The interviews placed an emphasis on a range of views on the modular system, with a majority of teachers describing the ELI modules as not being able to effectively develop students’ proficiency. Some of the issues refer to the short duration of the courses, low proficiency levels upon entry and conflict with other courses. Some teachers also made reference to the constant change in teaching staff across modules which may disadvantage students, as they need to become accustomed to the different modes of delivery and teaching styles.
Upon entry, students often had low competency in English and therefore some teachers felt that it was unfair that they should be expected to complete four English modules over a short period of 24 weeks. It was also pointed out that, surprisingly, the English language programme is the only university course designed on a modular basis, while all other university programmes are based on a semester system. Participant 3 felt that unlike the modular system, the semester system is more flexible it allows for some extra time for ‘when it rains, when things go wrong’. In the modular system, ‘if you lose a day, it has a really big
impact on the whole pacing of the curriculum’. She further pointed out that ‘there is not enough time to test the material, you know when you stuff two books is just too much, you can teach it, but I don’t think students can digest it’. Participant 3 further argued that while the OOPT appears to be effective in placing students in the right level, she felt that students ‘don’t really progress as fast as the book progresses’ before they move on to a higher level. She also noted that she observed a difference between students who progressed from level 1 to level 2 compared to those who entered in level 2 because of their scores in the OOPT. She said that ‘you would get students especially in module 2 coming in better and with much higher levels than the book’. This seems to indicate that as a result of the reduced contact time, teachers are not able to cover all materials in the book, which is set for the level that they teach. Some teachers made reference to the fact that students who are placed in a higher level because of their OOPT scores generally have better competency than those, which progressed to higher levels through the modular system.
Some participants, however, looked at the role teachers can play in supporting students’ language learning and felt that more could be done. Some argued that having fewer teachers throughout the course of the year would be preferable, as this would ensure continuity across the modules. However, some viewed having a larger number of teachers as an advantage as this would allow students to experience a range of different teaching approaches and be exposed to both native and non-native teachers of English, thus making the experience more varied. Participant 5 commented that one of the good things of the modular system is that the students will benefit from having several teachers. Instead of having two teachers in one year, students will go through four or maybe six teachers because they also have co-teachers for some modules. This will expose students to teachers from different backgrounds.
Among other issues with the modular system, conflict with other courses and exams also emerged as affecting students’ learning in the programme. This, at times, meant that students had to take an exam within their subject area, which was scheduled at the same time as their English class. Participant 3 pointed out that ‘we are the only department that follow the modular system, it creates a lot of conflict, other exams do not correspond to ours’. Participant 10 also argued that she didn’t feel the modular system was very successful in her university. She claimed that:
Students in the foundation year study many courses beside the English subject, which make them usually busy and do not have enough time for all subjects. This demotivates them and usually they complain about the long hours of classes before or after which they have other classes. Also, it happens that students have other subjects' exams during English classes like the Midterm exams, which force them not to attend the English classes. This can add to the idea that all other subjects in the university are semester based not modular based. All these factors can affect the students negatively.
It would appear that one of the issues that the university would need to take into consideration certainly concerns the timetabling of exams scheduled according to the semester system to ensure they do not conflict with the foundation year English language programme.
Stage 2 - The questionnaire:
The Likert-type questions in the questionnaire may be grouped into three broad categories: 1. Background data, 2. Teachers’ views on the OOPT, 3. Teachers’ views on students’ prior learning experience and 4. Teachers’ views on the ELI modules (in particular the modular system). The initial interviews (Stage 1), were helpful in designing items for the questionnaire and they provided an insight into the views of a small number of teachers. Drawing from this initial data meant that the questionnaire items were very specific and, in some instances, served to explore whether similar responses would be obtained across a much larger sample. Question 9 on the questionnaire, for instance, reads: 9. Science students perform better than Art students. This question drew from the comments elicited by some teachers with regards to the difference in performance and ability between Science and Arts students. Other questions, however, drew primarily from the literature review, such as item 8 on the questionnaire: 8. Students need to be prepared for this kind of test (Online test). The Stage 1 interviews did not ask participants to comment on whether they felt students need to prepare for the OOPT. This question was later included in Stage 3, the telephone interviews. In this case the interviews followed up on a finding from the questionnaire.
Teacher responses were coded and inserted into an excel sheet, and these were then imported into SPSS version 24. The major questions were the Likert-type scale questions (19 questions), which were then followed by open-ended and closed-ended questions.
Open and closed-ended questions asked the participants to state their age, qualification, nationality, length of teaching experience and familiarity with the OOPT. The results are shown in the table below.
Table 3. Summary of participants’ background
AGE AGE RANGE NUMBER OF
PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE 25-30 4 6.8% 31-36 20 33.9% 37-42 24 40.7% 43-48 6 10.2% Over 49 5 8.5% QUALIFICATION BA / MA / PhD NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE Bachelor’s Degree 15 24.6% Master’s Degree 40 65.6% PhD 6 9.8% NATIONALITY SAUDI 26 42.6% NON/SAUDI 36 57.4% YEARS OF EXPERIENCE EXPERIENCE
RANGE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE
1-5 7 11.3%
6-11 23 37.1%
12-17 16 25.8%
18-23 10 16.1%
Over 24 6 9.7%
OOPT FAMILIAR / NOT NUMBER OF
PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE
FAMILIAR 21 35.5%
NOT FAMILIAR 40 64.5%
The age range of participants was subdivided into five categories: 1 (25-30), 2 (31-36), 3 (37- 42), 4 (43-48) and 5 (over 49). The third age group i.e. (37-42) was the largest group of respondents and contributed to slightly more than 40% of the total number of participants. Furthermore, the second age group accounted to slightly more than a third. In addition, age group one, four and five, each accounted to more or less 10% of the 59 participants.
Concerning teachers’ qualifications, most of the participants stated that they held Master’s degrees, (65.6%), followed by those holding Bachelor’s degrees (24.6%) and by those holding PhDs (9.8%). Questions concerning their nationalities, revealed that the majority of the participants were non-Saudi (57.4%) and Saudi citizens accounted for 42.6%. Concerning years of teaching experience, most participants indicated that they had between 6 and 11 years of experience teaching English, accounting for 37.1% of the 62 participants. This was followed by 25.8% of participants, with ranges from 12 to 17 years of experience, 16.1% who had between 1 and 5 years of experience and 9.7% who had over 24 years of teaching experience. Furthermore, with reference to familiarity with the OOPT, 35.5% of participants indicated that they were familiar with the test, while the majority, 64.5% stated that they were unfamiliar with it.