Dr. Muhammad Yousuf Sharjeel Research Paper AJSR

American Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 1450-223X Issue 49 (2012), pp. 131-143

© EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2012

http://www.eurojournals.com/ajsr.htm

Effect of Skill-Oriented Language Teaching Strategy on

the Performance of Non-Native Higher Education

Students: A Case of Pakistani Universities

Muhammad Yousuf Sharjeel

Associate Professor, Iqra University

Abid Town, Block-2 Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, Pakistan

E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: +92214800670-4; Fax: +92214987806

Wasim Qazi

Professor, Iqra University

Abid Town, Block-2 Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, Pakistan

E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: +92214800670-4; Fax: +92214987806

Abstract

Skill-oriented language teaching strategy, SOLTS in Pakistani universities and the

performance of non-native English language students are integral aspects of learning for

professional excellence. This helps comprehend the notion that language learners’

competency comprises skills in listening comprehension, speaking, reading comprehension,

writing and grammatical structures. Most universities in Pakistan do not train students in

the five skills separately. Conventional language teaching practices followed by three-hour

testing affect non-native students’ performance in academic contexts. These practices

promote rote-learned language items that examiners use and repeat intermittently.

Consequently, non-native English students’ mastery in English is affected.

Two groups of non-native higher education students n = 237 participated in the

study. The teaching strategy of the experimental group was skill-oriented whereas the

control group was taught using conventional method to measure the effect size. The study

found that Skill-oriented language teaching strategy was significantly better at alpha, the

type I error using 0.05 level of significance and beta the type II error < 0.2 with sample size

n = 237. The ANOVA model using the independent sample t-test yielded a power of the

test as 1-β = 0.96. The hypothesis tests generated significant power as part of Meta analysis

following the technical guidelines of Cohen, J. (1988). The psychological assessment

through Likert Scale generated a reliability index, Cronbach Alpha = 0.74.

Keywords: Skill-oriented language teaching strategy, conventional language teaching,

rote-learned language items, effect size, type I error, type II error, power of

test.

Effect of Skill-Oriented Language Teaching Strategy on the Performance of

Non-Native Higher Education Students: A Case of Pakistani Universities 132

Introduction English language teaching strategies at higher education in Pakistan play a pivotal role in developing

non-native students’ skills in professional context. In this context, a critical factor is relationship

between the individuals’ learning behaviour and teachers’ competency to deliver the language contents

effectively in formal scholastic settings. Non-skill oriented English language teaching practices at

higher education level have had an unfavourable impact on students’ English language performance in

both examinations and real life situations. Students’ mastery in the current English content area at

higher education is associated with an ability to produce assessor-friendly knowledge-oriented

responses through a three-hour written form only. Despite having achieved excellence marks in the

examinations, the sub-skills of these higher education English students remain incompetent.

This form of summative assessment of English language does not help higher education

English students attain skills-oriented performance. The assessment of English language proficiency at

present in most of the higher education institutions in Pakistan is summative in nature rather than

continuous summative assessment. Consequently, this non-skill oriented assessment of proficiency in

English at higher education disregards the potential of students in English in different skills. This

practice also de-emphasizes the fact that English language proficiency does not come through passing

English language examinations in written form only.

On the other hand, the demand for the English language in professional contexts has urged the

higher educational institutions to embark on a journey of exploring newer ways that conform with the

international methods of assessing higher education students’ English language skills. This has been so

to foster genuine English language teaching and learning that can be competent to interact in the fast-

paced modern world. Techniques of teaching English language at higher education in Pakistan are not

productively followed by the assessment procedures that need to be pragmatic and predominantly skill-

oriented. Consequently, urgency has bred amongst the higher education institutions to strengthen the

current English language teaching strategy to foster skill-oriented linguistic acquisition. The study was

based on these questions: 1) How different are conventional and skill-oriented performances of non-

native higher education English students? 2) What parameters can determine the significant effect of

skill-oriented language teaching strategy at higher education? 3) What is the impact of a conventional

three-hour written English language examination on the performance of students in real life context? 4)

Does SOLTS improve the self-esteem and confidence of higher education students?

