The study aimed to investigate Taiwanese nursing students’ English learning behaviors and environmental factors relevant to English learning before and after their internships. More than five hundred nursing students from five junior colleges in southern Taiwan served as subjects of the study. The research instrument included a 134-item questionnaire dealing with students’ personal demographic information and English learning behaviors of motivation, strategy, and anxiety. In addition, environmental factors relevant to English learning of English as the Medium of Instruction (EMI) and Internationalization at Home (IaH), as well as nursing English for practicum use were discussed. Findings revealed that some correlations among students’ English learning behaviors, environmental factors, and English levels did exist before and after their internships. Moreover, students’ internship experiences of English use also brought about some changes in their learning behaviors led to English levels. Some implications and suggestions were provided for schools and students hoping to equip students with good English skills before getting into the job market.
As globalization has brought about a new society, English has become the lingua franca, the principal language for communication in many fields. In Taiwan, there are about six hundred and forty thousand foreign residents from more than 167 countries (Taiwan National Immigration Agency, http://www.immigration.gov.tw//, 2016), that is to say that more than 2.7% of the whole Taiwanese population are foreigners. In such circumstances of having more and more foreign residents, and with the increasing number of aging and diverse foreign patient population in the society, access to health care will expand and the need will increase for more competent and diverse nursing graduates, particularly with adequate English proficiency and cultural knowledge and sensitivity to care effectively for the increasing diverse foreign patient population. However, are the nursing graduates who will be standing in the front line of health care in Taiwan ready for the opportunities and challenges? Are they highly motivated to learn English and equipped themselves with good English ability before getting into the job market?
The study intended to investigate how nursing students learn English during their pursuing associate degree period, including school’s environmental factors, students’ English learning behaviors and their English levels. In particular, the study intended to find out if students’ medical internships brought about any impacts on their English learning behaviors and performance.
Related studies about: 1) English learning motivation and attitude, 2) language learning strategy use, 3) anxiety about foreign language learning, 4) environmental factors related to English learning (EMI, IaH), and 5) nursing students’ internship experiences of English language use were reviewed as follows:
Gardner and Lambert (1959) [
As for attitude, Titone (1990) [
Learning strategies are “specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” (Oxford, 1990: p. 8) [
Several language learning strategy theories have been discussed in the past several decades [
To begin with direct strategies, memory strategies are ones applied to help the learner remember and retrieve new information. Cognitive strategies are used to understand and produce the new language and involve active practicing, receiving and sending messages, analyzing and reasoning, and creating structure for input and output. Compensation strategies are selected to make up for gaps in knowledge, usually by guessing, and are used to overcome limitations in speaking and writing. In contrast to direct strategies, indirect strategies like metacognitive ones are chosen by learners to coordinate and regulate their cognitive process in creating, arranging, planning, and evaluating learning. Affective strategies help learners regulate and manage their emotions in language learning while social strategies are applied to improve understanding of the target language through communication with others. To sum up, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) based on Oxford’s theory has been frequently used to discover students’ learning strategies while studying English [
Learning is “the process of acquiring relative permanent change in understanding, attitude, knowledge, information, ability and skill through experience” (Wittrock, 1977: p. ix) [
Learning anxiety is “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors related to classroom language learning” (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986: p. 128) [
Language anxiety’s effect on language learning is two folds: positive and negative. On one hand, appropriate tension is normal and necessary. It is suggested that some anxiety can improve performance [
Additionally, anxiety’s negative effect in interfering with language learning has had lots of evidence. Findings show that anxiety is negatively correlated with the following consequences: Field Independence, which is strongly associated with the time spent and attitude [
According to Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) [
Particularly, an interesting finding was found in Hou, et al.’s research (2012) [
Research studies have indicated that language learning is influenced by various factors, including cognitive factors (learning styles, learning strategies∙∙∙), affective factors (motivation, attitude, anxiety∙∙∙), and personal factors (age, gender, environment, culture∙∙∙) [
On the other hand, due to the fact that vocational/technical education in Taiwan used to emphasize more on “career preparation education” and prepare to engage in more practical skills, some courses in vocational/technical curriculum were not regarded as core courses with more credit hours as that of other general schools in the past years, and English was one of them. As a result, without being placed great emphasis on foreign language study, many vocational/technical school students’ English proficiency was normally worse than that of general schools. However, after the access to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in January, 2002, the impact of industrialization, and to face the challenge of the knowledge economy, vocational/technical school students’ unsatisfactory English proficiency began to attract much more attention than ever before. Hence, Department of Technical and Vocational Education in Taiwan Ministry of Education, in addition to providing some grants for improving students’ English proficiency, began to set up Information Center for International Cooperation and Exchange (ICICE) to promote students’ foreign language ability from 2008, and then changed to be the Department of International and Cross-strait Education (DICE) (http://english.moe.gov.tw/) in 2013. Since then, technical/vocational schools have been applying for some grants to hold activities related to foreign language learning, and sending students abroad for the purposes of studying, internships, and service learning.
No matter what strategies the schools adopt, when students have chances to experience the whole English-Medium Instruction (EMI) or participate in the cross-cultural activities, held domestically (IaH) or abroad, they will develop cross-cultural awareness and represent their most immediate meaningful contact with the target language itself, which is believed to be able to bring about some changes toward English learning for the participating students. Findings have pointed out that in EMI programs, where English is the only language for communication, having more exposure and opportunities to use it, students generally show a higher level of motivation [
As for other advantages of the cross-cultural exchange dealing with students’ language learning environment, in Tsai’s study (2012) [
Nevertheless, as mentioned by Robert, Chou, & Ching (2010) [
What with the increasing international population in Taiwan, and what with the fact that English has become the lingua franca, though English is widely used in medical practice in Taiwan, nurses still bear a lot of institutional pressure from medical practice to use English in interaction with physicians, other health professionals, and even international patients. Under such circumstances, student nurses can’t avoid having more chances to use English in their medical practice.
However, Su & Kuo (1993) [
Lee (2016) [
Regarding to the frequency and importance of English use for nursing students, based on Lee’s (2016) [
1) For reading: the most frequently used of nursing reading tasks are “order sheets”, “inspection reports”, “consultation sheets”, “medication and treatment sheets”, and “progress notes” (p. 74).
2) For oral communication: the top five frequently used of listening and speaking tasks are “nursing shift handover”, “discussion with medical teams”, “case study discussion”, “delivering medical instruments”, and “reporting patients’ conditions” (p. 71).
3) For writing: the most frequently used of nursing writing tasks are “medical and treatment sheets”, “T.P.R. sheets”, “Kardex writing”, “checklists for pre-operation”, and “nursing assessment forms” (p. 75).
Lee (2016) [
The research methodology included: 1) research design, 2) research questions, 3) sampling of the participants, 4) instrumentation, 5) validity and reliability of the instrument, as well as 6) data collection, procedure and 7) analysis and ethical considerations. They were described below:
Together with cluster and convenience sampling, a case study was used for the research methodology. That was because of its being a convenient way of selecting a sample by choosing groups of subjects [
The research questions are as follows:
1) How are Taiwanese nursing students motivated to learn English before and after internships?
2) What strategies do they use more frequently when learning English before and after internships?
3) What are their anxieties about English learning before and after internships?
4) What are the factors related to their English levels before and after internships?
5) What is the correlation among environmental factors, learning behavior, and English levels before and after internships?
6) What are the possible impacts of internship experiences on their English learning behaviors and performance?
