation so that researchers can avoid ambiguity in their study. Moreover, Garbarino & Holland (2009) point out that the connection of both qualitative and quantitative research methods can help researchers have accurate prediction as well as appropriate ideas classification. The following data collection methods were used in this paper and all data for analysis come from 25 freshmen in class 16DTA3 at Dong Nai Technology University.

Questionnaire (see Appendix 1) In this study, questionnaire which consists of 5 closed questions was designed and delivered to all students. This questionnaire had the partakers respond to each items in a five point Likert scale which descend the meaning respectively from strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree to strongly disagree. This model is helpful to figure out students‟ reaction, attitude, and opinion toward the grammar games applied during 6 weeks. All of the questions were explained very clearly so that students could understand all items clearly. In the last week, the questionnaires were completed by 25 students. After that, all data was synthesized and analyzed. Questionnaire was very useful collection tool because researchers could reach many participants in a short time and it didn‟t cost much. However, when using this method some students weren‟t willing to complete the questionnaire. So they just did it without any care. Consequently, the result somewhat wasn‟t very consistent.

Observation (see Appendix 2) Observation was another method used in this study. It was made in week 3and in week 5. Two teachers from the faculty of foreign languages were invited to observe and record the teaching as well. The observers used an available observation form (appendix 2). Actually, four different lessons were observed (2 lessons with grammar games, 2 lessons without grammar games). Thanks to the data collected from this method, the effectiveness of games was shown by monitoring their communicative competence, practice, and cooperative learning. One significant benefit of using observation in this case was that it provided a direct access to the problem with the collected information from the observation forms. Nonetheless, it still had unexpected shortcoming due to observers‟ bias.

In some cases, observers somehow didn‟t want to record what really happened in class but what they wanted to see.

Semi-structured interview (see Appendix 3) In additional to questionnaire and observation, the interview was conducted at the 6th week. Six students were chosen randomly to answer several pre-set questions. All questions were in Vietnamese so that all students could best express their ideas (appendix 3). Each interview lasted 15 minutes and all interviews were recorded with the aim to explore students‟ attitude to games. All the data showed how enjoyable students were with the games and how well students were involved in the lessons. The information was used to reinforce one of the aspects of research questions mentioned above. Like using questionnaire, applying interview also had certain drawback. Some students followed the crowd. They didn‟t express their own feeling because they probably thought that their answers could affect their marks in class.

3.2.3. Ethical consideration Ethical issues are considered as a very important part in any research. First of all, a formal meeting was held to inform clearly the purpose of this research to all participants. Meanwhile, all the participants completed consent form to make sure that they took part in this research without any force. In this way, the collected data was valid and reliable. At the same time, it is necessary to ask for the permission of the Vice Dean of Faculty of Foreign Languages so that this study could be handled freely. Additionally, all students were told about how the paper was implemented, and in what way the result could support their further learning. Next, participants‟ confidentiality was guaranteed so that the respondents felt comfortable and confident when joining the study. This means their private information was kept in secret, and the findings were just used for the aims of this paper. Besides, the environment was also important to make the participants relax because Garbarino & Holland (2009, p. 20) stated that respect, principles, and justice were the core of each research. The researcher had to not only respect participants‟ feedbacks, opinion, and feelings, but also be interested in listening to respondents‟ answers without any critiques. Moreover, the research data must be reported and analyzed truthfully due to the fact that it was considered unethical if the data were presented differently for research‟s purposes. Thus, the continuous section will clarify how the data were analyzed in this research.

3.2.4. Data analysis All the data was described and analyzed so that the reader knew what, where, when and in which way something occurred. With the collected data from questionnaire, Microsoft Excel 2010 program was used to insert and analyze the data. Firstly, all the data were inputted so that this software calculated the answers of the respondents. Then, the result was shown by percentages, pie charts, bar graphs, tables and so forth. After analysis stage, participants‟ attitude toward grammar lessons was figured out. Moreover, with the information from observation, the contraries between what actually happened and what other people said were explored. At first, the video record was opened to revise what had been taught and analyzed the findings.

Then, via competitive relationships as well as opportunities to speak English in class, the results could be evaluated. From the above comparison and evaluation, it is easy to find out whether it was relevant or not when applying games in teaching grammar. At the same time, teachers could make some changes to improve studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x; communicative competence. Besides, the collected data from interview were useful in finding out how strongly participants agree with using games in teaching grammar. The answers were took notes and taped. Transcribing and arranging these responses into the same groups of theme for analyzing was the most important stage.

4. Finding 4.1. Findings of questionnaire From the answers of students through questionnaire, most of the students (76%) strongly agree that grammar plays a vital role when learning English while 16% of the students disagree with this idea. They might think that they can speak fluently without mastering the grammar structure. 8% of the students think it is neutral. To sum up, students realize how essential grammar is in English learning process. However, the problem is that students cannot use it in their utterance exactly and naturally.

Neutral

Disagre e

16%

Strongl y agree

76%

Chart 1: Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ideas of the importance of grammar

Additionally, students can use English in real contexts by studying through games, but it does not at the same rate. In fact, 16% of participants strongly agree that there are more chances for them to use the grammar point in real life situations while 36% of the students agree that they are able to apply the grammar structure directly when they take part in the games. 28% cannot use the learnt grammar structures in their speaking and the number of students answer neutral is 20%. This means that most of students recognize the purpose of using games is not only for creating excitement but also for providing students opportunity to speak out in class. The data are shown as following

36%

40 35

28%

30 25 20

20% 16%

15 10 5 0 Strong agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Chart 2: Students’ opinion of using English in real contexts

After grammar lessons, 44% students agree they can understand and practice lessons in class better through games, while 40% of the students answer neutral. Only 16% cannot understand right away and need time to revise. These figures confirm that the understanding of students is rather low and they do not involve much in learning new grammar structures.

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

0% 16% 44%

40%

Chart 3: Students’ understanding of the lesson

Furthermore, 64% of the students strongly agree that teacher‟s teaching method is effective and useful, 24% of the students agree with the idea and only 12% of the students disagree. This indicates that most students like their teacher‟s new way of applying games in teaching grammar. As a result, they can better their learning.

0% Disagree 12% Agree 24% Strongly agree 64%

Chart 4: Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; attitude to teaching method

Besides, the frequency of interaction among students through games is highlighted. 28% of the students strongly agree that they use more English in their communication with their classmates than learning grammar without games. 56% of the students agree they are able to interact with other students. 12% of students say it is neutral and 4% of students disagree with this idea. The data are interpreted as following Table 1: Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; interaction in grammar lessons

Strongly agree

28%

Agree

56%

Neutral

12%

Disagree

In short, the above findings show that using games in teaching grammar can create strong motivation for students to practice English as well as provide real life situations so that students are able to apply what they studied to interact between students- teacher and students -students in class.

4.2. Findings of observation Lessons with grammar games: Two grammar points in the course book were chosen and taught in 40 minutes: - Comparative of adjectives (page 8) - Conditional sentence type 1 (page 54) The lessons with grammar games were conveyed as following Lesson 1 (Game 1, about 10 minutes): comparative of adjectives

Teacher prepares several pictures and put them in a box. Then, my class is divided into 4 groups (five members in each group). Each group takes turn to choose a picture inside the box. In 1 minute that group has to make two sentences using comparative of adjective (for example: the red car bigger than the green car and the red car is more expensive than the green car). However the students are required to speak out and write down their answers). Which group finishes first will get 1 point. Teacher gives comment and the winners will receive a small presents. Lesson 2 (Game 2, about 8 minutes) Introducing conditional sentence type 1 Teacher show one sentence on the board (for example: If I am free, I will go to the movie theatre). After that I have the students work in groups of five. The students are asked to elicit the tense and verb form in two clauses. Then, they try to clarify the meaning as well as the usage of this type of conditional sentence. Each group has 3 minute to prepare and then presents in front of class. Which group has correct answers will win and get a gift. Teacher gives feedback, explanation and asks students to draw out the form. When watching the recordings which are recorded by observers, it showed that students cooperate well and communicate with others frequently in order to contribute ideas, discuss the answers, and make possible sentences. Also, during the grammar game, the students attempt to complete the task as fast as they can. These groups often compete to win the game. They sometimes give their answers before teacher‟s signals. From the information of observation form, the interaction among students and competition is about 75% – 85 %. Hence, students‟ speaking time is increased (about 70% - 79%). Obviously, most of the students are very active from the beginning until the ends. They raise hands to answer and other students clap hands to encourage. They can create meaningful sentences using new grammar point. In addition, classroom environment is lively and funny. It seems that 8 to 10 minutes is not enough for playing the games. When time is up, some students even do not want to stop. Lessons without grammar games To begin the lesson, teacher invites 2 students to go to the board to check old lesson. Then, two lessons are taught similarly by applying communicative approach. The procedure follows present- practice- produce technique (PPP). Firstly, teacher presents the meaning and structures of new grammar points by setting situation. Secondly, the students practice the new grammar structures by doing exercises in pairs or small groups without any games. Finally, it is time for students to practice freely, and finish some more tasks: gap-fill, word/ sentence transformation… When comparing these lessons with those using games, students have less chance to communicate and exchange ideas with others: about 45% – 55% for students spent too much time to do exercises. Moreover, here the atmosphere is quiet and sometimes nervous but not funny and exciting. From the observation, students are tired at the end of the lesson. In fact, competition rate is about 40 – 50% because do not compete to answer teacher‟s questions.

Furthermore, students‟ motivation is identified through the atmosphere inside classroom and students‟ English speaking time. Needless to say, two lessons using games create active and lively learning environment and students have more chances to speak English than the ones without games. Table 2: Comparison of students’ motivation through lessons

Motivation

Lessons with games

Lessons without games

Students‟ English speaking time

70 – 79 %

45 – 55 %

Competitive atmosphere

75 – 85 %

40 – 50 %

To sum up, findings of observation show that games seem to be relevant for students thanks to the extreme students‟ English speaking time as well as the collaborative learning. As a result, students can be successful in applying what they studied to real contexts. 4.3. Findings of semi-structured interview Via the information collected from the interview, students‟ motivation is clarified through their feedback as well as suggestion in grammar lessons and emotion to those games used in class. After the interviews with six students, the results are illustrated very clearly. Nearly 83.3% of students say that” I feel really exciting when studying with games”. Many students (66.7%) eagerly take part in more games and attempt to win these games. Through the mentioned percentages, students enjoy the nonstressful atmosphere, high motivation, as well as positive competition inside the classroom which is created by games. In fact, the students try to win because they receive the small gifts once they are winners. Sometimes, it is a lovely pencil, a small notebook or even lollipop or candy but these presents stimulate students to win the games. Indeed, 83.3% of the student answer “I can understand the games instructed by the teacher” 16.7% of the students sometimes cannot catch on the rules of the games so they do not know how to play. “I do not know how to play at first, so it is better to observe my classmate” say one student. Most of the students (66.7%) say that they are able to use new structures into the games immediately, 25% of the students sometimes have difficulties to do so, and 8.3% cannot apply. Despite the fact that games bring many benefits, students have unavoidable problems when they join the games. For more details, students‟ difficulties with grammar games are clarified in the below chart:

83.3 33.3

100 80 60 40 20 0

16.7

Lack of Not know to Not know Other necessary apply how to play difficulties vocabulary grammar structure to the games

Chart 5: Students’ difficulties in playing grammar games

Students‟ studying method is a vital part to determine to what extend students can master teachers‟ lectures and apply new grammar knowledge in speaking. From the collected data, about two third of the students often take part in the games positively and half of the students (50%) answer that they have more opportunities to speak out what teacher instruct when they play the games while 16.7% students share their ideas. As a matter of fact, 83.3% of students are used to taking note and write down teacher‟s explanations. We can see that students are still influenced by Grammar Translation Method (GTM), and they become passive in learning process. Students‟ activities are shown in the following table. Table 3: Students’ activities in grammar lesson

Activities

- Positively join the games teachers ask

66.7

- Take note and write down the lesson

83.3

- Speak out using new structures

- Contribute ideas eagerly

16.7

In general, games or game like activities encourage most of the students positively to involve in grammar lessons which can be seen through their motivation when playing games. Students feel confident and they are able to communicate better at the end comparing to those who are in non-experimental class. Although GTM still affect the way students learn English, a good sign is that after the games students express their enjoyment as well as they think that grammar games are beneficial for applying grammar features in their communication.

