Content uploaded by Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali on Oct 26, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
111
Journal of Social Studies
Journal of Social Studies
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
) 1 , * (
1
Department of English, College of Arts, University of Bisha, Bisha, Saudi Arabia
* Corresponding author: jgmali@ub.edu.sa
Investigating University Students
’
Failure
in English Requirement Courses
© 2019 University of Science and Technology, Sana’a, Yemen. This article can
be distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are credited.
2019
©
112
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
Investigating University Students’ Failure in English Requirement
Courses
Abstract:
Some university students might fail at their first attempt to study English
requirement courses, but later they perform well, ultimately recognizing that
the courses were easy and their failure in such simple courses was a great
loss. Others continue failing, get frustrated and finally may quit trying. The
purpose of the current study, therefore, was to investigate the factors that
contribute to university non-English major students’ failure in English courses.
A mixed model questionnaire was used to collect data from 56 male students
who failed English at the University of Bisha, Saudi Arabia. All participants
had previously failed English and were repeating the English requirement
course during the period of data collection. Results of the study revealed
that factors such as teachers, anxiety and inappropriate study methods were
more responsible for students’ failure than motivation, friends and family
problems. Results also showed a significant difference between students who
only failed the English course and those who failed two or more other courses.
Those who failed two or more courses scored higher on anxiety than those
who failed only English. Recommendations were that English teachers should
be trained to follow collaborative learning and student-centered approaches
and that the English curriculum for non-English major students should reflect
their major.
Keywords: anxiety, motivation, students’ failure, study methods, teachers.
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
113
ﺔﻳﺰﻴﻠﺠﻧا ﺔﻐﻠﻟا ﺐﻠﻄﺘﻤﻟ ﻢﻬﺘﺳارد ﺪﻨﻋ ﺔﻌﻣﺎﺠﻟا بﻼﻃ ﺮﺜﻌﺗ ءﺎﺼﻘﺘﺳا
:ﺺﺨﻠﻤﻟا
56
114
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
Introduction:
EFL student failure is a common problem that raises concern among both
teachers and policy makers. Students in many parts of the world where English
is taught as a second or foreign language face problems in learning English
(Al-Zoubi, & Younes, 2015; Souriyavongsa, Rany, Abidin, & Mei, 2013). For
instance, a study among secondary school students in Nigeria found that
such low performance was caused by many factors, including the prevalence
of Arabic culture, negative attitudes towards English, traditional teaching
styles and a lack of teaching facilities (Sa’ad, Adamu, & Sadiq, 2014). Most
EFL students who complete secondary school are unable to speak or write a
single proper English sentence (Al-Nasser, 2015; Al-Sohbani, 2015). Noom-
Ura (2013) similarly found that Thai students who had studied English for 12
years were questionable. Alrabai (2016) studied low achievement among
Saudi EFL learners, and indicated that the low level of EFL student competency
was a “multidimensional and complex phenomenon” (p. 22). The factors
contributing to these EFL student failures may involve a lack of motivation,
negative attitudes towards English language, students’ anxiety, inappropriate
study methods, teachers and teaching strategies, negative influences of
friends and family issues. Therefore, this study intends to identify some factors
responsible for university students’ failure in English requirement courses.
Review of Literature:
Generally speaking, attitude and motivation play a significant role in
language acquisition (Gardner, 1968). Hamad (2016) conducted a survey
study among students at King Khalid University, Muhayil, to determine
the factors impeding communicative language teaching. Results indicated
that communicative-language teaching was not practiced and that most
teachers used a teacher-centered approach, which made students unable to
develop communicative competence. This may also be an important factor
contributing to student failure. Similarly, Chairunnisa, Apriliaswati, & Rosnija
(2017) conducted a study on Indonesian school students who were learning
English, and reported that negative attitude towards the language itself was
the most influential factor for low achievement.
According to Alrabai (2016, p. 7) “despite the negative view that majority of
Saudis have held about English in the past, there has been a noticeable recent
shift in Saudi learners’ attitudes towards English in the very recent years.” This
means the situation has been improving recently in Saudi Arabia. Additionally,
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
115
EFL student achievement is also badly affected by anxiety (Alrabai, 2014a;
Alrabai, 2014b). As such, Heidari and Tahriri (2015) concluded that cultivating
an appropriate student-teacher relationship is important for reducing student
anxiety in the classroom setting. Specifically, they observed that students who
freely participated in class were able to enhance their learning experience.
Such participation also reduced exam anxiety because the students had
remained on good terms with their teacher throughout the course. Alhammad
(2017) concurred with this, stating that EFL students enjoyed learning English
language when they were taught by friendly teachers. Further, Leong and
Ahmadi (2017) found that Malaysian students showed low levels of English-
learning achievement due to psychological obstacles. Together, these studies
show that anxiety significantly influences student language learning. In
Saudi Arabia, this is impacted by the predominance of a teacher-centered
approach in the EFL setting. Thus, students do not usually have opportunities
to engage in open classroom participation (Alrabia, 2016; Alrabia, 2014b).