A total of 514 nursing students from five junior colleges in southern Taiwan participated in the study, including 30 male students and 484 female students (in the pretest). They were all fourth grade students arranged by individual schools to fill out questionnaires dealing with their background, motivation, attitude, motivational intensity, strategy use, and anxiety toward English learning. The reason why fourth grade students were chosen as the participants was because they were about to do their internships in the hospitals for one year, and most of them would have no English class afterwards in the junior college period. So, it was supposed to be the right time to investigate their English learning behaviors and English proficiency before they graduated. In addition, most of them were arranged to participate in the posttest after their 1-year internships, including 33 males and 470 females. The subjects of the study were shown in
A fairly large scale self-report survey was used as the research instrument, which was made available monolingual in Chinese, to avoid receiving any false response due to students’ misinterpretations of the items, and also as Liu (2015, p. 1875) [
Schools | total | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
School 1 | School 2 | School 3 | School 4 | School 5 | |||||||||
pre test | post test | pre test | post test | pre test | post test | pre test | post test | pre test | post test | pre test | post test | ||
gender | Male | 7 | 7 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 30 | 33 |
female | 86 | 85 | 84 | 83 | 113 | 111 | 114 | 111 | 87 | 80 | 484 | 470 | |
Total | 93 | 92 | 88 | 91 | 120 | 116 | 120 | 118 | 93 | 86 | 514 | 503 |
Chinese version questionnaire contained 134 itemized descriptions that were made up of four sections. First section included 6 questions regarding to students’ background. Participants were asked to specify their individual demographic information including their gender, previous junior high school, home location, father’s education level, mother’s education level, and self-evaluation of English proficiency levels of Basic (CEFR A1), Elementary (CEFR A2), between Elementary (CEFR A2) and Intermediate (CEFR B1), Intermediate (CEFR B1) and above.
The remaining sections dealt with 45-item English learning motivation (orientation, attitude, motivational intensity) [
Measurement is vital in the range of social research contexts. Two major concerns with it are reliability and validity. “What is the reliability of the measuring instrument?” and “What is its validity?” are two questions that researchers want to know. The former means the internal consistency of a test items; while the latter concerns if the instrument is “valid for what and for whom” (Gay, 1992: p. 155) [
Validity refers to the extent to which observations and statements are true reflections of reality and measure what is supposed to be measured. It can be
Questionnaire/test | Author(s) | year | items | pretest | reliability | posttest | reliability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Background | Self-created | 2016 | 06 | Q001-006 | - | Q135-140 | - |
Orientations-The Reasons for Studying English | Gardner, R. C. | 1985 | 16 | Q007-022 | 0.902 | Q141-156 | 0.911 |
Attitudes toward English Learning and Culture | Gardner, R. C. | 1985 | 19 | Q023-041 | 0.886 | Q157-175 | 0.901 |
Motivational Intensity | Gardner, R. C. | 1985 | 10 | Q042-051 | 0.804 | Q176-185 | 0.862 |
Strategy Inventory of Foreign Language Learning | Oxford, R. L. | 1990 | 50 | Q052-101 | 0.972 | Q186-235 | 0.976 |
Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) | Horwitz, et al. | 1986 | 33 | Q102-134 | 0.909 | Q236-268 | 0.918 |
128 | Q007-134 | 0.970 | Q141-268 | 0.974 |
conducted in different ways, such as content validity, criterion-related validity, construct validity, systemic validity, and face validity. In this study, construct validity is used to assess the validity of the measurement instrument because of its best purpose to investigate the theoretical relationship of English achievement to the non-observable learning behaviors. In particular, construct validity is the degree to which a measure is “invented” to explain behavior, especially to explain certain differences between individuals. For example, based on literature review, it is supported that good language learners may have some characteristics in common, such as high language aptitude, strong motivation, favorable attitude, necessary effort, low anxiety, appropriate learning strategy and styles. Hence, the research instrument dealing with learning behaviors is appropriate to be used to explain the validity of the study.
The reliability of the questionnaire was determined by calculating Cronbach’s Alpha. Cronbach’s Alpha is an appropriate measure of internal consistency when the data are of interval level as most sections of this instrument, except for Section One dealing with students’ personal demographic information. The average reliability of this research instrument is 0.804 - 0.970. The Alpha value of a “completely perfect” test would reach 1.00. However, no test can be completely perfect. In addition, Nunnally (1978) [
After contacting with and being agreed by the five individual teachers in the five schools, the questionnaires were sent to them twice, one was before the second semester of students’ fourth academic year, and the other was after the first semester of their fifth semester, to be used as the pretest and the posttest during those nursing students conducting their 1-year practicum in the hospitals. Each teacher helped to choose two classes of nursing students by convenience sampling to serve as participants for the pretest and the same participants for the posttest one year later. All the participants from the five schools helped to fill out the questionnaires and the individual teachers collected them and returned to the researcher. After that, the valid data were tabulated by the SPSS statistical package 17.0, using mean scores, t-test for gender difference, between pre-test (before internships) and post-test (after internships), Pearson correlation, as well as Regression analysis for relation and prediction, respectively
In addition to the data receiving from the questionnaire, information about environmental factors relating to English learning of the five participating junior colleges was gathered from the internet of each school. The information included English teachers, English teaching hours per week, grants and activities related to English learning of each individual school, such as using English as the medium of instruction (EMI) and Internationalization at Home (IaH).
The participating five teachers were informed in advance and helped to explain to the participating five hundred nursing students in the five junior colleges about the nature and purpose of the study. In addition, all participating students were told that the data would not be used for any purpose other than the study, and if they would not like to make known their personal demographic information, they didn’t need to sign their names on the questionnaire forms.
