AN ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES
Emese Márton and Péter Szaffkó
Introductory Remarks
The multilateral project titled “Who Learns our Languages?” had set out with the primary goal of conductinga preliminary surveyof the status of the national languagesspoken in Hungary and the three other V4 countries (the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland) with special focus on how those tongues fare in the international language-education market. The findings of theinvestigation are expected to provide a potential springboard for a more comprehensive future study.
The project followed a three-step process of preparation, research and post-survey analysis.The various actors of the language-education market belong to one of two major categories: organizations providing teaching services (“producers” or institutions) and language learners (“consumers”). This project exclusively focused on the former category since, from a researcher’spoint of view, itrepresents a target group that is much easier to define and access, it is much more stable and less prone to change.The survey made use of a custom-made questionnaire as its research tool.
The following organizations coordinated the survey in their respective countries:
Czech Republic: Akcent International House Prague
Hungary: Debrecen Summer School (project leader)
Poland: The Center for Polish Studies
Slovakia: Jazykova Dielna
The questions targeted four issues:
1. the organizational and operational framework of language education;
2. the training structure of the market players active in the field of language instruction;
3. teacher populations and their professional background;
4. course materials and textbooks.
Before the sample analyzed below was taken, a trial run had been conducted to help fine-tune the items of the questionnaire.
Results
The breakdown of the questionnaires completed by the organizations representing the participating countries is as follows:
Table 1: The breakdown of completed questionnaires according to the participating countries
Countries / Number of completed questionnaires / %Hungary / 11 / 50.0
Poland / 2 / 9.1
Slovakia / 5 / 22.7
Czech Republic / 4 / 18.2
Total / 22 / 100.0
Due to the small number of completed questionnaires, the results are statistically not significant. They only give vague impressions which, however, may help develop a multi-step, stratified sampling method to be exploited in a more comprehensive future survey.
The insufficient number does not facilitate meaningful comparisons between the data of the various participants. Therefore, the available data of individual countries will be analyzed as a whole to highlight a few perceptible tendencies.
As to the operational and organizational framework of participating institutions, mention must be made of the following:
Table 2: The breakdown of participating organizations according to where they are based
Based in city/town / Number of organizations / %Capital city / 9 / 40.9
Town / 13 / 59.1
Total / 22 / 100.0
Nine respondents said that their organizations are based in capital cities. Thirteen other participating institutions operate in smaller municipalities. Half of them provide in-house training as well as classes in external facilities.
Table 3: The breakdown of participating organizations according to the venue of their operations
Venues of teaching activities / Number of organizations / %Only at the organization’s home base / 11 / 50.0
Also at other venues / 11 / 50.0
Total / 22 / 100.0
Table 4: The breakdown of participating organizations according to their operational status
Operational status of organizations / Number of organizations / %Institute of higher education / 4 / 18.2
Business venture / 9 / 40.9
Private entrepreneur / 4 / 18.2
Other / 4 / 18.2
Total / 21 / 95.5
n/a / 1 / 4.5
Sum Total / 22 / 100.0
Participating organizations typically operate as business ventures, but institutes of higher education are also represented in the research sample. See Table 4 above.
Participating organizations typically teach their nativelanguages as well as foreign languages.
Table 5: The breakdown of participating organizations
according to what type of education they specialize in
Type of education / Number of organizations / %Only language education / 12 / 54.5
Other types also available / 9 / 40.9
Total / 21 / 95.5
n/a / 1 / 4.5
Total / 22 / 100.0
Table 6 shows those foreign languages that participating organizations teach in addition to Czech/Hungarian/Polish/Slovak.
Table 6: The breakdown of participating organizations according to the languages they teach
Availability of languages / English / French / Chinese / German / Italian / Russian / Portuguese / SpanishYes / 15 / 4 / 4 / 14 / 9 / 8 / 5 / 10
No / 7 / 18 / 18 / 8 / 13 / 14 / 17 / 12
Total / 22 / 22 / 22 / 22 / 22 / 22 / 22 / 22
Table 7: The breakdown of participating organizations according to the size of their study groups
Typical size of study groups / one-on-one instruction / % / 2-5students per group / % / 6-10 students per group / % / 11-20
students per group / %
None / 1 / 4.5 / 3 / 13.6 / 13 / 59.1 / 16 / 72.7
Not typical / 1 / 4.5 / 4 / 18.2 / 3 / 13.6 / - / -
Occasionally available / 4 / 18.2 / 3 / 13.6 / 1 / 4.5 / - / -
The most typical size / 5 / 22.7 / 5 / 22.7 / 2 / 9.1 / 2 / 9.1
The only available size / 10 / 45.5 / 5 / 22.7 / 2 / 9.1 / 3 / 13.6
Total / 21 / 4.5 / 21 / 95.5 / 21 / 21 / 95.5 / 95.5
n/a / 1 / 4.5 / 1 / 4.5 / 1 / 1 / 4.5 / 4.5
Sum Total / 22 / 100.0 / 100.0 / 100.0 / 22 / 100.0 / 22 / 100.0
The most typical classroom arrangement is one-on-one instruction followed by classes for small- and medium-sized groups.
