Factors Impacting Students’ Satisfaction with English Courses: A Case Study of a Secondary School in Mianyang, China
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Aim: This study investigates five key factors influencing student satisfaction with English courses in a secondary school in Mianyang, China—a representative city with a strong education system and ongoing reforms. Despite its importance, limited research exists on satisfaction determinants in Chinese secondary schools. Mianyang’s diverse student population and varied teaching practices offer a rich context for this exploration. By focusing on Mianyang, this study aims to address the gap in research on students’ satisfaction in secondary school English education in China. The findings from this study not only contribute to the local educational context but also provide insights for similar settings in other regions of China.
Materials and Methods: Employing a mixed-methods research design, this study was conducted in three sequential phases: pre-intervention, intervention, and post-intervention. Structured surveys were administered to 84 participants. Multiple linear regression analysis examined the associations between independent and dependent variables. A 10-week intervention was subsequently implemented with a subset of 40 students, and its efficacy was evaluated using paired samples t-tests to compare pre- and post-intervention outcomes.
Results: The MLR analysis identified five significant predictors (p<0.05), with Course Content Quality (β=0.290) and Instructor Performance (β=0.266) showing the strongest effects pattern reflecting China's exam-driven educational priorities. Our 10-week intervention achieved 12.7% average improvement in satisfaction metrics (p<0.05), most notably enhancing Instructor Competence (+9.5%, p=0.001) and Interaction Quality (+4.1%, p=0.030), demonstrating actionable pathways for pedagogical reform.
Conclusions: This study underscores the critical role of Student-Instructor Interaction, Instructor’s Performance, Course Evaluation, Instructor Competence, and Course Content Quality in shaping students’ satisfaction with English courses. These findings both corroborate prior research and provide novel contributions to understanding the distinct dynamics characterizing China’s secondary EFL education context. These results have practical implications for educators and policymakers, advocating for targeted interventions to enhance teaching quality and student engagement.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright on any article in the International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews is retained by the author(s) under the under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permission to use text, content, images, etc. of publication. Any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose. But do not use it for commercial use or with the intent to benefit any business.
References
Ali, S., & Ahmad, N. (2011). Interactive efficacy in language education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000256
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008003
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. Routledge.
Cheng, L., Wang, H., & Smythe, S. (2020). Content quality scale development for EFL curriculum evaluation. Language Teaching Research, 24(5), 678–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820917854
Darawong, C., & Widayati, D. T. (2021). Competency evaluation framework for EFL teachers in ASEAN contexts. RELC Journal, 52(2), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220953118
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
Frye, A. W. (2005). Assessment of medical students’ lifelong learning disposition. Academic Medicine, 80(10 Suppl), S42–S45. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200510001-00013
Goh, C. C. M., & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. Cambridge University Press.
Gunn, J., Clark, M. L., & McGuire, C. (2021). Enhancing virtual engagement in higher education: A case study of interactive tools. Online Learning, 25(3), 134–150.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
Hancock, D. R., Bray, M., & Nason, S. A. (2009). Influencing university students’ achievement and motivation in a technology course. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(4), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.40.4.e
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(86)90015-5
Kember, D., Leung, D. Y., & Ma, R. S. (2007). Characterizing learning environments capable of nurturing generic capabilities in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 48(5), 609–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9037-0
Liu, M., Huang, Y., & Zhang, Q. (2018). Effects of blended professional development. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 690–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1438473
Liu, N. F., & Littlewood, W. (2010). Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning discourse? System, 23(3), 399–412.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Nasser, F. (2009). Educational research in developing countries: An overview. Comparative Education Review, 53(1), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1086/593377
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
OECD. (2021). TALIS 2021 results: Teachers and school leaders as valued professionals (Volume I). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19939019
Wang, N. (2019). Teacher-student interaction in high power-distance cultures. China Foreign Language Education, 12(4), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2019-0024
Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2005). Integration and adaptation approaches: Student engagement and retention. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787405049946
Zhang, Y. H. (2022). English course evaluation model. Modern Foreign Languages, 43(3), 401–412.
Zhao, X., Li, P., & Wang, H. (2002). Student satisfaction in Chinese EFL classrooms. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 34(4), 289–295.