Findings of the study were described below:
Among the nursing participants, more than ninety percent were females, and more than three fourths graduated from public junior high schools. As for their hometown, more than half were from southern Taiwan. Regarding to their parents’ educational background, more fathers graduated from colleges (or above) than mothers, while more mothers graduated from senior high schools than fathers. As for students’ self-report English proficiency, in average, 63% - 65% were Basic (CEFR A1), 21% - 23% were Elementary (CEFR A2), 9% - 10% were between Elementary (CEFR A2) and Intermediate (CEFR B1), and the rest 2% - 3% were intermediate (CEFR B1) (and above). In a word, majority of the nursing students were females, most graduated from public junior high, and came from Southern Taiwan; half of their fathers (51%) and mothers (61%) graduated from high schools. In addition, many students (64%) self-reported their English proficiency level was only Basic (CEFR A1), while students “can understand very short, simple texts a single phrase at a time, picking up familiar names, words and basic phrases and reading as required” (http://www.coe.int/, http://www.britchcouncil.org). Students’ demographic information was displayed in
In light of nursing students’ English learning behaviors before and after their internships, significant differences only existed in students’ attitude (p < 0.01) and instrumental orientation (p < 0.01). After their internships, students had lower means in both attitude and instrumental orientation. In addition, though after the internships, students had lower means in motivation and integrative orientation, and higher means in motivational intensity, strategy use, and anxiety, yet the differences didn’t reach any significant levels. The findings were displayed in
In general, students had strong motivation (M = 3.52/3.47 out of 5), positive
Section One: | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I. Personal demographic information | test | 1% | 2% | 3% | 4% | 5% | 6% |
1) Gender: a) Male, b) Female | pre | 5.81 | 94.2 | ||||
post | 6.6 | 93.4 | |||||
2) I graduated from: a) public junior high school, b) private school, c) other | pre | 85.4 | 6.0 | 8.6 | |||
post | 77.6 | 8.2 | 14.3 | ||||
3) My hometown is in: a) The North, b) The North-central, c) The Central, d) The Central-South, e) The South, f) The East of Taiwan | pre | 2.51 | 1.6 | 12.3 | 19.8 | 59.7 | 4.1 |
post | 3.5 | 1.4 | 12.0 | 20.2 | 59.4 | 3.5 | |
4) My father’s education: a) Junior high (and below), b) Senior high, c) College (and above) | pre | 28.9 | 51.3 | 19.1 | |||
post | 23.3 | 51.2 | 25.5 | ||||
5) My mother’s education: a) Junior high (and below), b) Senior high, c) College (and above) | pre | 19.1 | 62.8 | 18.1 | |||
post | 19.0 | 60.6 | 20.4 | ||||
6) My English level: a) Basic (A1), b) Elementary (A2), c) between Elementary (A2) and Intermediate (B1), (4) Intermediate (B1) (and above) | pre | 63.5 | 23.5 | 10.5 | 2.5 | ||
post | 65.5 | 21.8 | 9.8 | 2.9 |
participants | pretest | posttest | sig | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
pretest | posttest | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
motivation | 514 | 489 | 3.52 | 0.63 | 3.47 | 0.57 | 0.102 |
attitude | 514 | 489 | 3.49 | 0.56 | 3.42 | 0.52 | 0.005 |
Motivational intensity | 514 | 490 | 2.16 | 0.36 | 2.19 | 0.39 | 0.096 |
instrumental | 514 | 487 | 3.69 | 0.63 | 3.59 | 0.56 | 0.001 |
integrative | 514 | 490 | 3.36 | 0.71 | 3.35 | 0.65 | 0.863 |
strategy | 514 | 489 | 3.10 | 0.63 | 3.16 | 0.54 | 0.054 |
anxiety | 514 | 489 | 3.11 | 0.51 | 3.14 | 0.44 | 0.263 |
attitude (M = 3.49/3.42 out of 5), and favorable motivational intensity (M = 2.16/2.19 out of 3) in the pretest (before the internships) and the posttest (after the internships), respectively. However, regarding to students’ English learning motivation (instrumental orientation, integrative orientation), attitude, and motivational intensity, the findings revealed that after their 1-year internships, students had lower means in both attitude (p < 0.01) and instrumental orientation (p < 0.01). In particular, students became less instrumentally motivated after their internships (p < 0.01), especially in such items as: “To fulfill a school requirement” (p < 0.01), “To get a better job” (p < 0.01), “To make friends with foreign language speakers” (p < 0.01), “To be an educated person” (p < 0.05), “To travel abroad” (p < 0.01), and “English seems of great importance today” (p < 0.05). On the other hand, students had stronger integrative orientation in the item: “To leave Taiwan and become a member of American society” (p < 0.05) after their internships (in the posttest).
As for attitude, after the internships, students held significantly less positive attitude toward English learning, English culture and English people (p < 0.01), especially in such items as: “English is an international language, everyone should learn English” (p < 0.01), “I wish I could speak English fluently” (p < 0.01), “I hope to make friends with English speaking people” (p < 0.01), “In addition to English, I want to learn an additional foreign language in the future” (p < 0.05), “I like to have chances to know other country’s culture, so I hope to study abroad” (p < 0.01), “I hope to travel to an English speaking country” (p < 0.01), “I expect to have more practical teaching material for us to learn, because I am not satisfied with the present textbook we use” (p < 0.01), “I expect to have teachers who are native speakers of English” (p < 0.01), and “I hope to study abroad in the summer or winter vacation” (p < 0.01). Nevertheless, they held more positive attitude toward the item “I enjoy writing diary, letters, or compositions in English” (p < 0.01).
Regarding to motivational intensity, after the internships, students seemed to spend more time and effort in such items dealing with: “English homework” (p < 0.01), “actively think about what I have learned in English class:” (p < 0.05), “If teacher wanted someone to do an extra English assignment, I would definitely volunteer” (p < 0.01), and “after getting English assignments back, I always read carefully, or rewrite them, correcting my mistakes” (p < 0.05).
As
Kinds of strategy | Memory Strategy | Cognitive Strategy | Compensation strategy | Metacognitive Strategy | Affective strategy | Social strategy | All | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
pre test | post test | pre test | post test | pre test | post test | pre test | post test | Pre test | post test | pre test | post test | pre test | post test | |
M | 3.32 | 3.28 | 3.00 | 3.08 | 3.18 | 3.22 | 3.08 | 3.18 | 3.07 | 3.16 | 2.94 | 3.11 | 3.10 | 3.16 |
SD | 0.68 | 062 | 0.70 | 0.61 | 0.71 | 0.61 | 0.72 | 0.60 | 0.71 | 0.60 | 0.74 | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.54 |
N | 512 | 490 | 507 | 483 | 510 | 484 | 510 | 485 | 508 | 485 | 510 | 483 | 510 | 450 |
rank | (1) | (1) | (5) | (6) | (2) | (2) | (3) | (3) | (4) | (4) | (6) | (5) | ||
Sig | 0.193 | 0.035 | 0.653 | 0.011 | 0.017 | 0.000 | 0.054 |
internships, students used more Cognitive strategy (p < 0.05), Metacognitive strategy (p < 0.05), Affective strategy (p < 0.05), and Social strategy (p < 0.01) than before. Though there was no significant difference in overall Memory strategy after the internships, yet, students expressed more that they “review English lessons often” after the internships (p < 0.05). The same is true to Compensation strategy, while no significant difference was found in overall Compensation strategy, but more students would “make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English” (p < 0.01).
The findings of the mean and standard deviation of the six kinds of strategies before and after the internships were displayed in
The findings revealed that students had moderate level of English learning anxiety (M = 3.11 - 3.14 out of 5). Similar to some kinds of strategy, not a significant difference was found in overall anxiety after the internships, yet, less students expressed that “I don’t worry about making mistakes in English class” (p < 0.01), “I would not be nervous speaking with English native speakers”(p < 0.01), and “I feel confident when I speak English in English class” (p < 0.01). On the other hand, after the internships, more students expressed that “I wouldn’t bother me at all to take more English classes” (p < 0.01) and “I feel more tense and nervous when I am speaking in my English class” (p < 0.01). The findings were presented in
In Taiwan’s five-year junior colleges, the amount of total credits is 220 at least, basically including 12 required credits of English among them. In general, the English courses are arranged in the first two or three years, with 2 or 3 teaching hours per week. To take the five participating schools as example, School 1 (S1) arranged the 12 English credits in the first four semesters for 3 hours per week as 3-3-3-3-0-0-0-0-0-0 , while School 2 (S2) added another 4 fours and arranged in the first four semesters for 2 hours per week and the following two semesters for 4 hours per week as 2-2-2-2-4-4-0-0-0-0. As for School 3 (S3), like S1, another 2
Anxiety Items | pretest | posttest | Sig | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | ||
I don’t worry about making mistakes in English class. | 3.13 | 0.96 | 3.01 | 0.82 | 0.006 |
I would not be nervous speaking with English native speakers. | 3.33 | 1.04 | 2.89 | 0.89 | 0.000 |
I feel confident when I speak English in English class. | 3.15 | 0.99 | 3.03 | 0.79 | 0.002 |
I wouldn’t bother me at all to take more English classes. | 3.06 | 0.97 | 3.09 | 0.85 | 0.003 |
I feel more tense and nervous when I am speaking in my English class. | 2.90 | 1.06 | 3.11 | 0.93 | 0.001 |
hours were added to it, and made it to be 2-2-3-3-2-2 -0-0 -0-0 hours per week in the first 6 semesters. But for School 4 (S4), like S2, another 4 hours were added as 2-2-2-4-2-2-0-0-0-0, for the first 7 semesters per week. Unlike the other four schools, School 5 (S5) also added another 2 hours but it was arranged in the last semester to make it as 3-3-2-2-2-0-0-0-0-2.