The study is justified in that it highlights measures that can augment higher education student’s

performance in English language. The study of this magnitude was not known to the investigators

neither was an efficient tool known to the investigators that they could use to measure the actual

competency of higher education English language students. It also emerged from the work of Ancess &

Hammond (1994) who carried out a study on authentic assessment procedures through a model of

testing linguistic performance.

Perspectives Through Literature The test of listening comprehension, speaking, reading comprehension and writing along with the test

of grammatical structures is pivotal in testing the skills of students at higher education. Most

international language tests such as TOEFL and IELTS also emphasize on the same pattern. Sheingold,

Storms, Thomas & Heller (1997) in their report also stress on the skill-oriented language tests. The

authors imply the need for testing higher education students’ performance in English through authentic

standardized testing with focus on students English language skills.

Foxcraft & Davies (2006) describe guidelines for skills test in language through computer and

Internet-delivered language testing. In the similar fashion, Hambleton & Patsula (1999) explain the

importance of increasing the validity of adapted language tests. They categorically emphasize on myths

to be avoided and suggest guidelines for improving higher education English language tests.

133 Muhammad Yousuf Sharjeel and Wasim Qazi

Brophy (1982) also affirms that the teachers’ role and qualifications need to match with the

expectation that they have about the students’ performances in the formal language learning situations.

This context can be compared with the language teacher’s skills and knowledge at a higher educational

institution too where the instructor’s perceived performance from students usually does not seem to

correlate with their expectations. Consequently, the skills of such students in a language class remains

under standards. Ferris (1994) in his work has significantly stressed on the rhetorical strategies

employed in the context of second language learning as part of a programme in effective persuasive

writing skills. His contribution in this regard elaborates the differences between the attitude and

aptitude of native and non-native English language speakers in global context. This can be contrasted

with the fact that the native speakers who become language teachers expect that their non-native higher

education students of English would learn the language through skill development as they themselves

were trained and developed. This teacher expectation envisions a radical change in students’ language

learning process.

This was witnessed by Allen (1966) who examined the roles and performances of the language

students in the conventional language classes. Arva & Medgyes (2000) also presented an account of

what it makes to be proficient in the language teaching professions and observed how the native and

non-native English students perform in the formal pedagogic scenarios. Astor (2000) points out the

differences in the skills and attitude of native and non-native teachers of English language. They also

see the attitude of these instructors while they engage learners in tasks during classrooms. The study of

Canagarajah (1999) leads to other beliefs that sometimes the native speakers’ non-fallacy leads to

under achievement of language students with regards to their skills. Barratt & Contra (2000) stresses

the expectations of native-speaking teachers of English in cultures other than their own. This research

significantly encompasses the role of native English teachers and the perceived challenges that these

teachers may have to experience while teaching non-native English students.

This contrast leads to believing that a professionally competent native English language

instructor at the higher education has to keep the mother-tongue related assumptions in control. The

perspectives, challenges and classroom psychodynamics are also a part of Cook (2005). The author

advocates the significance of second language learners’ skills in English. Although Cook’s study lights

issues and challenges that ELT experts and professionals experience, the contrast between the native

and non-native speakers who become English teachers is not evidently supportive. The text could have

been more conducive to ELT professionals in terms of students’ skills in English.

Crozier (2006) advises the non-home country English teachers to be productive while they

engage the language learners through active instructions. The article is interesting to draw valid

conclusions about the instructions given to second language learners, but it cannot be taken as a rule of

thumb since the experiences and expectations of both the ELT teacher and the taught do not remain

identical in all learning situations. An instructional framework designed primarily for the sake of

English as a second language is entirely different than the one that has been designed for the skill

development of non-native higher education students.

Swale (1993) advocates the use of lexical importance. He holds that teaching higher education

students in the present time has to be linked with the future implication using syntax and situations to

make the conversations more meaningful. He contrasted between the trends of past, present and

expected future implications. This in particular is interesting to realize that while teaching language

development programme in English as a second language to non-native speakers of English, one has to

ponder over the implied meanings that a student would have to deal with in real life experiences. This

connection seems to be missing in conventional English language classrooms in higher education at

present in Pakistani context. Richards & Rogers (1986) describe that teachers of English must

comprehend the necessary cultural components of language teaching while dealing with adult students

of English. Their work on approaches and methods in modern content delivery in English has to be

significantly appreciated as this is the link through which adult English language learners at higher



education system can absorb the pressure of expressions in the desired language through improving

their skills.