5. Discussion The goal of this study is to investigate two research questions: 1) How can games help students learn grammar? And 2) What are the learners‟ attitudes to the games in classroom?. The following pages will discuss more about how the findings are combined together to address the mentioned research questions The information from both questionnaire and observation illustrates that using games help create enjoyment, motivation and reduce stress in learning grammar. Also, collected data from interviews indicate that 84% of the students have positive attitude to English grammar games, just four students (16%) have difficulties when playing the games for the first time. On the other hand, all students (100%) answered that those games was exciting. More importantly, the answers from the interviews reveal that the students knew how to use vocabulary in appropriate situations. The analysis of the data collected from observation, questionnaire, and interview can be combined to answer the research questions as games can better learners‟ grammar acquisition. Lastly, the experiment also expresses participants‟ attitudes. The questionnaire reveals that most students are pleased about games and activities that teacher applied in teaching grammar. However, if teachers abuse games in teaching, students might lose their interest. Therefore, it is believed that the combination of Grammar games with some popular approaches like grammar translation method (GTM), communicative language teaching (CLT), or task- based language teaching (TBLT) and so forth could create more benefits for learners than using each approach separately. Actually, those activities support learners to use English in real situations and to make them energetic in learning, while other approaches can help students to comprehend the contents. Thus, this combination is thought as a good solution. During six weeks of implementing the research, there are many difficulties when using games in teaching grammar. Firstly, 83.3% of the students are not confident enough to participate in the games as they lack necessary vocabulary. Secondly, some students cannot understand the rules of the games or even how to play it correctly. Thirdly, some find it is difficult to practice new structure in their communication with their classmates because they are not familiar with the structure yet. Finally, good students often dominate those who are shy to win the games. In order to overcome the problems above, the following part will recommend useful tips to successfully apply games in class,  Organize the class, focus on learners‟ age, level, and interest  Change activities if the class is getting disorderly and noisy  Choose activities appeal with all types of learning styles and vary the things you want your learners to do.  Establish a routine and set up schedule for certain type of activities in class  Make sure all rules are clear and understandable, and all learners have to respect and follow the rules Overall, applying games can be benefits for both teachers and students. However, bear in mind to keep students involved and be sure that

those games truly focus on the skill and make students become engaged and interested in learning grammar.

6. Conclusion This paper clarified the strong points of using games for first year students at Dong Nai Technology University. The results from this evaluation expressed the positive influences of games on studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x; oral skill in relaxed surroundings. Three kinds of datasets consisting of questionnaire, observation, and interview gave researcher evidence-based judgments to the innovation. They have promoted the trend of adopting games in teaching grammar for students at all ages from young learners to adults in any levels. Vitally important, pertinent games and activities should be examined to identify the most relevant ones for studying grammar. The upcoming study of using games in teaching grammar could be continuously investigated in different areas of Vietnam. Therefore, the collected information is more valid and reliable.

References Denham, P. (1992). English in Vietnam. World Englishes, 11(1), 61-69. Ersoz, A. (2000). Six Games for the EFL/ESL Classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(6). Retrieved from http://itesij.org/Lessons/Ersoz-Games.html. Garbarino, S., & Holland, J. (2009). Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Impact Evaluation and Measuring Results. Governance and social development resource center, 3(5), 1-52. Griva, E., Semoglou, K., & Geladari, A. (2010). Early foreign language learning: Implementation of a project in a game-based context. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3700-3705. Harmer, J. (1987). Teaching and Learning Grammar. Longman Group UK Ltd. Hinchey, P.H. (2006). Action Research. NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Jones, L. (2007). The Student-Centered Classroom, Cambridge University Press. Jonson, A. (2009). The Rise of English: The Language of Globalization in China and The European Union. Macalester International, 22, 131-168. Kealey, J., & Inness, D. (2008). Shenani Games: Grammar-Focused Interactive ESL/EFL Activities and Games. Fredericksburg, Virginia: Sheridan Books. Khan, J. (1996). Using games to teach young learner, Teaching English to children: From Practice to Principle. England: Longman. Larsen & Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press Lee, W.R. (1995). Language Teaching Games and Contests. London: Oxford University Press.

Nguyen, T.N. (2008). English- A global language and its implications for students. VNU Journal of Science, Foreign Languages, 24, 260-266. Pradeep, K.B. (2013). The importance of Grammar in English Language Teaching –a reassessment . Language in India, 482-486 Saricoban, A., & Metin, E. (2000). Songs, Verse and Games for Teaching Grammar. The Internet TEST Journal. Retrieved from http://itesij.org/Technique/SaricobanSong.html. Walker, E., & Elsworth, S. (2000). Grammar Practice for Intermediate Students. Longman Wang, Y. (2010). Using Communicative Games in Teaching and Learning English in Taiwanese Primary Schools, Journal of Engineering and Education, 7(1), 126-142. Yolageldili, G., & Arikan A. (2011).Effectiveness of Using Games in Teaching Grammar to Young Learners. Elementary Education Online, 10(1), 219-229. Zaorob, M.L., & Chin, E. (2001). Games for Grammar Practice. Cambridge University Press.

Appendix 1: Students’ Questionnaire (Strongly agree =SA, agree= A, neutral= N, disagree= DA, and strongly disagree= SD) No.

Questions

Grammar is very important in learning English

By studying grammar through games, you have more chances to use English in real context

Via games you are able to understand and practice grammar lessons better.

Teacher‟s teaching method is effective.

You have more opportunities to interact with your classmates through games

Appendix 2: Observation Form

Appendix 3: Interview Questions 1. Do you enjoy the games instructed by teacher? Why/ Why not? 2. Are you able to use new grammar point when joining the games? 3. What are some obstacles as you participate in the games? 4. Do you have more opportunities to communicate using new structures in class? 5. What do you often do in grammar lessons?

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 72-83, July 2017

Abolition of Agricultural Science as a Single Subject in Basic Schools in Ghana: Implications for Basic Educational Reforms Martin Bosompem and Theophilus Numo Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.

Abstract. The implementation of new educational reforms in 2012 academic year in Ghana led to the abolition of Agriculture Science as a single subject in basic schools and agriculture science course was subsumed into Integrated Science. Concerns have been raised by stakeholders as to whether the reforms give room for adequate covering of agriculture needed in basic schools. A census of 107 Academic staff in the School of Agriculture and selected Departments from the Faculty of Education, University of Cape Coast, Ghana was undertaken to find out their perceptions on the abolition of Agricultural Science as a Single Subject in the Basic School Curriculum (ASSSBSC) in Ghana. Content validated questionnaire was used for data collection and data was analysed using descriptive statistics, chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test and Binary Logistic Regression. The findings of the study showed that majority (85%) of the respondents do not support the abolition of ASSSBSC in Ghana. Majority (95%) of the respondents generally agreed that Agricultural Science, like other subjects, should be treated as a single subject in basic schools. However, few (27%) suggested that even though it should be treated as single subject, it must not be a compulsory subject but optional. The binary logistic regression analysis showed that "agriculture science forms part of general science subject" was the best predictor of respondents' reason for supporting or otherwise, the abolishing of ASSSBSC in Ghana. The study recommended that the issue of whether agricultural science should be integrated into the general science in the basic schools or not should be revisited and re-examined by the stakeholders. Future educational reforms may use a tracer study as a major stakeholder participation tool for making informed decisions towards sustainable basic education in Ghana. Keywords: Agricultural Science Education; Academic staff; Basic Educational Reforms, Ghana

1.0 Introduction Agricultural education at the basic school level has been identified as vital for training young ones in the basic principles of agriculture, changing their attitudes towards agriculture and providing avenues for the development of their skills towards sustainable agricultural development (GES, 1987). Education, according to UNESCO, „is an organized and sustained instruction designed to communicate a combination of knowledge, skills and understanding valuable for all the activities of life (Terry, Thomas and Marshall, 1979). Farrant (2004) also describes education as the total process of human learning by which knowledge is imparted, faculties trained and skills developed. According to Anamuah- Mensah (2002), basic education is the minimum period of schooling needed to ensure that children acquire basic literacy, numeracy and problem-solving skills as well as skills for creativity and healthy living. The Ghana educational system currently provides for an eleven-year free Compulsory Universal Basic Education(fCUBE); comprising of 2 years of kindergarten, 6 years of primary and 3 years of junior high school education (Anamuah-Mensah, 2002). Agricultural education, as defined by Barrick (1988), is “the scientific study of the principles and methods of teaching and learning as they pertain to agriculture.” Maguire (2000) also defined agricultural education as an “applied discipline concerned with the preparation of agricultural workers including farmers, teachers of agriculture, extension staff, researchers, agribusiness practitioners etc to satisfy individual, community and national needs in the field of agriculture and agribusiness.” The main purpose of the agricultural education at the basic level is to train pupils in the basic principles of agriculture, provide them options for the development of their skills and change their attitudes towards farming and agriculture-related businesses (GES, 1987). Agricultural education also assists in the development of desirable attitudes and interest, and in the development of social sensitivity and resourcefulness of students (Addo-Quaye, Osei, AnnorFrempong, Adam, and Ghartey, 2007). Training of the younger ones in agriculture at the basic level is very crucial for development of the future generation of farmers and agriculturists. They will need basic technical, managerial and entrepreneurial skills to be able to establish businesses that will ensure agricultural development and economic development since Ghana‟s economy is agrarian-based (ISSER, 2014). In order to achieve these objectives, the Ghana government has made significant investment in curriculum development, development of instructional materials, and training of teachers to improve the teaching and learning conditions in schools. This is based on the public policy of education that seeks to provide equal and adequate educational opportunities in all fields and at all levels for all Ghanaians (Ghana Government Gazette, 1982).

According to Kwarteng, Owens and Okorley (2002), agricultural education must be viewed as a continuum of learning from basic through secondary and tertiary education. Such education must also be at both the formal and non-formal sectors. Even though agricultural education is an essential tool for development, it still faces a lot of challenges in sub-Saharan Africa including Ghana. Maguire (2000) noted that, agricultural education in Africa now faces swift and often perplexing changes in the environments in which it exists. Though efforts have been made in sub-Saharan Africa to give the necessary support to agricultural education as part of the overall education development programmes, much remains to be done to enable it responds adequately to new and emerging challenges in the sector. Various curriculum reforms have been made in Ghana even before and after independence in 1957 (Anum-Odoom, 2008). The current reforms implemented in 2012 academic year has led to the abolishing of Agriculture Science as a single subject in basic schools and agriculture has been subsumed into Integrated Science. The purpose of the reform was to ensure the â&#x20AC;&#x153;formation of human capital for industrial growth, for ensuring competitiveness in the global economy; ability to make use of recent developments in Science and Technology, especially Information and Communication Technology (ICT); radical transformation in the field of work and employment; and the preservation of cultural identity and traditional indigenous knowledge and creativity. The reform intended to place high premium on technical/vocational education and training and improving the quality of instruction and making it flexible enough to accommodate diverse student abilitiesâ&#x20AC;?. (Ministry of Education, 2012). The abolition of ASSSBSC has raised some concerns and controversies among some stakeholders. While some support the government's decision, others stand strongly against this decision. One of the effects of this abolition is that the contact hours of instructional time for teaching agriculture has been reduced by 75%. This is because integrated science formerly combined the teaching of three (3) disciplines namely biology, physics and chemistry, however, the new curriculum added agricultural science to be part of the integrated science making agricultural science the fourth discipline to be added to the integrated science. Some stakeholders are of the view that the abolition has led to disunity and lack of cohesion among agriculture topics, weaker foundation for higher agricultural science education, reduction in the interest of pupils in agricultural science and the current General Science syllabus has become very voluminous. Hence, General Science teachers either do not teach agriculture topics very well or neglect it all together. Some students even believe that if they do not study agricultural science aspect of the integrated science, they could still pass integrated science since it forms only 25th percent of the integrated science subject. However, the advantages of teaching agriculture as a single subjective in basic schools have been advocated by Addo Quaye et al (2007) and Essumang and Bentum (2007). These includes: It ensures unity and cohesion like in any other subject, helps to develop the interest of pupils/ students in Agriculture, prepares and gives students stronger foundation for higher Agricultural education and allows for an in-depth study as a single entity which allows for

better evaluation. Moyo (2014) has also advocated that students should have an appreciation of agriculture at an early age if they would take it serious in future. One of the reasons advanced for the poor performance of agriculture in subSaharan Africa is the weak system of agricultural education which also includes basic education in agriculture (Oniang‟o and Eicher, 1999). Zimbabwe, for example, recently introduced agriculture as a single subject in basic schools in 2014 because Zimbabwean viewed their economy as agriculture-based and therefore decided to teach agriculture as a single subject starting from basic schools (Majoni, 2016). To engage in more meaningful discussion of the issue, there is the need to identify the perception of major stakeholders in Agricultural education in Ghana on the abolition of Agriculture Science as a single subject in basic schools.