Table 8: The breakdown of participating organizations according to whether or not they prepare students for language examinations
Availability of preparatory courses for exams / Number of organizations / %Yes / 14 / 63.6
No / 8 / 36.4
Total / 22 / 100.0
Fourteen respondents said that their organizations are involved in language-exam preparation.
Table 9: The breakdown of participating organizations according to the various levels they teach
Typical levels of language classes / A1 / % / A2 / % / B1 / % / B2 / % / C1 / % / C2 / %None / - / - / 3 / 13.6 / 5 / 22.7 / 8 / 36.4 / 11 / 50.0 / 18 / 81.8
Not typical / - / - / - / - / 3 / 13.6 / 1 / 4.5 / 4 / 18.2 / 1 / 4.5
Occasionally available / - / - / 2 / 9.1 / 2 / 9.1 / 4 / 18.2 / 3 / 13.6 / - / -
The most typical level / 6 / 27.3 / 6 / 27.3 / 6 / 27.3 / 5 / 22.7 / 3 / 13.6 / 2 / 9.1
The only available level / 16 / 72.7 / 11 / 50.0 / 6 / 27.3 / 4 / 18.2 / 1 / 4.5 / 1 / 4.5
Total / 22 / 100.0 / 100.0 / 100.0 / 22 / 100.0 / 22 / 100.0 / 22 / 100.0 / 22 / 100.0
As Table 9 shows, A1 seems to be the most frequently demanded level of language proficiency. Higher CEF level courses tend to be progressively less in demand.
Table 10:
The breakdown of participating organizations according to the duration of language classes
Typical length of language classes / Number of organizations / %45 min. per class / 6 / 27.3
60 min. per class / 3 / 13.6
90 min. per class / 11 / 50.0
135 min. per class / 1 / 4.5
Total / 21 / 95.5
n/a / 1 / 4.5
Total / 22 / 100.0
The most typical sessions are 90 minutes in length.
The size of student populations is clearly a function of the institution’s organizational and operative framework.
Table 11: The breakdown of participating organizations according to the size of their student population
Number of students / Number of organizations / %0 / 1 / 4.5
1 - 5 / 4 / 18.2
6 - 10 / 3 / 13.6
11 - 20 / 2 / 9.1
21 - 50 / 4 / 18.2
101 - 250 / 4 / 18.2
251 - 500 / 1 / 4.5
501 – 1,000 / 1 / 4.5
Total / 20 / 90.9
n/a / 2 / 9.1
Total / 22 / 100.0
The majority of the participants’ student populations study at level A1. The higher the level the fewer students represent the relevant category.
Table 12: The breakdown of participating organizations according to how many students they taught at various levels in 2013
Number of students at various levels / A1 / % / A2 / % / B1 / % / B2 / % / C1 / % / C2 / %none / 1 / 4.5 / 5 / 1 / 6 / 27.3 / 10 / 45.5 / 10 / 45.5 / 18 / 81.8
1 - 10 / 11 / 50.0 / 9 / 11 / 8 / 36.4 / 4 / 18.2 / 6 / 27.3 / 1 / 4.5
11 - 50 / 2 / 9.1 / 2 / 2 / 3 / 13.6 / 4 / 18.2 / 2 / 9.1 / 1 / 4.5
51 - 100 / 4 / 18.2 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 13.6 / 2 / 9.1 / 2 / 9.1 / - / -
101 - 250 / 1 / 4.5 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
251 - 500 / 1 / 4.5 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
Total / 20 / 90.9 / 20 / 90.9 / 20 / 90.9 / 20 / 90.9 / 20 / 90.9 / 20 / 90.9
n/a / 2 / 9.1 / 2 / 9.1 / 2 / 9.1 / 2 / 9.1 / 2 / 9.1 / 2 / 9.1
Total / 22 / 100.0 / 22 / 22 / 22 / 22 / 22
As Table 13 shows, three-quarters of the respondents said that specializing in their native language as a foreign language is not a typical feature of their organizations.