Broady and Kenning (2007) illustrate concerns of higher education English language teachers.

Their concerns comprise the historical and intellectual autonomy in language teaching strategies. The

research describes the functions of language teaching and counseling, information technology and its

potential for disseminating language-related experiences and teacher’s perspective to examine learners’

views and attitudes.

Classification of language teaching strategies is also described in professional context in the

study of Watanabe (1999). The writer emphasizes that language teaching strategies encompass a

greater sense of cultural harmony. An instructor, therefore not only develops the skills of students, but

also opens the doors of cognitive horizons of the people of non-native language origins to bring them

closer to the English language culture. Bedell & Oxford (1996) explain a case of China. They worked

on cross-cultural differences in language learners across China and other states where the non-native

language learners of English receive instruction in English. They found that the difference in learning

styles amongst the non-native students of English was the prime cause of differences in their learning

behaviour too. This contrast also develops a concern in the language teaching strategies in Pakistan at

higher education level. While engaging the students in the tasks of learning, the organization of higher

education can run parallel programmes to harmonize English language contents with the real world

native people. This attempt is very likely to urge the students of English as a second or foreign

language to explore more about the language. Workshops, seminars and training sessions on spoken

English skills are the key devices to bring this change and introduce a culture of collegiality amongst

the learners. Weaver et.al (2004) assert that if the students in formal learning situations are presented

with a list of speaking strategies, they can perceive the task of speaking in the real life situations.

Weinstein (2005) suggests that elaborating skills as language learning strategy helps teaching

process and sets a path towards accomplishing required skills competently. If the students are taught to

point out their own strengths and weaknesses, they can learn to adapt to a system of self-correction and

self-motivation. Maser (1992) elaborates that the difference between the native and non-native learners

of English language lies in the fact that the native learners care more for the politeness of sound and

pronunciation through a natural process whereas the non-native learners have to do the same by putting

stress on words that they find uneasy to pronounce. The researcher found out this through a sample of

business letters that he perused to find the difference in the two groups of learners. Green & Hecht

(1985) also identified the difference in skill assessment of learners whose first language is English and

those who are non-natives. They compare the mistakes by the two types of learners while writing

compositions.

The empowered aspects of English language skills as a source of professional assistance over

other languages are also supported in the study of Kaplan (2001). The writer advocates the vibrant use

of English language skills in everyday life and professional life. Tonkyn (1994) writes that

grammatical structures in language classrooms generate the functional mechanism in the minds of non-

native students. The writers further comments that while teaching syntax, a teacher has be cognizant of

the fact that equating grammatical structures in the first language is not the same as it is in the second

language. This suggests to language instructors that grammar rules provide the basis for

comprehending the real life meanings.

Brantmeier (2002) draws a contrast between the non-native secondary and university students’

attitude towards second language learning. Their work focuses acquisition of second language reading

strategy. The writers drew attention of stakeholders towards interlingual variations and cultural

disparities. Tarone (1993) on the other hand specifically stresses that non-native Southeast Asian

students tend to focus formalities in their writing than the Native Americans in university education.

The writer does not find any significant difference in the two groups of learners in terms of their skills


in the target language. The research focuses on the age of learners rather than the origin to learn

English.

Most internationally recognized higher education institutions and universities have also realized

that the pre-existent dominance of English skills around the world in professional contexts urge them

to prepare the students for the real world demands and challenges. The skills of non-native higher

education students of English are therefore, a vital factor to accept the dominance of English. It has

become a social practice at higher educational institutions to teach and test the skills of English

students as is advocated by the work of McNamara (2001). It is further supported by Mangeldorf

(1997). The writer supports the notion that to draw parallels between higher education speaking and

writing in second language acquisition, it is imperative that language learning be introduced at these

institutions as a source of exchanging views and opinions.