1.1. Objective of the Study The main objective of the study was to investigate how academic staff (faculty) of School of Agriculture (SOA) and Faculty of Education (FOE) in the University of Cape Coast (UCC), Ghana perceive the abolition of agricultural science as a single subject in basic schools and the factors that affect their reason for supporting or otherwise, the abolishing.

2.0. Methodology A census of all academic staff in the selected Departments concerned or having direct link with agriculture and basic education was undertaken to investigate their perceptions on the abolition of Agricultural Science as a Single Subject in the Basic School Curriculum (ASSSBSC) in Ghana. In school of Agriculture, all the academic staff in all the five Departments (Animal Science, Crop Science, Agricultural Engineering, Soil Science and Agricultural Economics and Extension) participated in the study while in the Faculty of Education the following were included; the Department of Basic Education, the Department of Educational Foundation, the Institute of Education and the Department of Vocational and Technical Education. The total population was One Hundred and Seven (107) respondents. Content validated questionnaires were used in the data collection. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was used to determine the internal consistency of all Likert-type scales in the questionnaire. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the 9 items on the „Reasons for Supporting or otherwise, the Abolition of ASSSBSC‟ scale was 0.816 indicating that the scale was reliable (Pallant 2010). Out of the 107 questionnaires distributed to all the academic staff in the study area, 76 responded indicating about 71% response rate. With the help of SPSS (version 21), the data was analysed using descriptive statistics, Continuity correction of the chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U-test and Binary Logistic Regression.

2.1 Empirical Model Specification In the following empirical model, specifiedin equation 1, Y =1 defines respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x; support for the Abolition of ASSSBSC; Y=0 defines otherwise. The Xâ&#x20AC;&#x;s define independent variables that explain the probability that the respondent will support the abolition ASSSBSC and đ?&#x153;&#x20AC;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013; is error term. The equation is as follows: đ?&#x2018;&#x2122;đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;Ą đ?&#x2018;&#x192; đ?&#x2018;&#x152;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013; = 1 = đ?&#x203A;˝0đ?&#x2018;&#x2013; + đ?&#x203A;˝đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;1 đ?&#x2018;&#x2039;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;1 + đ?&#x203A;˝đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;2 đ?&#x2018;&#x2039;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;2 + đ?&#x203A;˝đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;3 đ?&#x2018;&#x2039;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;3 + đ?&#x203A;˝đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;4 đ?&#x2018;&#x2039;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;4 + đ?&#x203A;˝đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;5 đ?&#x2018;&#x2039;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;5 + đ?&#x203A;˝đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;6 đ?&#x2018;&#x2039;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;6 + đ?&#x203A;˝đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;7 đ?&#x2018;&#x2039;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;7 + đ?&#x203A;˝đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;8 đ?&#x2018;&#x2039;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;8 + đ?&#x203A;˝đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;9 đ?&#x2018;&#x2039;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;9 + đ?&#x153;&#x20AC;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013; (Equation 1) The dependent variable was measured as dummy with 1 and 0 indicating supporting or not supporting the abolition of ASSSBSC respectively. The Independent Variables (determinants/predictors) were respondents perceived reasons for supporting or otherwise the abolition ASSSBSC in Ghana measured on the Likert-type format ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating strongly disagree on the statement/item and 5 indicating strongly agree on the item. The nine (9) items are: X1 = X2 = X3 = X4 =

Qualified agriculture teachers are not available Qualified agriculture teachers are not adequate Agriculture. science forms part of general science subject Agricultural Science is not relevant at the basic school level

X5 = X6 = X7 = X8 =

There are no adequate teaching and learning materials/ resources Agricultural science subject is too bulky/ voluminous Agriculture is a boring subject Without it pupils can still pursue agriculture at the Senior High School level. Agriculture is the backbone of Ghana's economy

X9 =

3.0. Results and Discussion 3.1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Table 1 shows the distribution of respondents by sex, age, working experience and rank or position in academia. Majority (76%) of the respondents were males and nearly 40% were above the age of 49 years. Majority (58%) of the respondents were lecturers with about two-thirds having been working in academia for less than 20 years.

Table 1: Sex, Age, Working Experience and Rank of Respondents in Academia

Variable Sex Male Famale Age (years) 30- 39 40- 49 Above 49 Working experience (Years)

58 18 f 28 19 29 f

76 24 % 36.8 25.0 38.2 %

<10 10-19 Above 20 Rank / Position

29 23 24 f

38.2 30.3 31.5 %

Lecturer Snr. Lecturer Assoc. Professor

44 21 6

57.9 27.6 7.9

Professor

6.6

N= 76.

3.2. Awareness and Support of the Abolition of ASSSBSC Table 2 shows the distribution of respondent on the awareness and support of the abolition of ASSSBSC in Ghana. Table 2: Distribution of Respondents by Awareness and Support of the abolition of ASSSBSC

Item

YES f Awareness of the abolition of ASSSBSC in 64 Ghana Support to the abolition of ASSSBSC in 10 Ghana Agricultural. Science be treated as a 70 single subject in Basic Schools N=74.

% 86.5

NO f 11

% 14.9

13.5

85.1

94.6

5.4

Majority (87%) of the respondents were aware that agricultural science had been abolished as a single subject in the basic school curriculum. On the contrary, a greater proportion (85%) of the respondents claimed they do not support the

ASSSBSC. The main reasons given for non-support of the abolition of ASSSBSC were: 1. Agriculture is the backbone of Ghana‟s economy 2. The interest of pupils is developed in the study of Agriculture at the basic school level and 3. Agriculture is not a pure science and therefore, must not be integrated into the General Science subject. Approximately (95%) of the respondents generally agreed that Agricultural Science, like other subjects, should be treated as a single subject in basic schools. These findings seem to agree with the opinions of AddoQuaye (2007) and Essumang and Bentum (2007) who asserted that treating agriculture as a single subject in basic schools prepares and gives students stronger foundation for higher Agricultural education and allows for an indepth study as a single entity which allows for better evaluation.

3.3. Reason for Supporting or not supporting the Abolition ASSSBSC Table 3 shows that respondents agreed (Mean=4.1, SD=1.13) that “Agriculture is the backbone of Ghana's economy” therefore abolishing it at the basic level of education is out of place. Table 3: Respondents' Reasons for Supporting or not Supporting the Abolition ASSSBSC

Reasons for supporting the abolition or otherwise N Agriculture is the backbone of Ghana's economy

Mean

4.16

1.147

Agricultural science forms part of general science 76 2.83 1.237 subject Without it pupils can still pursue agriculture at 76 2.55 1.351 the Senior High School level There are no adequate teaching and learning 76 2.51 1.205 materials/ resources Qualified agriculture teachers are not adequate 76 2.42 1.169 Agricultural science subject is too bulky/ 76 2.08 1.105 voluminous Qualified agriculture teachers are not available 76 1.84 1.033 It is not relevant at the basic school level 76 1.63 1.094 it is a boring subject 76 1.61 .865 Scale: 5-strongly agree, 4-Agree, 3-somewhat agree, 2-Disagree, 1-strongly disagree However, respondents disagreed to the assertion that “qualified agricultural science teachers are not adequate” (Mean=2.4, SD=1.17) and “Agricultural. science subject is too bulky/voluminous” (Mean =2.1, SD=1.11) as a reason for it abolition. Respondents disagreed again with reasons such as “qualified agricultural science teachers are not available” (Mean=1.8, SD=1.0), “Agriculture is not relevant at the basic school level” (Mean=1.6, SD=1.0), and “it is a boring subject” (Mean= 1.6, SD=.86). According to Evenson and Fuglie (2010) the rapid agricultural productivity growth in Brazil and China was as a result of

investment in “technology capital”, i.e., in agricultural research, education and extension. They further stated that productivity growth entails much more than direct physical capital in agriculture. Therefore, investments in agriculture must focus in areas such as primary and secondary agricultural education, roads, power and community and market institutions. Table 4: Relationship between Awareness and the Support Abolition of Agricultural Science in the Basic School

Abolition of agric. science Aware as a single subject in the basic school

Total

12.7

27.3

14.9

not 55

87.3

72.7

85.1

100

Support Dot support Total

Not aware

Chisqua re

Continui ty Correctio n

Sig.

1.572

.631

.352

N= 74, p< 0.05 A crosstabulation of the relationship between awareness and support of respondents towards the abolition of Agriculture science was done to examine whether the fact that the respondents were aware or not of the abolition influenced their decision to support it or not. Table 4 revealed that 85% of the respondents were aware of the abolition but do not support and 15% of the respondents were not aware but support the abolition. However, the continuity correction test (.631) from the chi-square analysis was not significant (sig. 352) at p< 0.05 alpha level. Yates „Correction for Continuity was used instead of the chiquare value in other to compensates for the overestimate of the chi-square value when used with a 2 by 2 table (Pallant, 2001). Hence, whether respondents were aware or not of the abolition did not influence their decision to support or not the abolition.

Mann-Whitney U -test was conducted to find out if significant differences exist between the mean ranks of respondents in school of agriculture and faculty of education on reasons for supporting or otherwise, the ASSSBSC. Table 5 shows that there was significant difference in the mean ranks of school of agriculture and faculty of education (sig.0.038) on the reason “without agriculture at the basic level pupils can still pursue agriculture at the Senior High School (SHS”) at p< 0.05 alpha level. This implied that whiles respondents in the subject area of agriculture (SOA) feel that students can still pursue Agriculture in Higher levels without doing it at the basic levels, respondents in the technical area (FOE) feel that it is necessary to start agriculture at the basic level to enable them develop interest at the younger stage. The latter seems to agree with GES (1987) assertion that training at the basic school level can change the attitudes of the young

children towards agriculture as they grow. It seems that respondents from SOA are primarily focusing on the content of agriculture in Senior High School Curriculum which they feel that student can pursue it without having to take Agriculture as a single subject in basic school, whereas, those from FOE are focusing on the need to also generate interest at the early stage and giving them stronger foundation. Table 5: Mann-Whitney U test between Respondents in SOA and FOE on Reasons for Supporting or otherwise, the Abolition of ASSSBSC

Items

Facult y/ School agriculture SOA are not FOE

Mean Rank

MannSum of Whitney Ranks U

39.35

1298.50

43 33

37.85 42.80

1627.50 1412.50

35.20

1513.50

35.67

1177.00

40.67

1749.00

It is not relevant at the SOA basic school level FOE

33 43

36.97 39.67

1220.00 1706.00

There are no adequate SOA teaching and learning FOE materials/ resources Agric. science subject is SOA too bulky/ voluminous

38.02

1254.50

38.87

1671.50

36.62

1208.50

Qualified teachers available Qualified agriculture teachers are not adequate Agricultura science forms part of general science subject

SOA FOE

FOE

39.94

1717.50

37.79

1247.00

39.05

1679.00

44.30

1462.00

34.05

1464.00

40.88

1349.00

34.78

1426.00

43 Agriculture is a boring SOA subject FOE Without it pupils can still pursue agriculture SOA at the SHS FOE Agriculture is the SOA backbone of Ghana's economy FOE

681.5 567.5

Sig.