Table 13: The breakdown of participating organizations according to how many instructors teach their respective native language as a foreign language
Percentage of instructors who teach Czech/Hungarian/Polish/Slovak as a foreign language / Number of organizations / %Less than 10% / 10 / 45.5
10% to 25% / 2 / 9.1
51% to 75% / 2 / 9.1
More than 75% / 5 / 22.7
Don’t know / 1 / 4.5
Total / 20 / 90.9
n/a / 2 / 9.1
Sum Total / 22 / 100.0
Teachers most typically work for the language-teaching organizations as subcontractors. This is followed in frequency by tenured posts and employment based on temporary or one-off contracts.
The last category of questions refers to course materials and textbooks. Half of the respondents said they are not involved in developing and/or publishing such materials. Seven respondents reported the existence of their own materials developed to be used exclusively in-house.
Table 14: The breakdown of participating organizations according to the course books they use
Course books / Number of organizations / %No self-developed books / 10 / 45.5
Self-developed books for in-house use only / 7 / 31.8
Self-developed books also for publication / 4 / 18.2
Total / 21 / 95.5
n/a / 1 / 4.5
Total / 22 / 100.0
The majority of respondents selected self-developed items as their teaching material of choice.
Table 15: The breakdown of participating organizations according to other course materials they use
Other course materials / Number of organizations / %No supplementary materials used / 4 / 18.2
Self-developed materials / 9 / 40.9
Printed materials from outside sources / 7 / 31.8
Total / 20 / 90.9
n/a / 2 / 9.1
Total / 22 / 100.0
Conclusions and Afterthoughts
The relative failure of the present survey is a warning sign to consider the lack of interest and motivation of the targets of questionnaires as a major risk in any future research. In spite of this, it is important to note that the trial run of the questionnaires was very helpful in eliminating problems deriving from cultural differences and personal/institutional experiences in defining and/or interpreting the individual questions.
In summary, based on the answers to the questionnaires, we can come to the following general conclusions:
1. While there is quite a high number of schools and institutions offering Czech/Hungarian/Polish/Slovak as a foreign language in the respective V4 countries, private courses most likely dominate over group courses.
2. Beginner’s courses generally outnumber more advanced courses in all four countries.
3. Probably as a result of the above situation, the number of beginner’s textbooks in all four languages surpasses that of the more advanced ones.
4. It can also be seen from the survey and related sources that there is a tendency in schools to use self-compiled materials instead of published textbooks.(See the Appendix)
5. There is hardly any school or institution in the V4 countries which would offer only the respective native language, which seems to be an economic constraint not necessarily supporting high-quality work in a general sense.
6. Although it was not a question to examine in the project, it was quite interesting to find that there are certain “fashionable” languages (e.g. Chinese, French or Portuguese) which seem to be more popular with the young generation than the traditional ones (e.g. German, Spanish, Italian etc).
Appendix
Some Thoughts on Teaching Materials in General
To complement the results of the relatively unsuccessful survey, we asked Dr Edit Dobi, Assistant Professor of Hungarian Linguistics (University of Debrecen) and Language Course Director of Debrecen Summer School, to make further comments on the situation of language learning materials in the V4 countries in general and in Hungary in particular. After consulting with textbook authors and language teachers in Hungary and beyond, she had the following comment to add to the project:
Textbooks require special professional and financial background and it is true of language books as well. In Hungary and in the other three Visegrad countries the two rarely go together: many well-established and prestigious schools and institutions of high quality are often in need of financial resources while those with favourable economic conditions may lack the necessary professional background to create proper textbooks. Whatever the case, we all know that there is no foreign language study book perfect for both teacher and learner. Despite this fact, there are some points of reference which must be organizing principles in such works.
As a matter of fact, the current situation—at least in Hungary—may be characterized by the presence of a few widely known but—methodologically and culturally—outdated textbookswhich are still used by teachers together with their own complementary materials to update the information.
There are quite a number of newly devised textbooks in each country but most of them bring students only to level A2. Furthermore, some of these beginner’s books have been written for a clearly defined group of language learners (e.g. medical students, economists, immigrants etc) and their professional quality is at best varying.
Finally, it must be noted that there is no clear description of a unified set of grammatical and thematic requirements for Czech, Hungarian, Polish and Slovak as a foreign language corresponding to CEF which is yet another barrier for potential authors. All in all, the situation of language textbooks would certainly deserve yet another research project.
1