Oxford (1997) describes the language teaching strategies adopted by native speakers as

instructors. The writer’s critical views on strategy-based language learning mechanism elaborates that

there are primarily two types of language teaching strategies. The first deals with the approaches that

help the teachers and learners to adapt themselves in a new language scenario. The second strategy is

indirect language management. Burgos (1993) argues that the metacognitive skills of non-native

speakers of English make them different than the native speakers. They adopt learning process as non-

native English learners and tend to practice the same throughout their learning life. The non-native

speakers also use think-aloud strategies more frequently while composing their writings on topics

during formal learning periods. The writer sampled eight non-native students of English to assess their

compositions and found that non-native students of English who paid more attention on content

developing and formal organizing did better than those who merely re-arranged their compositions for

logics and cohesion.

Researchers in language teaching affirm that enjoyable language learning experiences inculcate

amongst the non-native students of English language at higher education a sense of appreciation for

other foreign languages. This appreciation is critical to foster a true learning motivation for academic

purposes. While discussing some of the problems which afflict practices in linguistic skills, it is

essential to ponder over the factors that develop inhibitions amongst the language learners. Chern

(1993) writes that Chinese non-native students of English respond more enthusiastically when they

resolve reading-based tasks in groups and pairs. They find it delightful to discuss the reading tasks and

vocabulary questions more than other complicated tasks while learning formally. This scenario can be

contrasted with the students in Pakistani language teaching systems across the universities in the

country. If students are given word-solving questions in classes as a strategy to enhance vocabulary,

they would probably find the strategies in reading as result-oriented.

Sheorey (1986) conducted an interesting study to find how the native and non-native speaking

instructors of English differed in their expertise to find the errors in students’ formal writing. The

writer was interested to assess the extent to which the perceptions of the two types of language

instructors in finding the errors were present and how this difference caused the students to perform in

formal settings. The difference in their perception was significant in terms of linguistic errors, but both

the groups agreed on errors in verb tenses, subject-verb agreement and the use of clauses.

Design Procedure & Strategy The research experiment posed the problem as to what extent the higher education students do well if

taught through skill-oriented language teaching strategy. The basic model known as cause X (skill-

oriented language teaching strategy) or predictor variable was expected to generate the effect Y (the

performance of treatment group) called the criterion variable. It employed a random sampling

procedure with two groups of higher education students with initial homogeneity amongst the groups

to ensure randomization and minimize bias. The pre-experiment testing of the two groups was done

through a test of homogenous control variables to ensure randomization and non-biased effect on the



two groups. The real treatment spread over a semester of 16 weeks in which the experimental group

received the pre-defined skill-based treatment.

The control variables in the study were examined to prevent the results from being

contaminated and ensure the homogeneity. The control variables comprised students’ age group, past

English test score, previous institution type, parental qualification of students, teacher qualification,

students’ semester attendance, instructional language, current tuition fee, past tuition fee, past score in

other English-oriented courses, credit hours completed, current GPA, number of courses registered,

seating arrangement and class time. The internal and external validity threats were controlled to

possible extent. It cannot be claimed that some of the immeasurable variables such as students’

anxiety, fatigue, boredom or motivation directly or indirectly were controlled fully as they were

beyond the level of scope of the study.

The sample of the study comprised n = 227 undergraduate students of a large HEC chartered

and recognized university offering English as the core competency course. Non-responsive samples

were contacted through ordered telephone calls and e-mails to ensure the timely submission and

inclusion of the responses in the overall data analysis. The data collection process ensured that no

disguise technique was used. This process ensured that internal validity threats did not interfere with

the results and its generalization. The filled questionnaires were collected from the respondents through

consented e-mails and personal visits.

The questionnaires were personally administered and monitored to make the process error free.

Voice recording and videotaping strategy helped ensure this plan of bias control. The evidence of

students’ confidence level, perceived stress before the course, experienced stress after the course and

achievement level of the two groups after the treatment formed the basis of findings. The time

allocation was also revised in some cases owing to unprecedented events and occurrences. The control

group was taught through conventional method with a three-hour final examination and a mid-term

examination with similar test items. Prior to the randomization process, the effect of control variables

on the two groups was ensured through a pre-test instrumentation process. The objective of this

technique was to ascertain that the two groups were not chosen on prior assumptions and that the pre-

test effect obtained for the homogeneity of the participants was not significantly different.