0.751

.122

616.0

.312

659.0

.536

693.5

.863

647.5

.493

686.0

.781

518.0

0.038*

565

.181

*p< 0.05 . Scale: 5-strongly agree, 4-Agree, 3-somewhat agree, 2-Disagree, 1-strongly disagree. SOA= School of Agriculture, FOE= Faculty of Education N= 76.

However, there were no significant differences in the mean ranks of respondents in SOA and FOE at p< 0.05 alpha level on the rest of issue raised in Table 4 on the reasons for supporting or otherwise the abolition of ASSSBSC.

3.4. Predictors of Respondents’ Decision to Support or otherwise the Abolition of ASSSBSC The result of the analysis in Table 6 indicates that Cox Snell R- Square and Nagelkerke R- Square (pseudo R Squares) are .317and .599 respectively. It implies that between 32% to 60 % of the variance in respondents‟ reason for supporting the abolition or otherwise is being explained by the predictor variable (Agricultural science forms part of general science subject). The chisquare test of the regression model was significant at alpha level 0.05 and this means that the variable in the model has a significant composite effect in explaining respondents‟ reason for supporting the abolition or otherwise. All other factors were not statistically significant in predicting the respondents‟ support or otherwise the abolition. Table 6: Logistic Regression showing predictors of respondents’ reasons for supporting or otherwise the abolition ASSSBSC

Explanatory variables

Wald

Sig

-3.844

1.828

.176

Odd Ratio .021

-.725

1.167

.280

.485

-.065

.009

.923

.937

1.455

5.368

.021*

4.285

.478

.620

.431

1.613

-.347

.585

.445

.707

.436

.355

.551

1.547

-1.304

1.839

.175

.272

.739

1.969

.161

2.093

-.674

2.044

.153

.510

coefficient

Constant Qualified agriculture teachers are not available Qualified agriculture teachers are not adequate Agriculture. science forms part of general science subject Agriculture Science is not relevant at the basic school level There are no adequate teaching and learning materials/ resources Agriculture science subject is too bulky/ voluminous Agriculture is a boring subject Without it pupils can still pursue agriculture at the Senior High School Agriculture is the backbone of Ghana's economy

Cox Snell R- Square Nagelkerke R- Square Chi- square Sig. (p - value) N= 76, p< 0.05

Model Summary .317 .599 27.482* .001

In the Table 6, the Odd ratio of 4.285 of the best predictor variable (“Agricultural science forms part of general science subject”) implies that the adequacy of agriculture component in the general or integrated science subject in the basic school curriculum is about 4 times more likely to positively influence the respondents‟ decision to support the abolition of ASSSBSC (Pallant, 2010). Hence, if the agricultural science component of the Integrated Science subject is adequate, well-covered and well- taught as part of the integrated science subject, then there will be no need to treat it as a single subject in basic school. However, the concern has been whether agricultural component of the general/integrated science necessary for basic school is adequate and if it is, it could still be covered adequately alongside other subject like physics, chemistry and biology which is part of the integrated science subject in basic school (Addo Quaye et al, 2007)

4.0. Conclusions The findings of the study revealed that majority (76%) of the respondents were male and approximately (63%) are above the age of 40 years. Approximately two-thirds have been working in the academia for less than 20 years. Even though majority (87%) of the respondents were aware of the abolishing of ASSSBSC, about 85% of the respondents do not support the abolition of ASSSBSC in Ghana. The main reasons given for their non-support were: 1. Agriculture is the backbone of Ghana‟s economy 2. The interest of pupils is developed in the study of Agriculture at the basic school level and 3. Agriculture is not a pure science and therefore, must not be integrated into the General Science subject. Majority (95%) of the respondents generally agreed that Agricultural education plays a vital role in basic schools and that Agricultural Science, like other subjects, should be treated as a single subject in basic schools. However, few (27%) suggested that even though it should be treated as single subject, it must not be a compulsory subject but optional. The Mann-Whitney Utest showed that there was no significant difference between school of agriculture and faculty of education reasons for supporting or otherwise the abolition of agricultural science at the basic school level except “without it pupils can still pursue agricultural science at the Senior High School (SHS)” which was significant at p< 0.05 alpha level. Results from the Binary Logistic regression shows that “agriculture science forms part of general science subject" was the best predictor of respondents‟ reason for supporting or not supporting, the abolishing of ASSSBSC in Ghana. This predictor variable explained between 32% to 60% variations in respondents' support or otherwise for the abolition of ASSSBSC in Ghana. The study recommended that the issue of whether agricultural science should be integrated into the general/integrated science in the basic schools or not should be revisited and re-examined by major stakeholders (University academic staff, Curriculum Research & Development Division (CRDD), basic school teachers, Ghana Education Service and other stakeholders). Future educational reforms

should use a tracer study as a major stakeholder participation tool for making informed decisions towards sustainable basic education in Ghana. 5.0. References Anamuah-Mensah, J. & Towse, P. (1995). Bringing industry into the Science classroom – Problems, Concerns and Prospects associated with a paradigm shift: Retrieved from http//www.ghanaweb.org. Anamuah-Mensah, J., Asabere-Ameyaw, & Dennis, S. (2003): Bridging the Gap linking School and the World of Work in Ghana: Retrieved fromhttp//www.ghanaweb.org Addo-Quaye, A.A., Osei, B.A., Annor-Frempong, F., Adam, I. & Ghartey, W. (2007) Introduction to Agriculture. Module, Centre for Continuing Education, University of Cape Coast,Ghana, 293-295. Annor- Frempong F., Zinnah M. and Adam I. (2003) Teaching of Agricultural Science at the Basic Education Level in Developing Countries: A Case Study of the Nature and Constraints at Cape Coast District of Ghana, AIAEE proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. Anum- Odoom, A. K. M. (2008) Educational Reform in Ghana, 1974-2007 Barrick, R.K. (1988): The Discipline Called Agricultural Education. Agricultural Department, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Essumang D.K. and Bentum J.K. (2007) Man and His Environment. Module, Centre for Continuing Education, UCC, 226. Evenson, R. E., & Fuglie, K. O. (2010). Technology Capital: The Price of Admission to the Growth Club. Journal of Productivity Analysis 33: 173-190.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/831m7u11q3875853/fulltext.pdf Farrant J.S. (2004). Principles and Practice of Education. England : Longman Group Impression, 18-28. GES (1987) Ghana Education Service Suggested Syllabus for Agricultural Science for Junior Secondary Schools. Accra: Curriculum Research Division. Ghana Government Gazette (1982). Basic Educational Reform. Accra: The ministry of Information, Ghana. ISSER (2014).The state of Ghanaian economy in 2013. Legon, Accra: ISSER, University of Ghana. Kwarteng, J.A., Owens M. & Okorley E.L. (2002), Rethinking Agricultural Education for Sustainable Development in Ghana. AIAEE proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference, Durban, South Africa. Maguire, C.J. (2000). Agricultural Extension in Africa: Managing Change. in Extension Education: Reshaping African Universities and colleges for the 21st century. Ed. J.A. Kwarteng. CASIN. Geneva. Majoni, C. (2016). Introducing agriculture as a subject in the primary school curriculum in Zimbabwe: Prospects and Challenges. International Journal of Information Research and Review 3 (1), 1669-1671. Moyo, D. (2014). Agriculture Lessons to Enhance Quality of Pupils lives. Downloaded from www.sundaynews.co.zw/agric-lessons enhance quality. Oniang‟o, R. and. Eicher C. K. (1999). Universities and Agricultural Development In Africa: Insights from Kenya. Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Manual:Step-by- Step Guide to Data Analysis using SPSS for windows (16). Australia: Allan and Unwin, Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS Survival Manual:Step-by- Step Guide to Data Analysis using SPSS for windows (10). Australia: Allan and Unwin, Terry, P.G., Thomas. J.B., & Marshall, A.R. (1979) International Dictionary of Education, Parker Street London : Pitman Publishing Ltd, 1st edition. . 112-113.

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 84-101, July 2017

Pre-defined Roles and Team Performance for First-year Students Jess Everett Civil & Environmental Engineering Rowan University Glassboro, NJ, USA Kaitlin Mallouk Mechanical Engineering Rowan University Glassboro, NJ, USA Jenahvive Morgan Undergraduate Studies Michigan State University East Lansing, MI, USA Abstract. A framework for managing and guiding student teams in a first-year engineering course is compared to less structured but commonly used methods. In the new framework, students take on rotating roles during laboratory projects throughout the semester. Furthermore, teams submit three versions of each report: rough draft, draft, and final. Finally, students complete peer evaluation on-line. On-line student and faculty surveys and multiple focus groups were used to evaluate the framework, which was employed in 3 sections of a 16 section first-year engineering course. Results indicate that, compared to the other common team scenarios, the framework results in improvements in students’ self-appraisal of their teaming abilities at the end of the semester, students writing a greater variety of laboratory report sections, student teams more quickly entering the “performing” stage of the team adjustment phases, and more students taking on a leadership role at least once during the semester. The framework produced no reduction in free riders or increase in laboratory report quality, at least as reported by students. Keywords: Teamwork; Designated roles; First-year; multidisciplinary

Introduction Engineering students should work in teams in college because most workingworld engineering is done in teams. Unfortunately, student teams are different from working-world teams, especially with regard to free-riders, leadership, and experience. Free-riders are people who try to ride a bus without paying. In working-world teams, free-riders are underperformers who risk losing their job when they are discovered. Student teams are much more likely to include freeriders than working-world teams, where they only risk getting a lower grade--if the instructor is able to identify them.

A boss is a working-world leader with real control: able to assign work tasks and influence hiring, firing, promotions and raises. Student teams do not have a boss; at best they have a student leader who may be a planner, meeting scheduler or facilitator, task assigner, mediator, the link between group and instructor, and/or work collector or collator. The instructor may want all team members to rotate through the leadership role. The final major difference between student and working-world teams is the level of experience. Working-world team members have proven skills and experiences appropriate to the task at hand. Student team members learn skills as they go along. Over multiple years teaching an introductory Engineering course with significant team activities, the primary author has developed a framework for managing teams that helps students deal with these issues. The goal of this paper is to introduce the framework and compare it to typical teaming frameworks used in an introductory Engineering course. The remainder of this paper consists of background, a description of the framework and comparison study, results and discussion, conclusions, and references.

Background A good engineering designer must be able to work on multidisciplinary teams (Kojmane & Aboutajeddine, 2016). Unfortunately, though team-based learning has been studied extensively in other disciplines, few studies have been completed with engineering students (Najdanovic-Visak, 2017). Recent studies with engineering students point to the effectiveness of team-based learning in general (Najdanovic-Visak, 2017; Samsuri 2017), but do not explore the relative effectiveness of different frameworks for team-based learning. New teams may go through an initial period of adjustment. According to Tuckman new groups go through four phases: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing (Tuckman, 1965). During the Forming phase group members try to size up each other, find the limits of acceptable group behavior, and clarify the group task (Eide et al., 1998). In the Storming phase, there may be disagreement among team members as each slowly comes to terms with solving problems in a new environment, i.e., the new team. Things get better in the Norming phase. Ground rules and team member roles are agreed upon. Members begin to see how they can work together to accomplish the group task. The final phase is Performing. The team is now â&#x20AC;&#x153;firing on all cylindersâ&#x20AC;? and significant work is accomplished to complete the group task. It is crucial for team members to realize that all phases may be necessary ones, but to work through the first three as quickly as possible to reach the performing phase. Several studies have examined collaborative assignments in the classroom. The contributions of Shuman et al. (2005), Dym et al. (2003, 2005), Felder and Brent (2001), Smith et al. (2005), and Barrick et al. (1998) provide a summary of how to instruct students using collaborative projects. Many times instructors use teams