Additionally, to increase students’ English proficiency of technical and vocational college/university, Taiwan Ministry of Education has been providing grants for Improving Technical and Vocational College/University Students’ English Proficiency Program (ITVCSPP) and International Cooperation (IC) and Exchange Program (EP) for years. Among the five participating junior colleges, School 2 (S2) has been granted 12 times (6 ITVCSPP, 2 IC and 4 EP), followed by School 3 (S3), 10 times (ITVCSPP), School 5 (S5), 9 times (ITVCSPP), School 4 (S4), 5 times (3 IC and 2 EP), and School 1 (S1), 1 time.
Another factor which couldn’t be underestimated was the role of English teachers. Among the five participating schools, only School 2 has Applied English Department (and Applied Japanese Department) with 13 full time English teachers, while School 3 formerly had Applied English Department (changed as Tourism Department in 2009) with 8 full time English teachers, and School 5 has Language Center years with 7 full time English teachers. With sufficient full time teacher professional resources and school’s support, it could explain why the three schools were able to hold and be granted much more English related activities successfully and bring about some possible consequences about students’ English learning behaviors and even English levels.
The findings of English learning environments among the five participating schools were presented in
School | Subjects 2015 | All nursing students 2014 | All students 2014 | motivation | attitude | intensity | strategy | anxiety | English level | English courses/hrs | teacher | other | exchange | grants | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Male | female | all | male | female | all | male | female | all | required | electives | all | |||||||||||
S1 | 7 | 86 | 93 | 55 | 346 | 401 | 268 | 584 | 852 | 3.57 | 3.42 | 2.22 | 3.05 | 3.12 | 1.34 | 12 | 2 | 14 | 2 | 1 | ||
S2 | 5 | 84 | 89 | 224 | 1868 | 2092 | 1936 | 5095 | 7031 | 3.60 | 3.53 | 2.23 | 3.14 | 3.18 | 1.54 | 14 | 2 | 16 | 13 | 1 | C, J, U | 12 |
S3 | 7 | 113 | 120 | 180 | 1818 | 1993 | 1660 | 4685 | 6345 | 3.56 | 3.52 | 2.09 | 3.13 | 3.15 | 1.41 | 12 | 2 | 14 | 8 | 2 | 10 | |
S4 | 6 | 114 | 120 | 86 | 1170 | 1256 | 156 | 1853 | 2009 | 3.48 | 3.52 | 2.11 | 3.12 | 3.07 | 1.38 | 14 | 2 | 16 | 3 | 5 | ||
S5 | 6 | 87 | 93 | 152 | 1939 | 2091 | 446 | 3373 | 3819 | 3.44 | 3.45 | 2.17 | 3.05 | 3.03 | 1.97 | 12 | 2 | 14 | 7 | 3 | 9 | |
Sig | 0.852 | 0.372 | 0.024 | 0.596 | 0.499 | 0.000 | ||||||||||||||||
all | 31 | 484 | 515 | 697 | 7141 | 7833 | 4466 | 18,590 | 20,056 | 3.53 | 3.49 | 2.15 | 3.10 | 3.11 | 1.51 | 12.8 | 2.8 | 14.8 | ||||
High | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 14 | 2 | 16 | |||||||||||||
Low | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 2 | 14 |
*1-School 2 (S2) has Applied English Department & Applied Japanese Department; *2-School 3 (S3) has Tourism Department (change from formerly Applied English Department in 2009); *3-School 5 (S5) has Language Center; **Exchange countries―A: Australia, C: Canada, J: Japan, U: USA.
It was found that gender differences existed in motivational intensity, strategy, and English levels before the internships, while male students had higher means than females (p < 0.05), but after the internships, gender differences only existed in English levels, the same, males had higher means than females (p < 0.01). Nevertheless, after the internships, in addition to motivation, instrumental orientation, and anxiety, with which females had higher means, the findings revealed that female students tended to have higher means in integrative orientation, attitude, strategy, and anxiety than male students, though the differences didn’t reach a significant level.
The findings of gender differences in English learning behaviors and English levels before and after the internships were shown in
N | Mean | SD | Sig | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
pretest | posttest | pretest | posttest | pretest | posttest | pretest | posttest | ||
1) Motivation | male | 28 | 32 | 3.50 | 3.36 | 0.77 | 0.81 | 0.802 | 0.239 |
female | 475 | 457 | 3.53 | 3.49 | 0.62 | 0.55 | |||
total | 503 | 489 | 3.53 | 3.48 | 0.63 | 0.57 | |||
2) Instrumental Orientation | male | 29 | 32 | 3.66 | 3.43 | 0.73 | 0.75 | 0.764 | 0.078 |
female | 479 | 457 | 3.70 | 3.61 | 0.63 | 0.54 | |||
total | 508 | 489 | 3.69 | 3.60 | 0.63 | 0.56 | |||
3) Integrative Orientation | male | 29 | 32 | 3.43 | 3.30 | 0.91 | 0.90 | 0.638 | 0.581 |
female | 480 | 458 | 3.37 | 3.37 | 0.70 | 0.63 | |||
total | 509 | 490 | 3.37 | 3.36 | 0.71 | 0.65 | |||
4) Motivational Intensity | male | 30 | 32 | 2.31 | 2.30 | 0.37 | 0.46 | 0.019 | 0.106 |
female | 484 | 458 | 2.15 | 2.19 | 0.36 | 0.38 | |||
total | 514 | 490 | 2.15 | 2.20 | 0.36 | 0.39 | |||
5) Attitude | male | 30 | 32 | 3.62 | 3.27 | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.211 | 0.109 |
female | 483 | 455 | 3.48 | 3.43 | 0.55 | 0.50 | |||
total | 513 | 487 | 3.49 | 3.42 | 0.56 | 0.52 | |||
6) Strategy | male | 30 | 31 | 3.34 | 3.15 | 0.92 | 0.79 | 0.031 | 0.891 |
female | 465 | 445 | 3.08 | 3.16 | 0.60 | 0.54 | |||
total | 495 | 476 | 3.10 | 3.16 | 0.62 | 0.52 | |||
7) Anxiety | male | 29 | 32 | 2.95 | 3.13 | 0.66 | 0.54 | 0.083 | 0.882 |
female | 475 | 444 | 3.12 | 3.14 | 0.50 | 0.44 | |||
total | 504 | 476 | 3.11 | 3.14 | 0.51 | 0.44 | |||
8) English levels | male | 30 | 32 | 1.80 | 1.87 | 0.99 | 1.07 | 0.043 | 0.005 |
female | 480 | 458 | 1.50 | 1.47 | 0.76 | 0.75 | |||
total | 510 | 490 | 1.51 | 1.50 | 0.78 | 0.78 |
Regarding to English learning behaviors and English levels among the five participating nursing schools, before the internships, there were significant differences on motivational intensity (p < 0.05), especially School 2 had higher mean than School 3 (p < 0.05), and English levels (p < 0.01), in which School 2 had higher mean than other four schools (p < 0.01). However, after the internships, a significant difference only existed in Motivational intensity (p < 0.01), in which School 1 had higher mean than School 4 (p < 0.01).