The Statistical Model The study employed statistical techniques to test the developed hypotheses that emerged from the

review of literature and other pedagogic models in educational research. The model used Carl Pearson

Correlation, Multiple Regression and Independent Sample t-test to study the mean difference between

the two groups. The model was analyzed through the ANOVA procedure too to test its significance.

These statistical tools provided the basic analysis to strengthen the assumption that competency of

English language teaching could be increased through Skill-oriented language teaching strategy rather

than a single administered summative assessment. Descriptive and inferential statistical measures

determined the measures of variability, dispersion and standard deviation in both the groups’ attained

score in the tests. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy recorded a value of 0.703 which was

highly significant. The p-value was 0.000 in the Bartlett’s test of sphericity in the Chi square test which

was highly significant. Therefore, the test recorded a significant sample size along with a significant

Bartlett’s test of sphericity.

Research Hypotheses Ho1 There is no significant difference in the overall score achieved in English by non-native higher

education students taught by conventional and skill-oriented English language teaching strategy.


Ho2 There is no significant difference in the listening comprehension score achieved in English

by non-native higher education students taught by conventional and skill-oriented English language

teaching strategy.

Ho3 There is no significant difference in the speaking test score of non-native higher education

English students taught by conventional and skill-oriented English language teaching strategy.

Ho4 There is no significant difference in the reading comprehension test score of non-native

higher education English students taught by conventional and skill-oriented English language teaching

strategy.

Ho5 There is no significant difference in the writing test score of non-native higher education

English students taught by conventional and skill-oriented English language teaching strategy.

Ho 6 There is no significant difference in the grammatical structure test score of non-native

higher education English students taught by conventional and skill-oriented English language teaching

strategy.

Research Instrument The instrument comprised the questionnaire, observation and interview of students. It comprised the

test for both the groups with similar items, but differed in the process of administration. Table 1

elaborates that all the samples n = 227 were included to estimate the internal consistency measure

through the test procedure used. None of the samples was excluded from the estimate. Table 2

illustrates that the total number of items used to estimate the measure of reliability using Cronbach

Alpha is 5 which were the tests of listening comprehension score, speaking score, reading

comprehension score, writing score and grammar score. The value of Cronbach Alpha was 0.74.

Data Analysis Table 1: Inferential Statistics

Independent Samples Test

8.808 .003 -4.190 225 .000 -.98881 .23600 -1.45387 -.52376

-4.229 212.880 .000 -.98881 .23383 -1.44973 -.52789

Equal variances

assumed

Equal variances

not assumed

Listening

Comprehension Score

F Sig.

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference Lower Upper

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

t-test for Equality of Means

Levene’s test for equality of variance and t-test for equality of means suggest that the test is

significant. The two-tailed independent sample t-test is highly significant with a mean difference

between the two groups which reads -0.98881. The test significance is also evident from the fact that

the upper and lower confidence interval values at 95% significance level is a non-zero value which

rejects the probability of equal means.



Table 2: Inferential Statistics


3.211 .074 -2.357 225 .019 -.56900 .24142 -1.04473 -.09327

-2.369 222.732 .019 -.56900 .24021 -1.04237 -.09562

Equal variances

assumed

Equal variances

not assumed

Speaking ScoreF Sig.

Levene's Test for



Mean

Difference

Std. Error


95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference



significant. The two-tailed independent sample t-test is significant with a mean difference between the

two groups which reads -0.56900. The test significance is also evident from the fact that the upper and

lower confidence interval values at 95% significance level is a non-zero value which rejects the

probability of equal means.



1.988 .160 -2.701 225 .007 -.57685 .21361 -.99777 -.15592

-2.711 224.254 .007 -.57685 .21282 -.99622 -.15747

Equal variances

assumed

Equal variances

not assumed

Reading

Comprehension Score

F Sig.

Levene's Test for



Mean

Difference

Std. Error


95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference









1.318 .252 -2.922 225 .004 -.66193 .22654 -1.10834 -.21552

-2.935 223.507 .004 -.66193 .22554 -1.10638 -.21747

Equal variances

assumed

Equal variances

not assumed

Writing Score

F Sig.

Levene's Test for



Mean

Difference

Std. Error


95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference










.373 .542 -3.352 225 .001 -.73248 .21851 -1.16307 -.30189

-3.359 225.000 .001 -.73248 .21809 -1.16223 -.30273

Equal variances

assumed

Equal variances

not assumed

Grammar Score

F Sig.