in an academic environment without much thought on how the development of teams in their course influences the students’ abilities to learn the material. Student teams are formed with minimal guidance on how to work together as a team, build consensus and resolve any conflicts. This creates a missed opportunity on the instructor’s part, i.e., failing to capitalize on the learning that the students can gain on group dynamics and team collaboration. The social aspect of engineering education is emphasized in ABET’s general engineering criteria, to prepare students to create engineering solutions that can have a positive global and social impact. In order for students to achieve this, it is necessary for the students to be able to work on multidisciplinary teams utilizing effective communication skills. Developing teamwork skills is not only important in an academic environment, but also to prepare students for the professional work environment. Developing teamwork skills is key to students’ success on future collaborative projects (Barrick et al., 1998). Smith et al. emphasize that there are five key elements in creating successful collaborative learning experiences for the students (Smith et al., 2005). These elements are positive interdependence, face-to-face interaction, individual accountability, developing teamwork skills, and group processing. Positive interdependence relies on the belief in the group that one student cannot succeed unless the group succeeds as a whole. This is what is often referred to as the sink or swim mentality. In addition to positive interdependence, it is also important to incorporate face-to-face interaction into collaborative assignments. This allows students to discuss their strategies for success in completing their projects. In terms of developing individual accountability, it is important that team members hold each other accountable for creating quality work. Smith et al. (2005) suggest rotating the required roles for each project amongst the team members and making sure that every member of the team has an equal say in the team decision making. As students use this method to develop individual accountability, students inherently gain teamwork skills. It is also essential that groups process the results of their collaborative work, and emphasize continuous improvement in what the group is able to accomplish, as well as their ability to work together. Smith argues that the five elements previously discussed assist in creating a successful collaborative environment. Another aspect of fostering successful teams is helping students manage diverse abilities and skills. Having a diverse range of abilities within a group of students is very important in team formation and should be maximized when possible (Dym et al., 2003). There are inherent difficulties for students working on a team composed of weaker students, but a team of students with higher academic abilities also struggle. According to Felder, teams of high-achieving students often have difficulty collaborating, communicating and working together to achieve their common goal. It is also important that the team hold positive beliefs about their own capabilities and their ability to work together. Having a belief in the efficacy of the team increases the cohesion and satisfaction of the

team (Dym et al., 2005). While some questioning is important for group productivity, so one student does not dominate the activity, a pervasive negativity towards othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; contributions will keep the team from being successful at any task (Felder and Brent, 2001). At the same time, it is important that teams develop a strategy to compensate for any differences in personalities as they form a team. This strategy is essential to their ability to effectively work together. Finally, it is crucial that the complexity of the collaborative assignment given to the students is considered when using team-based activities in the classroom. It is important for the project assigned to be complex enough to require the work of the entire team and challenge the students that are involved (Shuman et al., 2005). Time limits and deadlines that encourage the assignment to be completed through collaboration are essential when completing a team project. If one student can accomplish the task on their own, then there is no need for the team to work together. Several researchers have written about the use of assigned roles for student teams. For example, Schaffer and Kimfong (2006) explored the advantage of requiring students in a senior-level course to assign and define roles on teams and found that students who were required to take on and rotate specific roles had more interdisciplinary learning than those who did not, but that students also tended to work across roles even after roles were specifically assigned. Prince et al. (2011) note the use of assigned roles in teams but do not specify which roles they used in freshman courses. With these theories and observations in mind, we explore the effects of student role assignment, role rotation, and a draft writing requirement on the performance of student teams in a first-year engineering course. This framework of assigned roles provides a way of evenly distributing the work between teammates, to prevent group conflict and address students that do not fully contribute to the group activities. Other literature provides guidelines on how to deal with this lack of student participation after the team has attempted to complete a group activity (Felder and Brent, 2001). The framework studied here addresses these concerns before the team begins an assignment, with a clear equal division of labor among the group members. This results in each member being essential in the completion of each final product, and the group developing an understanding that the group's success is dependent on each student fully participating.

Teaming Framework & Study Design The College of Engineering at Rowan University had five engineering majors: Biomedical, Chemical, Civil & Environmental, Electrical & Computer, and Mechanical when this study was performed. Students declare their major when applying for admittance. The first-year curricula of the five majors are similar and all students take a multidisciplinary two-semester Introduction to Engineering course.

Students in the first-semester Introduction to Engineering course work in teams to complete a number of laboratory activities resulting in multiple teamauthored reports. In Fall 2014 teams in three sections of approximately twentyfive students each were assigned to Treatment A and teams in thirteen similarly sized sections were assigned Treatment B. In Treatment B, faculty of varying experience and ability developed their own frameworks for forming, managing, and evaluating teams. This makes the experiment somewhat un-controlled, but there was no way to create a uniform framework in the Treatment B sections. The sixteen sections had 12 different professors. Professor Everett used Treatment A. Professors Morgan and Mallouk taught two sections each, using Treatment A in one and Treatment B in the other. The remaining nine professors used Treatment B in eleven sections. Professor Everett had over 20 years’ experience teaching freshman through graduate level courses. Professors Morgan and Mallouk were both instructors in their second year of teaching primarily first and second-year courses. The remaining professors included professors, instructors, temporary faculty, adjuncts, and teaching fellows (graduate students) with a wide range of experience. All sections of the Introduction to Engineering course used the same online webbook, customized for the course {Everett et al., 2014). It included an example laboratory report and a detailed description of the format and sections to be used (Title Page, Abstract, Introduction, Background, Materials and Equipment, Procedures, Results and Discussion, Conclusions, References, Appendices). In Treatment A teams are formed by the professor based on Learning Connections Inventory (LCI), gender, and major. The LCI is a learning styles inventory based on the Interactive Learning Model (Johnston, 1996). The LCI uses four styles to describe how an individual prefers to learn: Sequential, Precise, Technical, and Confluent (Johnston, 1997). Teams are selected to distribute learning styles as evenly as possible. Each team of 5 students has 0, 2 or 3 female members, to avoid isolating a single female on a team of 5, except in the case where only 1 female is enrolled in a section. Students are assigned to teams so that majors are distributed as widely as possible; ideally, each team has 5 different engineering majors. Students do not create or sign a team contract. They are given a handout that defines roles they will perform for each lab:  Before the laboratory o Literature reviewer  During the laboratory o Leader o Data collector (Laptop or notebook) o Operator (physically conducts the lab, with assistance from others as needed)



After the laboratory (Report Writing) o Section writer (different ones for each report) o Compiler o Reviewer. The complier and reviewer roles are described three paragraphs down. Students are required to select different roles for each laboratory so as to take on as many different roles as possible. By having students vary roles and sectionwriting, they learn more skills and have less opportunity to “settle” into certain roles. For example, every student completes a literature review and uses Excel to enter and analyze data. Treatment A is designed for teams of 5. Each laboratory session is completed with a leader, 2 students physically conducting the lab, and 2 students recording and analyzing data on the fly; thus, Treatment A may allow for an effective use of larger teams. To sponsor individual accountability, teams submit three versions of each report:  The Rough Draft contains the raw sections as created by each section writer and combined by the compiler with each section's author's name placed next to each section title;  The Draft Report is the report after the compiler has addressed grammatical and spelling errors, style issues, and missing information (the compiler may send sections back to original author for a rewrite); and  The Final Report is the report after the reviewer has corrected errors and omissions left by the compiler. Professors only grade the final report, but may examine earlier versions to look for evidence of free-riding and poor performance, such as missing or poor sections, or poor compiling or reviewing. Students also identify their roles and evaluate themselves and their team members online. The peer evaluation consists of a numerical grade adjustment plus verbal justification. The average, maximum, and minimum of the peer grade adjustments are provided to each student before the next team activity, providing students with feedback that may lead to an improved effort on future team assignments. Peer evaluation results are used at the end of the semester to modify laboratory grades up to 10 % up or down. In all three sections, the professors used class time to introduce students to teamwork: 15 45, and 80 minutes, for the primary author and Professors Morgan and Mallouk, respectively. Each professor also provided further guidance in class as needed over the semester: 15, 30, and 50 minutes, respectively. Professors Morgan and Mallouk used Framework B-1 in their Treatment B sections. In the B-1 Framework, teams are formed as in Treatment A; however, no pre-defined roles are supplied or required. Students are given a handout

developed by R.M. Felder and R. Brent and reported by Oakley et al. that outlines team policies and responsibilities including suggested roles and procedures for completing group work (Kaufman et al., 2000). Team members create and commit to a Team Expectations Agreement, develop their own roles, and fill out a peer review form on paper after each laboratory report. The peer review form was based on the survey developed by Kaufman et al. (2000). Peer evaluation results were used to modify laboratory assignment grades as described by Kaufman et al. (2000). In their B-1 sections, the two professors used the same amount of class time as they used in their Treatment A sections to introduce students to working in teams: 45 and 80 minutes, respectively. They also used the same amount of time to follow up over the semester: 30 and 50 minutes, respectively. In the remaining 11 Treatment B sections (B-2), professors used a variety of methods to form, manage, and evaluate teams, based on their past experiences. In 4 sections, students were allowed to form their own teams. In the other 7, professors formed teams using major (6 sections), LCI (3 sections), gender (2 sections), and/or schedule (3 sections). In one section, the CATME survey for team formation was used (CATME, 2015). In seven of the sections a handout was given to students that provided guidance on working in teams. In the other four sections, no handout was provided. In five of the sections, students were required to develop and commit to team contracts, with little or no guidance from the professor. In the other six sections, no contract was required. In all 11 sections, professors used class time to introduce students to working in teams: ranging from 15 to 100 minutes and averaging 48. Follow-up time over the semester ranged from 0 to 200 minutes and averaged 44. The Treatments are compared using: (1) a student survey; (2) focus groups conducted in Professors Morgan and Mallouk’s four sections at the end of the semester; and (3) a professor survey. The survey questions were developed jointly by professor Everett and reviewed for clarity and consistency by professors Morgan and Mallouk. The student survey was completed online by 217 of 366 students, 59 %. The faculty survey was completed for all 16 sections, 100 %. Fifty students from Professor Morgan’s sections (98 %) and 37 students from Professor Mallouk’s sections (84%) attended focus sections. Statistical analyses were used to evaluate student survey results. T tests were conducted to evaluate differences in mean responses. The Chi-squared Goodness of Fit test was used when non-parametric tests were deemed more appropriate. The focus groups were conducted in a somewhat unique manner. Students formed 4 or 5 groups of 4 to 5 students each. Professors made sure that the groups were not similar to the teams they used during the semester. Each student in a group was responsible for recording the group’s discussion on one of five questions (see Appendix). As a class, each question was then discussed in more detail, to identify the differences in responses. Notes were taken to record

the conversation, and the student’s notes were collected. The focus group questions are: 1. What was your experience working on teams before coming to college? 2. What was your experience working on teams in this class? How did it compare to your other college courses this semester? 3. Describe a time that you took on a leadership role in your group this semester? 4. Describe your team’s method of editing a lab report? How effective was it? 5. How long did it take for your team to work successfully as a group? Describe what your team was successful at accomplishing? Describe what your team was unsuccessful at accomplishing? Did you meet in person, and if so, how often?

Results and Discussion The three Treatment A sections were compared to all 13 Treatment B sections. Student quotes provided in this section are from the focus groups held in Professors Morgan and Mallouk’s four sections. Students were not assigned to sections of the first-semester Introduction to Engineering course based on general academics or teaming abilities; thus, sections were expected to NOT differ significantly at the start of the semester. Two checks were made. The number of times students worked on a team to create a major laboratory report before college is given in Table 1. Over 30 % of the respondents reported no team reports, indicating the importance of teaching students about team work early in their college career. There was no significant difference between students in Treatments A and B (A/B: average=6.94/5.66; standard deviation=9.20/10.4; p=0.365). The large standard deviations are due to a relatively small number of student reporting very high report numbers. One student claimed to have worked on 50 team reports! It is possible that some students counted all team assignments, not just reports. Students were also asked to self-appraise their ability to work in teams at the start of the semester. The student responses were converted to numerical values: “Very Poor” = 1; “Poor” = 2; “Average” = 3; “Good” = 4; and “Excellent” = 5 to estimate averages and standard deviations and conduct statistical tests. There was no significant difference between Treatment A and B students (A/B: average=3.7/3.6; standard deviation=0.67/0.77; p=0.231). Based on report number and teaming ability Treatment A and B students were not significantly different at the start of the semester.

