Students' Evaluation of their English Language Learning Experience

Maizatulliza Muhamad,R Kiely

doi:10.21093/di.v17i2.837

Abstract

In the field of English language teaching and learning, there is a long history of investigating students’ performance while they are undergoing specific learning programmes. This research study, however, focused on students’ evaluation of their English language learning experience after they have completed their programme. The data were gathered from 20 semi-structured interviews with 10 ‘good’ students and 10 ‘weak’ students emphasizing on factors which contributed to their proficiency level, preferred teaching approaches and learning strategies as well as their overall learning experience. The qualitative analysis indicated some different views between the ‘good’ and the ‘weak’ students in terms of their proficiency level and the contributing factors to their success (or lack of) in learning English. They however, shared similar opinion on preferred teaching approaches, learning strategies and classroom experience. The results have implications for pedagogy as they highlight some insights which may facilitate success in English language learning.

Highlights

The ‘good’ and the ‘weak’ students represent the two different spectra of the end products of a language teaching and learning programme
Instead of focusing on the process and the product, we intend to look at only the product – students learning outcomes which position them as ‘good’ and ‘weak’ students – their thinking and their accounts of practice with regards to the followings: a) their proficiency level; b) factors that contributed to their proficiency level; c) preferred teaching approaches; d) preferred learning strategies; and e) preferred classroom learning experience
One of the main issues related to Communicative Language Teaching approach (CLT) is the focus on form (FoF) practice (Spada & Lightbown, 2008; Loewen, 2005; Ellis et al, 2002)

Summary

Introduction

The ‘good’ and the ‘weak’ students represent the two different spectra of the end products of a language teaching and learning programme. Based on the main guiding interview questions, we categorised each response by the students under the following codings: a) students’ evaluation of their proficiency level; b) factors that contributed to their proficiency level; c) preferred teaching approaches; d) preferred learning strategies; and e) preferred classroom learning experience. The summary above suggests that ‘good’ and ‘weak’ students had different views in terms of self evaluation as well as the factors that contributed to their level of English language proficiency.

Results

Conclusion