Levene's Test for



Mean

Difference

Std. Error


95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference







One-Way ANOVA Table 6: Model Significance

ANOVA

55.434 1 55.434 17.555 .000

710.495 225 3.158

765.930 226

18.356 1 18.356 5.555 .019

743.494 225 3.304

761.850 226

18.866 1 18.866 7.293 .007

582.051 225 2.587

600.916 226

24.841 1 24.841 8.537 .004

654.674 225 2.910

679.515 226

30.419 1 30.419 11.237 .001

609.097 225 2.707

639.515 226

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

Listening

Comprehension Score

Speaking Score

Reading

Comprehension Score

Writing Score

Grammar Score

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

The table illustrates the significance of the model through ANOVA. The p-value for the

significance of the model in listening comprehension score is 0.000 <0.05 with an F value of 17.555.

The model rejects the probability of equal variance in listening comprehension test. This argument is

supported by Table 4.38 through descriptive statistics that proves that there is significantly different

variance in both the groups in listening comprehension test. The p-value for the significance of the

model in speaking score is 0.019 <0.05 with an F value of 5.555. The model rejects the probability of

equal variance in speaking test. This argument is supported by Table 4.38 through descriptive statistics

that proves that there is significantly different variance in both the groups in speaking test.



The p-value for the significance of the model in reading comprehension score is 0.007 <0.05

with an F value of 7.293. The model rejects the probability of equal variance in reading comprehension

test. This argument is supported by Table 4.38 through descriptive statistics that proves that there is

significantly different variance in both the groups in reading comprehension test.

The p-value for the significance of the model in writing score is 0.004 <0.05 with an F value of

8.537. The model rejects the probability of equal variance in writing test. This argument is supported

by Table 4.38 through descriptive statistics that proves that there is significantly different variance in

both the groups in writing test. The p-value for the significance of the model in grammar score is 0.001

<0.05 with an F value of 11.237. The model rejects the probability of equal variance in grammar test.

This argument is supported by descriptive statistics that proves that there is significantly different

variance in both the groups in grammar test.

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics for Variance

Descriptives

117 12.5385 2.01519 .18630 12.1695 12.9075 9.00 17.00

110 13.5273 1.48206 .14131 13.2472 13.8073 10.00 17.00

227 13.0176 1.84094 .12219 12.7768 13.2584 9.00 17.00

1.77701 .11794 12.7852 13.2500

.49461 6.7330 19.3023 .46103

117 12.5128 1.95473 .18071 12.1549 12.8707 9.00 17.00

110 13.0818 1.65973 .15825 12.7682 13.3955 11.00 17.00

227 12.7885 1.83603 .12186 12.5484 13.0287 9.00 17.00

1.81781 .12065 12.5508 13.0263

.28459 9.1725 16.4045 .13274

117 12.3504 1.69846 .15702 12.0394 12.6614 9.00 17.00

110 12.9273 1.50662 .14365 12.6426 13.2120 11.00 17.00

227 12.6300 1.63062 .10823 12.4167 12.8432 9.00 17.00

1.60838 .10675 12.4196 12.8403

.28852 8.9639 16.2960 .14356

117 12.4017 1.81972 .16823 12.0685 12.7349 9.00 17.00

110 13.0636 1.57548 .15022 12.7659 13.3614 10.00 16.00

227 12.7225 1.73399 .11509 12.4957 12.9493 9.00 17.00

1.70577 .11322 12.4994 12.9456

.33108 8.5156 16.9293 .19341

117 12.3675 1.69481 .15669 12.0572 12.6779 9.00 16.00

110 13.1000 1.59097 .15169 12.7993 13.4007 10.00 17.00

227 12.7225 1.68218 .11165 12.5025 12.9425 9.00 17.00

1.64533 .10920 12.5073 12.9377

.36638 8.0671 17.3778 .24439

Control

Experimental

Total

Fixed Effects

Random Effects

Model

Control

Experimental

Total

Fixed Effects

Random Effects

Model

Control

Experimental

Total

Fixed Effects

Random Effects

Model

Control

Experimental

Total

Fixed Effects

Random Effects

Model

Control

Experimental

Total

Fixed Effects

Random Effects

Model

Listening

Comprehension Score

Speaking Score

Reading

Comprehension Score

Writing Score

Grammar Score

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean

Minimum Maximum

Between-

Component

Variance

Table 7 signifies that the presence of variance between the two groups makes the SOLTS