Furthermore, before students’ internships, among the five participating schools, it was found that School 2 ranked second in English levels, and number one in all of the five factors of English learning behaviors (i.e. motivation, attitude, motivational intensity, strategy, and anxiety), though only the difference of motivational intensity reached a significant difference (p < 0.05). In addition, as for School 5, except for motivational intensity, it had the lowest mean of motivation, attitude, strategy, and anxiety, though the differences didn’t reach significant levels, yet School 5 had the highest English levels (p < 0.01). Nevertheless, after the internships, in light of English levels, there was no significant difference among the five participating schools, though School 5 still kept the best (1st), yet School 2 dropped from the second down to next to the last (5th) which needs to be paid attention to.
The findings of students’ English learning behaviors and English levels among the five participating schools were presented in
To summarize, before the 1-year internships, regarding to students’ English learning motivation, attitude, motivational intensity, strategy, anxiety, and English levels, among the five participating schools, School 1 ranked (2) (5) (2) (4) (3) (5), while School 2 ranked (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (2), School 3 ranked (3) (2) (5) (2) (2) (4), School 4 ranked (4) (2) (4) (3) (4) (3), and School 5 ranked (5) (4) (3) (4) (5) (1), respectively. To take School 2 and School 5 as examples, it seemed that students of School 2 had best English learning motivation, attitude, motivational intensity and strategy, but also highest anxiety, and second best English level, while School 5, students had moderate motivation, attitude, motivational intensity and strategy, but lowest anxiety, and best English levels.
But after their internships, School 1 ranked (3) (4) (1) (2) (3) (4), while School 2 ranked (1) (1) (2) (1) (2) (5), School 3 ranked (5) (5) (4) (5) (1) (2), School 4 ranked (2) (2) (5) (4) (4) (3), and School 5 ranked (4) (3) (3) (3) (5) (1), for students’ English learning motivation, attitude, motivational intensity, strategy, anxiety, and English level, respectively.
The findings of students’ English learning behaviors and English levels among the five schools before and after the internships were presented in
N | Mean | SD | Sig | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
pretest | posttest | pretest | posttest | pretest | posttest | pretest | posttest | ||
1) Motivation | S1 | 91 | 79 | 3.57 | 3.44 | 0.68 | 0.61 | 0.852 | 0.272 |
S2 | 86 | 91 | 3.60 | 3.57 | 0.67 | 0.64 | |||
S3 | 116 | 116 | 3.56 | 3.42 | 0.56 | 0.53 | |||
S4 | 118 | 118 | 3.48 | 3.52 | 0.62 | 0.53 | |||
S5 | 92 | 85 | 3.44 | 3.43 | 0.64 | 0.56 | |||
total | 503 | 489 | 3.53 | 3.48 | 0.63 | 0.57 | |||
2) Attitude | S1 | 93 | 79 | 3.42 | 3.39 | 0.60 | 0.56 | 0.372 | 0.403 |
S2 | 88 | 90 | 3.53 | 3.47 | 0.55 | 0.52 | |||
S3 | 120 | 114 | 3.52 | 3.37 | 0.55 | 0.45 | |||
S4 | 120 | 118 | 3.52 | 3.46 | 0.54 | 0.55 | |||
S5 | 92 | 86 | 3.45 | 3.40 | 0.55 | 0.53 | |||
total | 513 | 487 | 3.49 | 3.42 | 0.56 | 0.52 | |||
3) Intensity | S1 | 93 | 79 | 2.22 | 2.33 | 0.40 | 0.49 | 0.024 | 0.004 |
S2 | 88 | 91 | 2.23 | 2.22 | 0.39 | 0.38 | |||
S3 | 120 | 116 | 2.09 | 2.16 | 0.35 | 0.39 | |||
S4 | 120 | 118 | 2.11 | 2.12 | 0.34 | 0.34 | |||
S5 | 93 | 86 | 2.17 | 2.19 | 0.30 | 0.32 | |||
total | 514 | 490 | 2.15 | 2.20 | 0.36 | 0.39 | |||
4) Strategy | S1 | 91 | 76 | 3.05 | 3.18 | 0.69 | 0.53 | 0.596 | 0.602 |
S2 | 85 | 89 | 3.14 | 3.23 | 0.67 | 0.63 | |||
S3 | 116 | 112 | 3.13 | 3.11 | 0.52 | 0.40 | |||
S4 | 111 | 114 | 3.12 | 3.15 | 0.63 | 0.56 | |||
S5 | 92 | 85 | 3.05 | 3.15 | 0.62 | 0.60 | |||
total | 495 | 476 | 3.10 | 3.16 | 0.62 | 0.54 | |||
5) Anxiety | S1 | 92 | 74 | 3.12 | 3.17 | 0.62 | 0.48 | 0.499 | 0.566 |
S2 | 87 | 89 | 3.18 | 3.17 | 0.60 | 0.49 | |||
S3 | 118 | 112 | 3.15 | 3.18 | 0.47 | 0.37 | |||
S4 | 115 | 117 | 3.07 | 3.11 | 0.41 | 0.40 | |||
S5 | 92 | 84 | 3.03 | 3.09 | 0.44 | 0.51 | |||
total | 504 | 476 | 3.11 | 3.14 | 0.51 | 0.44 | |||
6) English levels | S1 | 93 | 79 | 1.34 | 1.44 | 0.63 | 0.72 | 0.000 | 0.550 |
S2 | 88 | 91 | 1.54 | 1.42 | 0.80 | 0.79 | |||
S3 | 117 | 116 | 1.41 | 1.51 | 0.58 | 0.71 | |||
S4 | 119 | 118 | 1.38 | 1.50 | 0.67 | 0.85 | |||
S5 | 93 | 86 | 1.97 | 1.61 | 1.03 | 0.82 | |||
total | 510 | 490 | 1.53 | 1.50 | 0.78 | 0.78 |
School | Motivation | attitude | intensity | strategy | Anxiety | English level | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | Rank | M | SD | R | M | SD | Rank | M | SD | Rank | M | SD | Rank | M | SD | Rank | ||
1 | School 1 | 3.57 | 0.68 | (2) | 3.42 | 0.60 | (5) | 2.22 | 0.40 | (2) | 3.05 | 0.69 | (4) | 3.12 | 0.62 | (3) | 1.34 | 0.63 | (5) |
2 | School 2 | 3.60 | 0.67 | (1) | 3.53 | 0.55 | (1) | 2.23 | 0.39 | (1) | 3.14 | 0.67 | (1) | 3.18 | 0.60 | (1) | 1.54 | 0.80 | (2) |
3 | School 3 | 3.56 | 0.56 | (3) | 3.52 | 0.55 | (2) | 2.09 | 0.35 | (5) | 3.13 | 0.52 | (2) | 3.15 | 0.47 | (2) | 1.41 | 0.58 | (4) |
4 | School 4 | 3.48 | 0.62 | (4) | 3.52 | 0.54 | (2) | 2.11 | 0.34 | (4) | 3.12 | 0.63 | (3) | 3.07 | 0.41 | (4) | 1.38 | 0.67 | (3) |
5 | School 5 | 3.44 | 0.64 | (5) | 3.45 | 0.55 | (4) | 2.17 | 0.30 | (3) | 3.05 | 0.62 | (4) | 3.03 | 0.44 | (5) | 1.97 | 1.03 | (1) |
Average | 3.53 | 0.63 | 3.49 | 0.56 | 2.15 | 0.36 | 3.10 | 0.62 | 3.11 | 0.51 | 1.51 | 0.78 | |||||||
Sig | 0.852 | 0.372 | 0.024 | 0.596 | 0.499 | 0.000 | |||||||||||||
Max | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | |||||||||||||
Min | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
School | Motivation | attitude | intensity | strategy | Anxiety | English level | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | Rank | M | SD | R | M | SD | Rank | M | SD | Rank | M | SD | Rank | M | SD | Rank | ||
1 | School 1 | 3.44 | 0.61 | (3) | 3.39 | 0.56 | (4) | 2.33 | 0.49 | (1) | 3.18 | 0.53 | (2) | 3.173 | 0.48 | (3) | 1.44 | 0.72 | (4) |
2 | School 2 | 3.57 | 0.64 | (1) | 3.47 | 0.52 | (1) | 2.22 | 0.38 | (2) | 3.23 | 0.63 | (1) | 3.174 | 0.49 | (2) | 1.42 | 0.79 | (5) |