Table 1: Number of times students worked on a team to create a report before college

Number of Reports 0 1 2 3 4 5 to 10 >10 Total

Number of Students Giving Response 73 23 18 17 18 42 32 223

The average self-appraisal of teaming ability of ALL students increased significantly over the semester, from 3.6 to 4.3 (Start/End: standard deviation=0.74/0.66; p=0.000), indicating the students' entire first-semester experience had the expected positive effect. If Treatment A is a more effective method of teaching students to perform well on teams, one would expect Treatment A students to end the semester with a higher self-appraisal of their teaming ability. This was the case. Treatment A students self-appraised their teaming abilities slightly higher (statistically significant) at the end of the semester compared to Treatment B students (A/B: average=4.4/4.2; standard deviation=0.60/0.68; p=0.049). This better self-appraisal occurred despite writing slightly fewer reports (4.1 versus 4.3), serving on larger teams (4.7 versus 4.0), and populating larger sections (25.3 versus 23.2) in their first-semester Introduction to Engineering course. Furthermore, this difference occurred despite the fact that the treatment only occurred in only 1 of 5 courses each student took that semester. Of the overall observations from the Freshman Engineering Clinic focus groups, there are team examples that stand out. The first example is a team in Treatment B-1. One team member, who was an underperformer, was dominating the work of the entire team. Since their work was not meeting the requirements of the course, the team’s grades were suffering. Unfortunately, this student was also a difficult personality to work with, while at the same time not producing quality work for the team. Since roles were not assigned in this Treatment, this student insisted on completing the Experimental Procedure and Results and Discussion sections for each report, worth the most points, and as a result brought the team’s grade down. If this team had been in a Treatment A section, this student would have been required to write different sections for each lab. The compiler and reviewer would have also improved the student’s sections. The best educational practices obtain good results without requiring a different level effort from students. Table 2 is used to show students’ self-appraisal of the effort they expended in laboratory-related team work in their introduction to engineering course. The student responses are converted to numerical values: “Very Weak” = 1; “Weak” = 2; “Average” = 3; “Strong” = 4; and “Very Strong” = 5 to estimate averages and standard deviations and conduct statistical tests. The average for students in Treatment A is not significantly different than Treatment B’s average (A/B: average=4.1/4.0; standard deviation=0.62/0.78; p=0.463).

This indicates that the significantly higher end of semester ability is not due to a higher level of student effort. Table 2: Student self-appraisal of level of effort in laboratory-related team work

Answer Options Very Weak Weak Average Strong Very Strong Total

Treatment A 0 0 11 36 18 65

Treatment B 1 2 33 76 45 157

One objective of Treatment A is to motivate students to write different report sections. Students were asked how many different types of report sections they wrote over the course of the semester in their first-semester Introduction to Engineering course. The average is significantly higher for students in Treatment A (A/B: average=6.82/5.63; standard deviation=2.34/2.75; p=0.001), even though Treatment B teams were smaller and wrote more reports. Furthermore, 42 % of Treatment B students wrote 4 or fewer different sections and only 35 % wrote 7 or more. Contrast this to Treatment A students; only 16 % wrote 4 or fewer while 56 % wrote 7 or more. This indicates that Treatment A compelled students to write different sections, which should help them with future report writing. Surprisingly, though required to edit other students’ work, Treatment A students reported less editing of sections written by other students, but the difference was not significant (A/B: average=2.27/2.10; standard deviation=1.82/1.35; p=0.435). Some Treatment B students may have doubled up on editing duties (multiple students editing the same work), something that was not encouraged in the Treatment A framework. Another observation from the Freshman Engineering Clinic focus groups was from a student on a team in a Treatment A section. The student was pleased that team roles were pre-defined and rotated, as they believed that in a less structured environment they would have ended up doing most of the work. Treatment A gives students a structure they use to responsibly conduct labs and write, compile, and review reports. Consequently, Treatment A is expected to accelerate teams to the point where they perform, rather than form, storm, or norm (Tuckman, 1965). Student estimates of when their team started performing are given in Table 3. The student responses were converted to numerical values: “First major report” = 1; “Second major report” = 2; “Third major report” = 3; “Fourth major report” = 4; and “After the fourth major report” = 5 to estimate averages and standard deviations and to conduct statistical tests. An answer of “My team never performed” was taken to indicate that a group had structural problems that could not be overcome; such responses were not used to calculate statistical parameters. The average for students in Treatment A is significantly lower (A/B: average=1.60/2.00; standard deviation=0.78/1.09; p=0.002), indicating that students in that Treatment believed their teams reached a high level of performance sooner that Treatment B students. The guidance and

structure provided by Treatment A may have produced this result; however, student comments in the focus groups were similar between Treatments A and B-1. For example, one focus group in Treatment A reported: “It took only 1 to 2 activities to get used to our group members. The first lab, the solar lab, was when we found success in working together.” And a group in Treatment B-1: “For the first lab, no one really knew each other or what each other could do. As we progressed, everyone quickly learned what everyone was capable of doing, and those abilities were capitalized on.” Table 3: Major lab report on which laboratory teams began performing

Answer Options First major report Second major report Third major report Fourth major report After the fourth major report My team never performed* Total

Treatment A 27 20 10 1 0 5 63

Treatment B 60 45 34 4 8 3 154

The three Treatment B students that claimed their team never performed are in three different sections; thus, they are each the only member of their team feeling that way. Perhaps they were disgruntled or had higher standards or expectations than their team members. The five Treatment A students that claimed their team never performed are in three sections: 1, 2, and 2 per section. It could not be determined if the two pairs were on the same team. Treatment A forces teams to create and submit a record of each member's contributions, i.e., rough drafts. It also incorporates peer evaluations into grades. This is expected to discourage students from free riding. Students were asked to estimate the number of students on their team that free rode for at least one major report. The number of free riders was not lower in Treatment A sections; in fact, it was slightly higher though not significantly (A/B: average = 0.542/0.523; standard deviation = 0.543/0.524; p=0.438). Treatment A teams were larger; this could be the cause of the slightly higher number of free riders. It also may be that the better accounting for free riders within the Treatment A grading scheme freed some students to free ride with less feelings of guilt. Students in both Treatments A and B-1 noted the presence of free riders during the focus groups: “It can be very annoying when team members do not pull their own weight” (Treatment A) and “Most of the class was all teamwork, and every lab and final project was done in a team. Some people didn’t work as hard as expected” (Treatment B-1). Treatment A does not appear to decrease student tendency to free ride. However, students in Treatment B emailed their professors almost twice as often to report or get help concerning problems with their laboratory team (A/B: average = 0.286/0.587; standard deviation = 0.691/2.05; p=0.027). Treatment A may reduce team conflict, perhaps by providing students with an effective structure for completing reports and evaluating peers. Also, Treatment A students may be more confident that grading will take free riders

into proper account, because of the online peer evaluation tool and the submission of the two draft reports. The focus groups provide insight concerning the characteristics of successful teams. Students noted that regular communication and collaboration outside of class were important in working well as a team. In addition, no student dominated team activities, and all members participated in both the experiments and completing the finished report. Students on well-functioning teams understood that, if they all cooperated, there was less work for each student to complete. The teams that reported a lack of cooperation found it more difficult to complete assignments. Treatment A includes a laboratory leadership role. Each student is required to take on that role at least once during the semester. This forces students to take on more responsibility; it also prevents a single student from dominating over multiple lab sessions. Students were asked how often they assumed the leadership role (Figure 1). A Chi-Squared Goodness of Fit Test of the frequencies (shown in Figure 1 as percentages) indicates that the Treatments influence how often students’ take on the leadership role (p=0.000). To calculate the ChiSquared statistic, the top three categories were collapsed into a single “3” category, to ensure at least five observations per group. Over 50 % of Treatment B students never led a lab. Surprisingly, almost 25 % of Treatment A students also never led, indicating that this requirement should be emphasized more in the future. This was reflected in one of the focus groups for Treatment A in which a student noted: “We were not as successful at sticking to just our roles; we were trying to fill in too much and do other parts instead of our assigned part.” Treatment B students were also more likely to lead 3 or more labs, suggesting that some students dominated their teams. Students in the Treatment B-1 focus group indicated that assigning roles during lab tended to happen organically. One group stated: “Leadership was evenly distributed, and a single person only took charge when it was necessary. Decisions were determined through a more democratic system.”

Figure 1: Laboratory Session Leadership

If Treatment A is an effective method of teaching team skills it is expected to lead to better lab reports and a better student experience. This was not the case from the student perspective. Students were asked: "What OVERALL GRADE does your laboratory team deserve on its Major reports in FEC I?" (Figure 2). Students in Treatment A did not assign significantly different letter grades from Treatment B students (Chi-Squared p=0.481). To calculate the Chi-Squared statistic, the bottom seven categories were collapsed into a single “B” category, to ensure at least five observations per group. It may be that Treatment A does not result in lab reports of different quality, at least from the student’s perspective. Alternatively, Treatment A professors may have had higher expectations or standards, quite possible given their active participation in this study. This may have led to lower grades which could have effected students’ perception of the quality of their reports. In future work, the assessment of lab reports by external evaluators should be used.

Figure 2: Overall Lab Report Grade

Students’ self-appraisal of their teaming experience is given in Figure 3. Treatment A students reported higher percentages of OK, Good, and Wonderful assessments; however, a Chi-Squared Goodness of Fit Test of the frequencies indicates that the two treatments do not influence students’ self-appraisal of their team experience (p=0.678).

Figure 3: Student Appraisal of Experience with Teams in the Introduction to Engineering course

The analyses were repeated comparing only students in professors Morgan and Mallouk’s Treatment A and B-1 sections. Sixty-six percent of the students in the 4 sections responded to the survey. There was no significant difference in student effort between the treatments (p=0.157). The major feature of the B-1 sections was the use of team contracts. Students completed peer evaluations on paper rather than on-line. Roles were suggested, but not described. Role rotation was not required. B-1 represents an alternative state-of-the-art team framework. Many of the results were similar to the comparison using all sixteen sections (Table 5). Treatment A students wrote more different types of report sections. It also led to better leadership outcomes, e.g., 73 % of Treatment A students led at least one laboratory, compared to just under half of Treatment B-1 students. Some major differences were observed. Treatment B-1 students reported higher teaming abilities at the end of the semester (p=0.100); however, they also reported higher ability at the start of the semester (p=0.040). Treatment B-1 students emailed their professors LESS often to report or get help concerning problems with their laboratory team, but the difference was not significant (p=0.286). The average number of laboratory reports before teams began to perform was slightly lower for Treatment B students (p=0.055). This suggests that team contracts may be more effective than pre-defined roles at reducing internal conflict, and team performance.

The most telling differences in the student focus group results were in the responses to the question regarding leadership roles. Students in Treatment A were better able to articulate a time they took on a leadership role in their team. For teams in one Treatment B-1 section, students ended up taking on leadership roles when the experiments dealt mostly with their engineering discipline, since this is an interdisciplinary class with experiments based on each engineering field of study. Teams in Treatment A also reported having an easier time working together, since they had assigned roles. More incidents of miscommunication within the teams were reported in Treatment B-1, with students needing to meet more in person to organize the work distribution within the team. The teams in Treatment B-1 who failed to meet in person reported difficulties in preparing and editing the lab reports. Student responses to other questions asked of the focus groups brought to light similarities between treatment groups A and B-1. This information could reflect issues that face many student teams and could be used to help design future interventions in team design/management. For example, students in both treatment groups indicated that one of their major challenges was finding time to meet in person with their teams. For example, a student group in Treatment A noted: “The unsuccessful part of group work was the communication and our schedules, which were sometimes conflicting,” A group in Treatment B had almost the identical comment: “We were unsuccessful when it came to figuring out when to meet and communication was a little difficult at times over text [messages].” The faculty survey had a 100 % response rate and thus represents the faculty population for the course. Treatment B faculty met with an average of 1.2 individuals needing help or advice concerning problems with a laboratory team, while Treatment A faculty met with only 0.7. Similarly, Treatment B faculty met with an average of 0.9 teams needing help or advice concerning problems with a laboratory team, while Treatment A faculty met with only 0.7. On the other hand, Treatment A faculty remembered 2.3 emails from students seeking help or advice concerning problems with a laboratory team, versus only 0.9 for Treatment B faculty. Similarly, Treatment A faculty indicated that on average 2 of their laboratory teams had at least one significant conflict over the semester, versus only 1.1 for Treatment B faculty. It may be that the Treatment A faculty were more attuned to team performance, given their active participation in this study. Finally, Treatment A faculty observed an average of 2.7 reports before their teams began performing, versus 2.4 reports for Treatment B faculty. This contrasts sharply with the student reported averages of 1.3 and 2, respectively. Again, it may be that the Treatment A faculty had higher expectations or standards, quite possible given their active participation in this study. External evaluation of student reports should be used to assess this in future research.