model significant. The model supports that probability of variance in listening comprehension test

score is 0.46103> 0.05 level of significance for a two-tailed test. The mean scores in each skill test

between the two groups are significantly different which also supports the presence of variance. The

model supports that probability of variance in speaking test score is 0.13274> 0.05 level of significance

for a two-tailed test. The mean scores in each skill test between the two groups are significantly

different which also supports the presence of variance. The model supports that probability of variance

in reading comprehension test score is 0.14356> 0.05 level of significance for a two-tailed test. The

mean scores in each skill test between the two groups are significantly different which also supports

the presence of variance.

The model supports that probability of variance in writing test score is 0.19341> 0.05 level of

significance for a two-tailed test. The mean scores in each skill test between the two groups are

significantly different which also supports the presence of variance. The model supports that

probability of variance in grammar test score is 0.24439> 0.05 level of significance for a two-tailed


test. The mean scores in each skill test between the two groups are significantly different which also

supports the presence of variance.

Results and Discussion The first hypothesis test found that the two strategies have significant differences and the conventional

strategy of teaching listening comprehension is less effective. The second hypothesis found that the

two strategies have significant differences and the conventional strategy of teaching and training skills

in speaking is less effective. The third hypothesis found that the two strategies have significant

differences and the conventional strategy of teaching and training skills in reading comprehension is

less effective. The fourth hypothesis found that the two strategies have significant differences and the

conventional strategy of teaching and training skills in writing is less effective. The fifth hypothesis

found that the two strategies have significant differences and the conventional strategy of teaching and

training skills in grammar is less effective.

Conclusion In the light of findings about overall scores in the English course, it is concluded that listening

comprehension exercises are essential for the non-native students. A proper test of listening

comprehension prepares the student for the real life interaction with native and non-native speakers of

English in a particular context. The higher education students who are taught through SOLTS are able

to concentrate more on what they are being asked and their oracy is more productive than their overall

responses in conventional test. SOLTS gives the non-native higher education English students time to

respond to a given condition more appropriately than a conventional test in which teachers ask only a

few questions and learners’ responses are not recorded. SOLTS provides the non-native students of

higher education an opportunity to read coherently. Their pressure to do well on the overall test is

released. The conventional model of testing does not provide this ease. When writing is introduced as a

separate language test item, the students are more focused and can produce effective compositions.

Their ability to comment, argue, judge, critique, evaluate, analyze and summarize in specific context

can be assessed. SOLTS also requires an ability to observe, perceive and react in logically coordinating

experiences. It encompasses a strong sense to visualize the language teaching paradigms around the

globe for different reasons and causes.

The conventional model of teaching and testing writing skills in English pressurizes the

students to perform all the cognitive processes. This teacher-related expectation to write effectively

despite pressure of other skills in one three-hour test influences students’ performance in other skills

too. When the non-native higher education students are taught and trained through attention on

grammar as separate skill training, they respond better as was witnessed in the experiment. The study

conclusion includes the fact that higher education English language teachers need to be equipped with

substantial grammatical testing strategy using grammar-only test items. The format of T.O.E.F.L and

I.E.L.T.S can be used to prepare the test items.

References [1] Allen, H. (1966). A Survey of the teaching of English to non-English speakers in the United

States. Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

[2] Ancess, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Authentic teaching, learning, and assessment with

new English learners at International High School: A series on authentic assessment and

accountability. New York: Columbia University Press.

[3] Arva, V., & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the classroom system, 28,

355-372.



[4] Astor A. (2000). A qualified non-native English-speaking teacher is second to none in the field.

TESOL Matters, 10 (2), 18-19.

[5] Barratt, L., & Contra, E. (2000). Native English-speaking teachers in cultures other than their

own. TESOL Journal, 9 (3), 19-23.