3 | School 3 | 3.42 | 0.53 | (5) | 3.37 | 0.45 | (5) | 2.16 | 0.39 | (4) | 3.11 | 0.40 | (5) | 3.18 | 0.47 | (1) | 1.51 | 0.71 | (2) |
4 | School 4 | 3.52 | 0.53 | (2) | 3.46 | 0.55 | (2) | 2.12 | 0.39 | (5) | 3.151 | 0.56 | (4) | 3.11 | 0.41 | (4) | 1.50 | 0.85 | (3) |
5 | School 5 | 3.43 | 0.56 | (4) | 3.40 | 0.53 | (3) | 2.19 | 0.34 | (3) | 3.152 | 0.60 | (3) | 3.09 | 0.44 | (5) | 1.61 | 0.82 | (1) |
Average | 3.48 | 0.57 | 3.42 | 0.52 | 2.20 | 0.39 | 3.16 | 0.54 | 3.14 | 0.51 | 1.50 | 0.78 | |||||||
Sig | 0.167 | 0.403 | 0.105 | 0.574 | 0.814 | 0.872 | |||||||||||||
Max | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | |||||||||||||
Min | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
By regression analysis, it was found that before the internships, among environmental factors (English hours, English teachers, and English grants), English learning behaviors (motivation, attitude, motivational intensity, strategy, and anxiety), and English levels, factors related to integrative orientation and motivational intensity were both English teachers (t = 2.144, sig = 0.032) and English grants, negatively (t = −2.006, Sig = 0.045). The same, factors related to motivational intensity were both English teachers (t = 3.250, sig = 0.001) and English grants, negatively (t = −3.199, sig = 0.001) (see
As after the internships, findings revealed that English hours was related to both instrumental orientation (t = 2.349, sig = 0.019) and overall motivation (t = 2.012, sig = 0.045). Furthermore, factors related to motivational intensity were English teachers (t = 3.386, sig = 0.001) and English grants, negatively (t = −3.618, sig = 0.000) (see
Variables | motivation | attitude | intensity | strategy | anxiety | English levels | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
instrumental | integrative | motivation | ||||||||||||||
t | sig | t | sig | t | sig | t | sig | t | sig | t | sig | t | sig | t | sig | |
(constant) | 8.784 | 0.000 | 7.408 | 0.000 | 8.370 | 0.000 | 7.826 | 0.000 | 9.061 | 0.000 | 6.124 | 0.000 | 8.899 | 0.000 | 4.258 | 0.000 |
English hours | −0.316 | 0.752 | −0.403 | 0.687 | −0.227 | 0.821 | 1.187 | 0.236 | −0.096 | 0.923 | 0.917 | 0.360 | −0.121 | 0.904 | −1.768 | 0.078 |
English teacher | 1.066 | 0.287 | 2.144 | 0.032 | 1.573 | 0.116 | −0.474 | 0.636 | 3.250 | 0.001 | −0.145 | 0.885 | −1.572 | 0.117 | −0.857 | 0.392 |
English grants | −0.898 | 0.402 | −2.006 | 0.045 | −1.387 | 0.166 | −0.791 | 0.429 | −3.199 | 0.001 | 0.336 | 0.737 | −1.190 | 0.234 | 1.936 | 0.053 |
**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.
Variables | motivation | attitude | intensity | strategy | anxiety | English levels | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
instrumental | integrative | motivation | ||||||||||||||
t | sig | t | sig | t | sig | t | sig | t | sig | t | sig | t | sig | t | sig | |
(constant) | 6.773 | 0.000 | 5.965 | 0.000 | 6.695 | 0.000 | 7.750 | 0.000 | 10.22 | 0.000 | 7.641 | 0.000 | 10.439 | 0.000 | 3.173 | 0.000 |
English hours | 2.349 | 0.019 | 1.534 | 0.126 | 2.012 | 0.045 | 1.630 | 0.104 | −1.813 | 0.070 | 0.573 | 0.567 | −0.504 | 0.614 | −0.506 | 0.613 |
English teacher | 0.199 | 0.842 | 0.845 | 0.398 | 0.572 | 0.568 | 0.281 | 0.779 | 3.386 | 0.001 | 1.345 | 0.179 | −0.994 | 0.321 | −1.189 | 0.235 |
English grants | −0.069 | 0.945 | −0.864 | 0.388 | −0.450 | 0.653 | −0.282 | 0.778 | −3.618 | 0.000 | −1.23 | 0.218 | −0.794 | 0.428 | 1.236 | 0.217 |
**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.
Additionally, by Regression analysis, the findings showed that in the pretest, English learning behaviors predicting English levels were motivational intensity (t = 2.519, sig = 0.012), strategy (t = 1.998, sig = 0.046), and anxiety, negatively (t = −2.519, sig = 0.012), while in the posttest, English learning behaviors predicting English levels were integrative orientation (t = 2.450, sig = 0.015), attitude, negatively (t = −2.192, sig = 0.029), motivational intensity (t = 2.724, sig = 0.007), and strategy (t = 2.936, sig = 0.003) (see
Findings of regression analysis of environmental factors (English hour, English teacher, and English grant), and English learning behaviors (motivation, attitude, motivational intensity, strategy, and anxiety) predicting English levels before and after the internships were presented in Tables 12-14, respectively and Figures 1-3 as well.
Before and after the internships, both findings revealed that in light of environmental factors, English hours, English teachers, and English grants were correlated to one another (p < 0.01) and (p < 0.01), respectively. In addition, English teachers and English grants were correlated to each other (p < 0.01).
As for English learning behaviors, motivation was correlated to attitude (p < 0.01), motivational intensity (p < 0.01), strategy (p < 0.01), and anxiety (p < 0.01)
Variable | English levels-pretest | English levels-posttest | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
t | Sig | t | sig | |
(constant) | 3.709 | 0.000 | 3.709 | 0.000 |
Motivation | −1.138 | 0.256 | −1.138 | 0.256 |
instrumental orientation | 0.181 | 0.856 | −0.699 | 0.485 |
Integrative orientation | −1.302 | 0.194 | 2.450 | 0.015 |
Attitude | 0.341 | 0.734 | −2.192 | 0.029 |
motivational intensity | 2.519 | 0.012 | 2.724 | 0.007 |
Strategy | 1.998 | 0.046 | 2.936 | 0.003 |
Anxiety | −2.519 | 0.012 | −0.938 | 0.349 |
**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.
negatively; while attitude was correlated to motivational intensity (p < 0.01), strategy (p < 0.01), and anxiety (p < 0.01) negatively. Additionally, motivational intensity was correlated to strategy (p < 0.01), anxiety (p < 0.05), and English levels (p < 0.01). Furthermore, strategy was found to be correlated to anxiety (p < 0.01) negatively and English level (p < 0.01), while anxiety was found to be negatively correlated to all motivation (p < 0.01) negatively, attitude (p < 0.01), motivational intensity (p < 0.05), and strategy (p < 0.01) as well as English level (p < 0.01). And English level was shown to be correlated to English teachers (p < 0.05), English grants (p < 0.01), motivational intensity (p < 0.01), strategy (p < 0.01), and anxiety (p < 0.05) negatively.