Conclusions A framework for managing and guiding student teams was developed, described, and compared to less structured, but commonly used, methods. The framework (Treatment A) was used in three sections of a 16 section first-year

engineering course and involved guiding students to take on rotating roles during laboratory projects throughout the semester. Three versions of each report were submitted--rough draft, draft, and final--to make it easier to identify free-rider behavior during the report writing process. After each team assignment, students completed peer evaluations that were used to adjust final course grades. When compared to all 13 Treatment B sections the Treatment A framework resulted in improvements in students’ self-appraisal of their teaming abilities at the end of the semester, students writing more varied sections of laboratory reports, student teams more quickly entering the “performing” stage of the team adjustment phases, and more students taking on a leadership role at least once during the semester compared to the Treatment B framework. The Treatment A framework produced no reduction in free riders or increase in laboratory report quality, at least as observed or evaluated by students. While the submission of two draft reports does not appear to have significantly reduced free riding, in combination with online peer evaluation it may have reduced team conflict. Treatment A is recommended as a team framework. Some of the differences observed between the three Treatment A sections and all thirteen Treatment B sections disappeared when only comparing Professors Morgan and Mallouk’s A and B-1 sections. This might indicate that some of the differences observed in all sixteen sections may be teacher effects. Alternatively, the techniques used in the B-1 sections (primarily team contracts, role description, and paper peer evaluation) might be as or even more effective than Treatment A. Treatments A and B-1 are complimentary. Combining them is recommended as a team framework. The results from this research can be used to encourage faculty members to provide guidance to their student teams on ways to manage teamwork. Providing specific roles for each team member to rotate through gives students a basis for organizing their teams. It also makes them practice the typical roles employed by members of successful teams and gain experience writing a wide range of laboratory report sections. Enhanced team organization may also ease student communication and reduce team conflict, which helps team productivity overall, and provides students a strong foundation for working-world teamwork. Finally, requiring students to turn in specific drafts and having students evaluate each other may reduce team conflict and increase student confidence and comfort regarding team grading. The results also brought to light some common issues that student teams face that warrant further exploration. These issues include struggling to communicate well and finding times to meet in person. While the advent of programs such as Dropbox and Google Drive have made online collaboration easier, they do not necessarily serve as total replacements for face-to-face meetings. Finally, to determine if the quality of laboratory reports is affected by the treatment described here, external uniform evaluation should be employed in future research.

100

Acknowledgements This paper is an expanded version of a conference publication (© 2015 American Society for Engineering Education, ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Seattle, WA). This expanded version is published with the permission of ASEE. The authors express their gratitude to Dex Whittinghill, Associate Professor of Mathematics at Rowan University, for feedback regarding the statistical evaluations.

References Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating Member Ability and Personality to Work-Team Processes and Team Effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377-391. CATME. (2017, January 6)). CATME Team-Maker. Retrieved from http://info.catme.org/wp-content/uploads/Team-Maker_brochure__8_5x11_2013.pdf Dym, C. L., Wesner, J. W., & Winner, L. (2003). Social dimensions of engineering design: Observations from Mudd Design Workshop III. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 105-107. Dym, C., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103-120. Eide, A., Jenison, R., Mashaw, L. & Northup, L. (1998). Introduction to Engineering Design and Problem Solving, Ed. 2. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Everett, J. W., Morgan, J., Mallouk, K. & Stanzione, J. (2014). A Hybrid Flipped First Year Engineering Course. Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Indianapolis, IN. Felder, R. M & Brent, R. (2001). Effective Strategies for Cooperative Learning. Journal of Cooperation and Collaboration in College Teaching, 10(2), 69-75. Johnston, C. (1996). Unlocking the Will to Learn, Ed. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Johnston, J. (1997). Using the Learning Combination Inventory. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/dec97/vol55/num04/Using-the-Learning-CombinationInventory.aspx. Kaufman, D. B., Felder, R. M., & Fuller, H. (2000). Accounting for Individual Effort in Cooperative Learning Teams. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(2), 133-140. Kojmane, J. & Aboutajeddine, A. (2016). Strengthening engineering design skills of firstyear university students under resources constraints. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 44(2), 148–164. Najdanovic-Visak, V. (2017). Team-based learning for first year engineering students. Education for Chemical Engineers, 18, 26–34. Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning Student Groups into Effective Teams. Journal of Student-Centered Learning, 2(1), 8–33. Prince, M., Hyde, D., Mastascusa, E., Vigeant, M., Hanyak, M., Aburdene, M., Hoyt, B., & Snyder, W. (2001). Project Catalyst: Successes and Frustrations of Introducing Systemic Change to Engineering Education. Paper presented at 2001 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Albuquerque, NM. Samsuri N. S., Yusof K. M., Jumari N. F., Zakaria Z. Y., Hassan H., Che Man S. H.(2017). Developing Teamwork Skills among First Year Chemical Engineering Students using Cooperative Problem-Based Learning in “Introduction to Engineering”

101

Course. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 56, 1105-1110. DOI:10.3303/CET1756185. Schaffer, S., & Kimfong, L. (2006) "Supporting Collaborative Problem Solving in Engineering Design Teams," Paper presented at 36th Frontiers in Education Conference. San Diego, CA. doi: 10.1109/FIE.2006.322607. Shuman, L. J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET “Professional Skills” – Can They Be Taught? Can They Be Assessed? Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 41-55. Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom-Based Practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87-101. Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6):384-399.

102

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 102-110, July 2017

To What Extent Does the Medicalisation of the English Language Complicate the Teaching of Medical ESP to Japanese Medical Students Learning English as a Foreign Language? Abdullah Alami

Abstract. A detailed literature review was carried out in order to examine the current base of literature regarding the extent to which the medicalisation of the English language creates additional complications when teaching medical ESP to Japanese medical students. It was revealed that there is indirect evidence to suggest that students could potentially mistake medicalised English for medical ESP. However, it appears that no direct studies have been conducted on this subject. There is a dearth of literature about the medicalisation of English in general, and substantial gaps within the current base of knowledge. There are also deficiencies in some of the current studies into related areas. Further research is required in this area in order to fill the knowledge gaps and account for the weaknesses of previous studies. Keywords: ESP; medicalisation; Japanese; medical linguistics; EFL course.

Introduction At some Japanese universities, medical students are required to take EFL classes to equip them with the necessary language competencies that are required to engage in global innovation and help to push the field of medicine forwards. Implementing evidence-based medical practices also requires the reading of English language literature (Takada, 2012). Furthermore, English is generally regarded as the lingua franca of the medical world (Frînculescu, 2009), and becoming fluent in it enables participation in international collaboration with others within the field. A mastery of English is considered an integral facet of a rounded medical education. In addition to standard English words and phrases, students are also taught medical ESP (Takada, 2012). “ESP” stands for “English for Specific Purpose”, and is a term that is used to describe English words, phrases and grammatical constructions that are associated with a specific discipline or purpose (Sherko, Shumeli & Mine, 2014). The medical profession contains complex ESP that students are unlikely to have encountered elsewhere, hence the need for teaching it as part of medical courses (Faraj, 2015).

103

However, there is now a growing trend in English towards using language that is typically associated with the medical world to describe nonmedical situations. This is known as “medicalisation” (Anderson, 2012a). This creates the potential for confusing medical ESP with other similar figures of speech. The current study provides a detailed review of literature that sheds light upon the medicalisation of English in general, any issues that it might pose for EFL students, and any issues that are specific to Japanese learners has been carried out. It also includes an evaluation of the gaps within the current body of research and discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the texts that are reviewed.

Literature Review Anderson (2012b) has acknowledged the global and topical reach of medicalised English. It is used throughout the UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, most commonly by the media. Examples include the phrase “economically dyslexic” to mean people who lack basic financial expertise, the term “on steroids”, which usually follows a noun to indicate that a person or object is an exaggerated version of its usual form, and the word “workaholic”, which is used to refer to someone who is addicted to his or her work (Anderson, 2012b). According to Anderson (2012b), the medicalisation of English typically entails figuratively reinterpreting common non-medical conditions as diseases or illnesses that require treatment. This can lead to misunderstandings in which people believe that they are afflicted with an illness when in reality their problem does not have medical roots. If such miscomprehensions can occur for native English speakers, it is highly likely that EFL learners will mistake instances of medicalised English for references to genuine medical conditions. Anderson (2012b) has pointed out that scholars have attributed the tendency to speak about non-medical conditions as if they are caused by an illness to industrialised Western nations with socio-political foundations in Europe. This means that EFL students from other parts of the world are likely to be less familiar with this type of language. Whilst Japan is an industrialised nation, its socio-political foundations are distinctly Asian. Therefore, Japanese students might fail to recognise that medical ESP is being used to refer to non-medical contexts, and believe that medical conditions are being described in situations in which they are used as metaphors for non-medical conditions. See Figure 1 for a table showing examples of medicalised English, their meanings, and potential genuine medical characteristics that Japanese students might mistakenly perceive are being spoken about.

104

Figure 1: Examples of Medicalised English Medicalised word or phrase

Meaning

Medical condition that Japanese students could potentially mistakenly believe it refers to

Economically dyslexic

Lacking basic financial exper- Dyslexia tise

Calendar dyslexic

Never able to keep appointments

Workaholic

An individual who habitually Addiction works hard and/or long hours

Catatonically repeated narrative

Story that is repeated over and over again

Catatonia

“Economically cancerous”

Extremely bad for the financial situation of the nation

Cancer

“Warts and all”

Including features that are not attractive or appealing

Warts

“Gave me a heart attack”

Scared me a lot.

Heart attack.

Dyslexia

Source: Anderson (2012b).

However, there is nothing within Anderson‟s (2012b) writing to suggest that he can speak multiple languages or that he is familiar with a large number of foreign idioms. This suggests that his assertions about the countries that medicalised English are most commonly used in could be based upon conjecture. A more detailed study of idioms across a variety of different languages is required in order to shed light upon the validity of his statements. According to Rizq (2015), EFL students typically tend to find it particularly difficult to learn English metaphors and figures of speech. This is due to the strong link between figurative language and culture. English figures of speech are often inextricably interlinked to aspects of English culture that EFL learners might be unfamiliar with. Idioms can require knowledge of social norms and attitudes, beliefs and traditions associated with the country in which they originated. This means that many learners are likely to find medicalised English confusing, as they are less likely to understand the contextual elements that are required in order to make sense of it. Such confusion might mean that they are unable to differentiate it from medical ESP. Rizq (2015) references a plethora of previous studies to support his assertions, and also cites anecdotal evidence from EFL classes. He also uses documented cases of teachers failing to teach idioms to EFL learners in support of his statements. It appears that his paper is grounded in a wealth of evidence, both research-based and linked to real-world experiences.