[6] Bedell, D. A. & Oxford, R. L. (1996). Cross-cultural comparisons of language learning

strategies in the People’s Republic of China and other countries. In R.L. Oxford (Ed.),

Language learner and teaching strategies around the world: Cross cultural perspectives (pp. 47-

60). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

[7] Brantmeier, C. (2002). Second language reading strategy research at the secondary and

university levels: Variations, disparities, and generalizability. The Reading Matrix, 2(3).

[8] Broady. E & Kenning. M.M (eds.) (2007). Promoting learner autonomy in university language

teaching. London: Association for Language Studies/CILT.

[9] Brophy, J. E. (1982). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and language teacher

expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 631-66102.

[10] Burgos, M. (1993). The metacognitive processes of non-native English speaking high school

students during the composing process. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54 (6), 2092A

[11] Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Interrogating the “native speaker fallacy”: Non-linguistic roots, non-

pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

[12] Chern. C-L. (1993). Chinese students’ word-solving strategies in reading in English. In Huckin,

T., Haynes, M., & Coady, J. (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 67-

85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

[13] Cheryl D. Foxcraft & Caroline Davies (2006) Taking ownership of the ITC's guidelines for

computer-based and internet-delivered language testing: A South African application.

International Journal of Testing, Volume 6, Issue 2 .pp173 – 180.

[14] Cook, V. (2005). Basing teaching on the L2 user. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language

teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer. 47-

61

[15] Crozier, N. (2006). Home country teachers’ advice to non-home country teachers: Some initial

insights. Regional Language Centre Journal, 37, (1), 27-45.

[16] Ferris, D. (1994). Rhetorical strategies in student persuasive writing: Differences between

native and non-native English Speakers. Research in the teaching of English, Vol. 26, 45–65.

[17] Green P. S. & Hecht K: (1985). Native and non-native evaluation of learners’ errors in written

discourse: System, 13 (2), 77-97.

[18] Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1999) Increasing the validity of adapted language tests: Myths

to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing

Technology, 1, 1-16.

[19] Kaplan, R. B. (2001). English –the accidental language of science? In U. Ammon (Ed.). The

dominance of English as a language of science: Effects on other language and language

communities (pp. 3-26). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

[20] Mangeldorf, K. (1997). Parallels between higher education speaking and writing in second

language acquisition, in Richness in Writing: Empowering language minority students. Edited

by D. M. Johnson and D. H. Roen. New York: Longman, pp. 134–45.

[21] Maser, P. J (1992). Politeness strategies in business letters by native and non-native English

speakers. English for Special Purposes, 11 (3), 189-205.

[22] McNamara, Tim. (2001) Language assessment as social practice: Challenges for research.

Language Testing (2001) 18.4:333-349.

[23] Oxford, R. (1997). Language teaching strategies: what every teacher should know. Rowley,

Mass: Newbury House.


[24] Richards, J.C., & Rogers, T. (1986).Approaches and methods in English language teaching

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[25] Sheingold, K., Storms, B.A., Thomas, W.H., & Heller, J.I. (1997). Pacesetter English portfolio

assessment: 1995 Report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Center for Performance

Assessment.

[26] Sheorey, R. (1986). Error perceptions of native-speaking and non-native speaking teachers of

ESL. ELT Journal, 40 (4), 306-12.

[27] Swales, J. (1993). The higher education English language and its teachers: thoughts past,

present and future. ELT Journal 47/4: 283-291.

[28] Tarone, E. (1993). The writing of Southeast Asian students in a university. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 2 (2), 149-72

[29] Tonkyn, A. (1994). Introduction: grammar and the language teacher. In Bygate, M., Tonkyn,

A., & Williams, E. (eds.) Grammar and the language teacher, pp1-14 Hemel Hempstead:

Prentice Hall.

[30] Watanabe, Y. (1999). Classification of language learning strategies. International Christian

University Language Research Bulletin, 6(1), 75-102.

[31] Weaver, S.J., & Cohen, A.D. (2004). Strategies-based instruction: A teacher-training manual.

Minnesota: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota,

MN.

[32] Weinstein, C. (2005). Elaboration skills as a learning strategy. In H.F. O’Neil, Jr. (Ed.),

Learning strategies. New York: Academic Press.

Documents

Dr. Muhammad Yousuf Sharjeel Research Paper AJSR