Nevertheless, some differences were found in environmental factors and students’ learning behaviors after their 1-year internships. First, after their internships, another two significant correlations were added, including the correlation between English hours and motivation (p < 0.05) as well as between motivation and English levels (p < 0.01). Second, one of the correlations was increased, which was the correlation between motivational intensity and anxiety (p < 0.01). Third, after the internships, three of the correlations dealing with the English levels before the internships were not existing, including the correlation between English levels and English teachers (p < 0.05), English grants (p < 0.01), and anxiety (p < 0.05) negatively.
Findings of the correlation among environmental factors, students’ learning behavior, and their English levels before and after the internships were shown in
In the study, among the participating nursing students in the pretest and posttest (before and after internships), most of them were females (93% - 94%), graduated from public junior high schools (78% - 85%), came from the southern part of Taiwan (59% - 60%), and more than half of their parents graduated from high
English hours | English teachers | English grants | Motivation | attitude | intensity | strategy | anxiety | English level | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
English hours | P Pearson | 1 | 0.352 (**) | 0.269 (**) | −0.001 | 0.048 | 0.013 | 0.039 | −0.010 | −0.072 |
Sig | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.975 | 0.277 | 0.767 | 0.381 | 0.824 | 0.105 | ||
N | 601 | 601 | 601 | 503 | 513 | 514 | 495 | 504 | 510 | |
English teachers | Pearson | 0.352 (**) | 1 | 0.911 (**) | 0.029 | 0.036 | 0.049 | 0.026 | −0.050 | 0.105 (*) |
Sig | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.516 | 0.416 | 0.268 | 0.571 | 0.261 | 0.018 | ||
N | 601 | 601 | 601 | 503 | 513 | 514 | 495 | 504 | 510 | |
English grants | Pearson | 0.269 (**) | 0.911 (**) | 1 | 0.008 | 0.048 | −0.019 | 0.030 | −0.032 | 0.123 (**) |
Sig | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.856 | 0.277 | 0.669 | 0.503 | 0.469 | 0.005 | ||
N | 601 | 601 | 601 | 503 | 513 | 514 | 495 | 504 | 510 | |
motivation | Pearson | −0.001 | 0.029 | 0.008 | 1 | 0.791 (**) | 0.336 (**) | 0.537 (**) | −0.185 (**) | 0.034 |
Sig | 0.975 | 0.516 | 0.856 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.444 | ||
N | 503 | 503 | 503 | 503 | 502 | 503 | 484 | 493 | 499 | |
Attitude | Pearson | 0.048 | 0.036 | 0.048 | 0.791 (**) | 1 | 0.394 (**) | 0.642 (**) | −0.280 (**) | 0.074 |
Sig | 0.277 | 0.416 | 0.277 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.096 | ||
N | 513 | 513 | 513 | 502 | 513 | 513 | 494 | 503 | 509 | |
intensity | Pearson | 0.013 | 0.049 | −0.019 | 0.336 (**) | 0.394 (**) | 1 | 0.596 (**) | −0.114 (*) | 0.206 (**) |
Sig | 0.767 | 0.268 | 0.669 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.010 | 0.000 | ||
N | 514 | 514 | 514 | 503 | 513 | 514 | 495 | 504 | 510 | |
strategy | Pearson | 0.039 | 0.026 | 0.030 | 0.537 (**) | 0.642 (**) | 0.596 (**) | 1 | −0.306 (**) | 0.163 (**) |
Sig | 0.381 | 0.571 | 0.503 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
N | 495 | 495 | 495 | 484 | 494 | 495 | 495 | 488 | 491 | |
Anxiety | Pearson | −0.010 | −0.050 | −0.032 | −0.185 (**) | −0.280 (**) | −0.114 (*) | −0.306 (**) | 1 | −0.093 (*) |
Sig | 0.824 | 0.261 | 0.469 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.010 | 0.000 | 0.038 | ||
N | 504 | 504 | 504 | 493 | 503 | 504 | 488 | 504 | 500 | |
English level | Pearson | −0.072 | 0.105 (*) | 0.123 (**) | 0.034 | 0.074 | 0.206 (**) | 0.163 (**) | −0.093 (*) | 1 |
Sig | 0.105 | 0.018 | 0.005 | 0.444 | 0.096 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.038 | ||
N | 510 | 510 | 510 | 499 | 509 | 510 | 491 | 500 | 510 |
**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.
schools. In addition, only 34% - 36% of their self-reported English level was Elementary (CEFR A2) and above, which was the appropriate level that junior high school graduates were supposed to have (see
As for English learning behaviors, environmental factors, and English levels, the participating nursing students had favorable English learning behaviors and environmental supports, but many students’ English proficiency was not satisfactory. In fact, about 64% - 66% of the students lacked appropriate English proficiency levels to meet the job-market language skills (for senior high school graduates with CEFR B1 supposed to have).
English hours | English teachers | English grants | Motivation | attitude | intensity | strategy | anxiety | English level | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
English hours | P Pearson | 1 | 0.306 (**) | 0.267 (**) | 0.099 (*) | 0.078 | −0.062 | 0.039 | −0.013 | −0.032 |
Sig | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.029 | 0.087 | 0.172 | 0.395 | 0.771 | 0.486 | ||
N | 601 | 601 | 601 | 489 | 487 | 490 | 476 | 476 | 490 | |
English teachers | Pearson | 0.306 (**) | 1 | 0.932 (**) | 0.036 | 0.016 | −0.008 | 0.031 | −0.029 | −0.011 |
Sig | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.426 | 0.725 | 0.859 | 0.496 | 0.525 | 0.816 | ||
N | 601 | 601 | 601 | 489 | 487 | 490 | 476 | 476 | 490 | |
English grants | Pearson | 0.267 (**) | 0.932 (**) | 1 | 0.022 | 0.007 | −0.064 | 0.007 | −0.015 | 0.012 |
Sig | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.631 | 0.882 | 0.157 | 0.886 | 0.751 | 0.788 | ||
N | 601 | 601 | 601 | 489 | 487 | 490 | 476 | 476 | 490 | |
motivation | Pearson | 0.099 (*) | 0.036 | 0.022 | 1 | 0.790 (**) | 0.283 (**) | 0.551 (**) | −0.280 (**) | 0.135 (**) |
Sig | 0.029 | 0.426 | 0.631 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.003 | ||
N | 489 | 489 | 489 | 489 | 486 | 489 | 475 | 475 | 489 | |
Attitude | Pearson | 0.078 | 0.016 | 0.007 | 0.790 (**) | 1 | 0.292 (**) | 0.640 (**) | −0.340 (**) | 0.076 |
Sig | 0.087 | 0.725 | 0.882 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.096 | ||
N | 487 | 487 | 487 | 486 | 487 | 487 | 473 | 473 | 487 | |
intensity | Pearson | −0.062 | −0.008 | −0.064 | 0.283 (**) | 0.292 (**) | 1 | 0.516 (**) | −0.130 (**) | 0.223 (**) |
Sig | 0.172 | 0.859 | 0.157 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.005 | 0.000 | ||
N | 490 | 490 | 490 | 489 | 487 | 490 | 476 | 476 | 490 | |
strategy | Pearson | 0.039 | 0.031 | 0.007 | 0.551 (**) | 0.640 (**) | 0.516 (**) | 1 | −0.417 (**) | 0.210 (**) |
Sig | 0.395 | 0.496 | 0.886 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
N | 476 | 476 | 476 | 475 | 473 | 476 | 476 | 466 | 476 | |
Anxiety | Pearson | −0.013 | −0.029 | −0.015 | −0.280 (**) | −0.340 (**) | −0.130 (**) | −0.417 (**) | 1 | −0.021 |
Sig | 0.771 | 0.525 | 0.751 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.010 | 0.000 | 0.649 | ||
N | 476 | 476 | 476 | 475 | 473 | 476 | 466 | 476 | 476 | |
English level | Pearson | −0.032 | −0.011 | 0.012 | 0.135 (**) | 0.076 | 0.223 (**) | 0.210 (**) | −0.021 | 1 |
Sig | 0.486 | 0.816 | 0.788 | 0.003 | 0.096 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.649 | ||