105

Xiao (2016) has noted that EFL learners frequently make the mistake of taking figures of speech literally. This is due in part to the fact that English words and their literal meanings typically form the central basis of learning it as a second language. This is to the exclusion of potential idioms and metaphorical usages. Research indicates that EFL students are able to determine that commonly used figures of speech are not to be taken literally to a greater extent than rarer figures of speech (Xiao, 2016). This means that some pieces of medicalised English are likely to be more problematic for them than others. Whilst terms like “workaholic” and “mondayitis” are in common use, phrases like “economically dyslexic” are arguably considerably rarer. Confusion in this area could potentially lead to EFL medical students who are learning medical ESP believing that words and phrases that are derived from medical terms but are not actually medical in their nature are examples of medical ESP. They might end up incorrectly using these terms. It could also result in them assuming that some examples of medical ESP are actually metaphors and that they do not refer to medical conditions. However, there does not appear to have been any studies that have examined which items of medicalised English are the most frequently used. This represents a substantial gap within the current body of research. If it is truly the case that such phrases are likely to be more confusing to EFL students then there is value to be gained from identifying them so that extra attention can be given to teaching them to medical students. Littlemore, May and Arizono (2016) have noted that Japanese EFL learners are particularly bad at understanding humorous English figures of speech. Many of the examples of medicalised English that were put forward by Anderson (2012b) are humorous in their nature, for example the phrase “catatonically repeated narrative”, which has been used to refer to a genre of books that is extremely repetitive with regards to its content. It has humorously been compared to the repetitive actions that are sometimes carried out by individuals who suffer from catatonia. Another example of a humorous piece of medicalised English is the phrase “calendar dyslexic”. It has been jokingly used to refer to people who are never able to keep appointments (Anderson, 2012b). It is likely that some patients might be more prone to using humorous medicalised English in a medical setting, given the fact that the environment would remind them of such turns of phrase. It is arguable that Japanese medical students should be made aware of such phrases when they are learning English so that they can tell them apart from genuine medical ESP. Littlemore, May and Arizono (2016) also noted that Japanese EFL learners are not adept at identifying the meanings of figures of speech that are used for the purpose of hyperbole. Many of the pieces of medicalised English identified by Anderson (2012b) also fall within this category. An example of this is “a comatose career” “Anderson, 2012b). Claridge (2011) defines hyperbole as exceeding the credible limitations of fact within the given context in order to emphasise a specific characteristic of a given person, object or concept. In this case, the extent to which a career is inactive is made to exceed the realms of possibility by suggesting that it has actually fallen into a coma.

106

This means that Japanese medical students could potentially confuse hyperbolic medicalised English with phrases used to describe genuine medical conditions. It suggests that special attention should be given to teaching them to recognise the use of hyperbole in English so as to avoid such confusion. It implies that they could benefit from being taught a list of commonly used hyperbolic pieces of medicalised English so that they are aware that they are not medical ESP. However, it is notable that Littlemore, May and Arizonoâ&#x20AC;&#x;s (2016) assertions are based upon a study of only 22 Japanese EFL learners. It is possible that their findings cannot be generalised to Japanese learners as a whole. Further research with a larger number of subjects is required into the ability of Japanese EFL students to learn figures of speech involving humour and hyperbole. Azuma (2009) studied the relationship between general competence at English and understanding of English metaphors in Japanese EFL students. He concluded that students who have a worse overall grasp of the English language also tend to have a poorer understanding of English metaphors (Azuma, 2009). This suggests that Japanese medical students who are perhaps not achieving at as high a standard as their peers in terms of learning English could be particularly confused by medicalised English. It indicates that they are especially vulnerable to misunderstandings in which examples of medicalisation are misinterpreted as references to genuine medical conditions. According to Azuma (2009), Japanese EFL students are more likely to fail to recognize figures of speech and take them literally in instances in which they are presented out of context. Medicalised English is unlikely to be used in this manner in a medical setting. It is more probable that it would be used within full sentences, which gives the students a better chance of differentiating it from medical ESP. This suggests that if medicalised language is taught to Japanese medical students so that they can tell it apart from medical ESP, it might not be useful to present them with a list of medicalised English terms and ask them to identify the meanings. It would be better to use both medicalised English and medical ESP in context within conversations and ask them to differentiate between the two. This would not only be easier, but would also be more similar to a real-life situation. However, it is notable that Azumaâ&#x20AC;&#x;s (2009) statements derive from research that only included 109 participants. This means that the findings might not necessarily be applicable to Japanese EFL students as a whole. There is also evidence that people who are learning English as a second language can often be familiar with English figures of speech, but unable to use them in context within a sentence (Shleykina, 2016). This indicates that Japanese medical students could benefit from being taught to use instances of medical English in their own speech. However, care should clearly be taken in order to ensure that they avoid ambiguous phrases that could be interpreted by others as referring to medical situations. David (2014) has pointed out that many scholars believe that the construction of metaphors and figures of speech in Japanese is radically different from their English counterparts. This could make it harder for Japanese learners to recognise when medicalised English is being used and when medical ESP is being used. It implies that Japanese medical students learning medical ESP

107

should be taught to recognise English metaphors before specifically tackling the subject of medicalised English. This will provide them with a foundation of knowledge from which they can base their subsequent learning. However, David (2014) has questioned the views of the previous scholars, and claimed that the view that Japanese metaphors and figures of speech are substantially different than those of the West is an exaggeration. He has stated that a lot of observations made about Japanese language and culture, ones that are routinely claimed to be unique or even bizarre, can be explained away by pointing out the common embodied underpinnings of those conceptualizations, which are shared by all human beings of whatever cultural persuasion, but which have different surface manifestations, (where „surface‟ refers to overt linguistics forms and overt customs) (David, 2014, p. 5-6). Although this suggests that the metaphors are frequently rooted in the same concepts as their Western equivalents, it still indicates that the form in which they appear is often far removed from that of English figures of speech. This supports the notion that Japanese learners might struggle to recognise such radically different constructions for metaphorical expressions. It is possible that the fact that Japanese medical students have been taught medical ESP will help them to recognise medicalised English phrases, as it will mean that they are familiar with the composite words. However, according to Kim (2015), if idioms contain familiar words, it can sometimes make EFL learners think they are familiar with the idiom in spite of them not actually knowing what the metaphorical meaning associated with the combination of those words is. This is another factor that could potentially lead to Japanese medical students confusing medicalised English with medical ESP. The fact that they have seen the medical terms involved in medicalised English phrases might cause them to assume that they have come across the phrases before in whilst learning medical ESP, which might cause them to mistakenly believe that they refer to genuine medical situations. Another point to consider is the fact that many pieces of medicalised English are used to convey controversial opinions, for example the phrase “economically cancerous”, which can be used to denote someone who is extremely bad for a country‟s financial status (Anderson, 2012b). Comparing someone to cancer is not only disrespectful, but also expressing a somewhat extreme opinion. In Japan, strong, controversial opinions are often left unexpressed in order to preserve harmony (Cutrone, 2015). This could lead to Japanese medical students assuming that English speakers would feel the same, and that they must have been using a term literally because its figurative meaning could potentially lead to offence being taken. It is also worth taking into consideration the fact that the medicalisation of language is not unique to English; Cherry (2017) and Ishida (2011) have identified a number of different Japanese phrases that are derived from medical conditions, and could potentially be confused with them. These phrases are presented in Figure 2. This means that the notion of medicalised language is not likely to be entirely foreign to Japanese medical students. It suggests that they will have at least some knowledge of it as a concept, which could be an asset

108

when learning to differentiate examples of medicalised English from medical ESP. Figure 2: Examples of Medicalised Japanese Phrases Phrase

English translation

Meaning

Medical condition that non-Japanese students could potentially mistakenly believe it refers to

Parasaito shinguru

Parasite singles

Unmarried men in their thirties who depend upon their parents whilst living a carefree life

Parasitic infection

Sekkusu shinai sokogun

Celibacy syndrome

The trend towards Japanese men and women refraining from having sex, leading to a declining birth rate

One of a number of different conditions that leads to loss of sexual appetite

Koshi o nukasu

Collapse one‟s hips

Be paralysed by fear or surprise

Broken hip

Koshi ga nukeru

One‟s hips collapse

Be paralysed by fear or surprise

Broken hip

Source: Cherry (2017) & Ishida (2011).

Discussion Although there is a great deal of literature available that indirectly shed light upon the topic of the medicalisation of English and EFL speakers‟ potential for confusing it with genuine medical terminology, there appears to be a dearth of research that directly studies this phenomenon. There is also a lack of information about the medicalisation of English in general. The only reputable academic sources that deal with this issue are by Anderson, and he appears to have made some assertions about the nations in which it is used without sufficient evidence to back up his claims. Some of the studies that indirectly shed light upon how the medicalisation on English is likely to impact upon Japanese EFL medical students also include a small number of participants, which is likely to skew the results. There is also literature available that uses a firm foundation of evidence to draw its conclusions from, for example Rizq (2015). However, it fails to cover issues such as the role of hyperbole and humour in misunderstandings involving the medicalisation of English. A number of different possible sources of complications to the teaching of medical ESP associated with the medicalisation of the English language have

109

emerged from the literature. There is evidence that students with a poorer overall grasp of English might be particularly poor at interpreting English figures of speech (Azuma, 2009), which could result in them struggling even more when it comes to differentiating medicalised English from medical ESP. EFL learners also find it more difficult to learn rarer idioms, and some pieces of medicalised English fall within this category as well (Xiao, 2016), which might compound the issue. In addition to these points, EFL learners can sometimes mistakenly think they know what figures of speech mean if they contain words that they are familiar with, and medical students will clearly know much of the medical ESP involved in medicalised English. The fact that Japanese speakers sometimes avoid expressing controversial opinions, and numerous examples of medicalised English are aimed at doing this complicates this issue even further.

Conclusion In conclusion, there have been no studies to date that have extensively examined the extent to which the medicalisation of the English language complicates the teaching of medical ESP to Japanese medical students learning English as a foreign language. Whilst there have been some papers written in this vague area, there is clearly a need for additional research. However, there is still some indication that this phenomenon might lead to confusion. It has the potential to be confused for genuine medical jargon when it is spoken in hospital settings.

Recommendations It appears that Japanese medical students could benefit from learning medicalised English so that they can differentiate it from medical ESP. In particular, they should pay attention to humorous and hyperbolic medical English. They could also be trained in recognising when medical terminology is used in figures of speech and when it is to be taken literally. This would help to avoid misunderstandings, which can sometimes be extremely costly in a medical setting. Research could also be carried out that directly addresses the question of what the precise impact of medicalised English upon Japanese medical studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x; grasp of medical ESP is. The extent of medicalised language in non-Englishspeaking countries could also be studied, and further research aimed at ascertaining which items of medicalised English are the most commonly used could be conducted. This could potentially influence the way in which medicalised English is taught to EFL learners.

References Anderson, J. (2012a). Sick English: Medicalization in the English language. Vocabula Review, 14(11), 1. Anderson, J. (2012b). Sick English. Seattle, WA: CreateSpace. Azuma, M. (2009). Positive and negative effects of mother-tongue knowledge on the interpretation of figurative expressions. Papers in Linguistic Science, 15, 165-192. Cherry, K. (2017). Womansword: What Japanese words say about women. Berkeley, CA: Stone Bridge Press. Claridge, C. (2011). Hyperbole in English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cutrone, P. (2015). Examining potential sources of miscommunication between Japan and the West: Using Grice to bridge the sociolinguistic gap for Japanese EFL learners. Asian EFL Journal, 17(2), 37-76.

110

David, O. (2014). Constructing the Japanese self: Perspectives from Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Retrieved from http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~oana/self.pdf Faraj, B. (2015). English for medical education in EFL context. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 3(1), 121-148. Frînculescu, L. (2009). The physiology of English as a lingua franca in medicine. Fiziologia, 19(2), 4-6. Ishida, P. (2011). Corpus data and the treatment of idioms in Japanese monolingual dictionaries. In J. Szerszunowic, B. Nowowiejski, K. Yagi & T. Kanzaki (Eds.), Focal Issues of Phraseological Studies (Vol. 1) (pp. 101-127). Bialystok, Poland: University of Bialystok Publishing House. Kim, C. (2015). L2 learners‟ recognition of unfamiliar idioms composed of familiar words. Language Awareness, 1-2, 89-109. Littlemore, J., May, A. & Arizono, S. (2016). The interpretation of metonymy by Japanese learners of English. Retrieved from http://pure%2doai.bham.ac.uk/ws/files/25527932/The_interpretation_of_met onymy_by_Japanese_learners_of_English_AM_and_SA_Corrected.pdf Rizq, W. (2015). Teaching English idioms to L2 learners: ESL teachers’ perspective. Retrieved from http://repository.stcloudstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=e ngl_etds Sherko, E., Shumeli, A. & Mine, L. (2014). Strategies and approaches in teaching compounding and derivation in ESP classes. Anglisticum Journal, 3(6), 41-45. Shleykina, G. (2016). The speech act of greeting performed by Russian EFL learners. Retrieved from https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/48870/Shleykina_okstate_0664D _14649.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Takada, K. (2012). Tokyo Medical and Dental University. Journal of Medical English Education, 11(3), 72-75. Xiao, F. (2016). An empirical study of figurative competence of Chinese EFL learners. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(11), 806-810.