N | 490 | 490 | 490 | 489 | 487 | 490 | 476 | 476 | 490 |
**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.
Regarding to gender differences, before their internships, male students were stronger in motivational intensity (p < 0.05), strategy, and English levels (p < 0.05) than females; though after their internships, males still outperformed in English levels (p < 0.01), yet females had higher means in English learning motivation, instrumental orientation, integrative orientation, attitude, strategy, and even anxiety than males, though the differences didn’t reach a significant level.
Furthermore, among the five participating schools, before the internships, significant differences existed in motivational intensity (p < 0.05) and English levels (p < 0.01). Comparatively, School 2 had the highest motivational intensity, followed by School 1, School 5, School 4, and School 3, but School 5 had the highest English level, followed by School 2, School 3, School 4, and School 1. However, after the internships, a significant difference only existed in motivational intensity (p < 0.01), while School 1 had the highest motivational intensity, followed by School 2, School 5, School 3, and School 4. Though after the internships, there was no significant difference in English levels among the five participating schools, yet, the fact that School 2 ranked down from the second (2nd) before internships to next to the last (4th) after the internships needs to be paid attention to.
Discussions, implications, limitations of the study, and suggestions for further research were described as follows:
In Taiwan, globalization has brought about a new society and more than 2.7% of the whole Taiwanese population are foreigners now (Taiwan National Immigration Agency). With the increasing number of aging and diverse foreign patient population in the society, access to health care will expand and the need will increase for more competent and diverse nursing graduates with satisfactory English proficiency. Based on the finding of the study, it showed that Taiwanese nursing students were with strong motivation, positive attitude, and favorable motivational intensity, the same as Yang, et al. reported (2015) [
However, the findings also revealed that more than half of the nursing students (63% - 65%) self-reported that their English level was only CEFR A1 (Breakthrough/ Basic), while 21% - 23% was CEFR A2 (Waystage/Elementary), and the rest 12% - 16% was higher. Based on the CEFR Skill Descriptors (E:\vss\word_html\Word_xml\bin\Debug\docTempWords\www.britishcouncil.orghttp://www.britishcouncil.org/), it seemed that many Taiwanese nursing students’ English proficiency was not satisfactory to reach the job-related language levels yet, and would lead to what Yang (2011) [
Why did Taiwanese schools spend so much time and effort in improving students’ English proficiency, and students were also highly motivated to learn English, yet the results still came out like that? Based on the present study, findings revealed that in addition to environmental factors, students’ internships experience brought about some changes in their English learning behaviors, and relevant to English levels (see
First, regarding to environmental factors, the finding supported what Gardner (1990) [
Second, as for students’ English learning behaviors, motivational intensity and strategy were relevant to English levels before and after the internships, while anxiety was found to be negatively related to English levels before the internships (p < 0.01), Additionally, after the internships, integrative orientation was relevant to English levels (p < 0.05), and attitude was related to English levels, negatively (p < 0.01). The results that strategy use was found to be related to English levels was consistent with other studies, such as Hou, et al.’s (2014) [
Another possible explanation was relevant to students’ internship experience while English was used in nursing. As student nurses in their practicum period, in addition to facing the increasing number of international patients and family or caregivers, they need to use English in interaction mainly with medical crews. However, according to Lee (2016) [
Furthermore, some findings of negative factors in the study should not be underestimated. One was students’ anxiety about English learning. Like other studies [
The other finding of negative factor in the study was schools being granted for holding English related activities and programs. For the past ten years, School 2 and School 3 were granted 12 times and 10 times to hold English activities, respectively, such as Internationalization at Home (IaH), English as the Medium of Instruction (EMI), and many other English programs granted by Information Center for International Cooperation and Exchange (ICICE) (see 2.4). The findings of the study seemed to be inconsistent with that of others with positive impacts of EMI, identity, and study-abroad [
School 1 students: Help them to develop more positive attitude toward English learning, for example, helping them to be aware of the importance of English in education and career, and train them to use more strategies when learning English (in the study, School 1 students were found to be with favorable motivation, motivational intensity and anxiety, but lower attitude and strategy use, as well as lowest English level).
School 2 students: Help them to decrease their anxieties about English learning seemed to be the priority, especially in creating a less competitive learning environment for them (almost 47% of them agreed or strongly agreed that they always felt that the other students spoke English better than they did). In addition, as mentioned earlier, it was suggested that the school investigate students’ attitude toward applying for grants for more English related activities and programs to figure out if it was the possible reason for their high anxiety (in the study, School 2 students were found to be all with highest motivation, attitude, motivational intensity, and anxiety, but second to highest English level).
School 3 students: Helping them to cultivate the habits of spending more time and effort to actively think about what they had learned in English class, and become more serious about dealing with English assignment (in the study, School 3 students were found to have favorable motivation, attitude, and anxiety, but lowest motivational intensity and second to lowest English level).
School 4 students: Help them to strengthen their motivation and motivational intensity (in the study, School 4 students were found to be with favorable attitude, strategy use, anxiety and English level, but lower in motivation and motivational intensity).
School 5 students: Help them to develop stronger motivation, more positive attitude, and use more strategy, though they had the lowest anxiety but the highest English, in particular, helping them to be aware of the importance of English for a better job and for the current society (in the study, School 5 students were found to be with lower motivation, attitude, strategy use, but lowest anxiety, and highest English level).
Limitations of the study and suggestions for further research included:
1) This study was conducted using questionnaires about Taiwanese nursing students’ English learning motivation, strategy, and anxiety. The questionnaires are self-reporting instruments and reflect reporters’ perception and preferences. In particular, Likert-style scales don’t capture the full range of responses, making different contexts appear more similar [
2) This study was limited to Taiwanese nursing students’ English learning, in particular, samples selected from five out of 12 junior colleges having nursing departments in Taiwan. Hence, the findings of the study may not be representative of all nursing students in Taiwan. Therefore, in the future research, it should consider to include samples from other 7 junior colleges.
3) In the study, students’ English proficiency was only based on students’ self-evaluation of their levels. Consequently, it is strongly suggested that students be arranged to take an English proficiency test for their real English scores instead of just accepting their reported English levels as the present study. Furthermore, the information of frequency and importance of English language use in students’ internships were adopted from Lee (2016) [
4) More importantly, based on the findings, why some schools were granted to hold English related activities and programs but didn’t bring about students’ favorable motivational intensity and English levels as expected. Hence, further study should be done to investigate students’ attitude toward both school’s curriculum design and applying for more grants to hold more English related activities and programs.
The author deeply appreciates the participating five teachers and more than five hundred nursing students for their valuable contribution to the study.
Hou, Y.-A. (2017) An Investigation of Taiwanese Nursing Students’ English Learning Behaviors and Environmental Factors Related to English Learning before and after Their Internship Experiences―A Case Study. Open Journal of Nursing, 7, 1439-1473. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojn.2017.712102