Moreover, Khan (2011) suggested that, in the case that teachers had no
pre-service training, they should get in-service training. Shahzad, Qadeer
& Ullah (2011) conducted a study on low achievement in secondary school
English classes in Pakistan and determined that low achievement was a
reflection of incompetent teachers and harsh classroom environments.
Alhammad (2017) found that EFL students enjoyed learning English language
if the teacher was friendly. Ahmad (2018) surmised that good study habits
were a prerequisite for effective academic performance and vice versa; he
found that low students’ performance was due to a lack of focus in this
area. Akbari (2016) observed that it is the teachers’ responsibility to motivate
students and help them succeed, as teachers are almost the only support for
students’ achievement and students have no exposure to English other than
in the classroom. He also suggested that teachers should be trained to follow
collaborative learning in their classrooms. Khan (2011) also cautioned that
“it is the prime responsibility of the teacher/educator to explore the causes
of existing barriers and find possible solutions so that the teaching/learning
can smoothly take place for the ultimate growth and development” (p. 243).
Alharbi (2019), in a similar vein, conducted a study concerning the challenges
that students face in academic writing. He concluded that teachers were not
able to simultaneously teach reading, writing and speaking. Further, he
warned that teachers who complained about student backgrounds should not
expect them to learn everything at once. This issue can partly be addressed
by promoting strong study habits.
116
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore factors that contribute to
students’ failure in English requirement courses at the University of Bisha,
Saudi Arabia. The study intends to answer the following main research
question:
• What are the factors that contribute to students’ failure in English as a university
requirement course?
Methods:
• Population and Sample:
The population of the present study consisted of students at the University of
Bisha who failed the English requirement course in the previous semester(s)
and were repeating the same course at the time of data collection, i.e. the
first term between August and December 2018. The sample for the study
consisted of 56 male students who failed the Intensive English Program.
Demographic information was given in the first section of the questionnaire
(see Table 1).
• Data Collection Instruments:
The study uses a questionnaire that consisted of both closed and open-ended
items. It was divided into three parts. Part A was devoted for background
information; part B included 18 closed-ended items concerning the factors
thought to contribute to students’ failure in English requirement courses.
These were divided into six categories: lack of motivation, anxiety, teachers,
students, family and friends. Part C was an open question about the reason(s)
for students’ failure. This question provided a chance for the respondents to
give their own ideas that might not have been covered by the closed-ended
items. This allowed respondents to describe the factors they felt contributing
to their failure in English courses using their own words. Reja, Manfreda,
Hlebec and Vehovar (2003) pointed out that open-ended questions enable
the discovery of spontaneous viewpoints while avoiding bias that may be
suggested by researchers. The open-ended section was an optional item.
The researcher believes that making an open-ended section optional
is important for respondents who would like to elaborate the reasons for
their failure freely. Such an optional item makes students respond at their
ease. The questionnaire in both English and Arabic was sent to a jury of
experts from the English Department at the University of Bisha to determine
the validity of the items and the quality of their translation into Arabic.
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
117
Using the questionnaire, the data were collected via Google Formats and
the respondents were informed at the beginning of the questionnaire that
it should be responded only by students who failed the Intensive English
Program (requirement courses) and were taking it again.
• Data Analysis:
The quantitative data was analyzed via SPSS 22. The responses to close-
ended items were received and coded. Independent sample tests were
used to calculate the descriptive statistics in terms of means and standard
deviation (SD) and to find out if there was any significant difference between
the participants’ responses to the description of their failure in English
requirement courses. The qualitative data obtained from the responses to the
open-ended question were categorized and used in the discussion of results.
Results:
This section presents the data according to their order in the questionnaire,
which included three parts. Part A: General information related to the English
requirement courses; Part B: Factors contributing to students’ failure in English
courses; and Part C: Open-ended question to collect more details about the
influencing factors.
• Part A:
Table 1 shows the frequencies and percentages of the sample responses to
the questions in Part A:
"
General information
"
.
Table 1: Frequencies and percentages for Part A: General information (N = 56)
Variables N %
Village 22 39.3
City 34 60.7
Students taught by Arabic speaking teachers 19 33.9
Students taught by Non-Arabic speaking teachers 37 66.1
Failed only English 34 60.7
Failed two or more subjects 22 39.3
118
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
• Part B:
This part provides the results of the statistical analysis of the study variables
(i.e., factors affecting students’ failure), which are summarized in Tables
2- 6 below.
As shown in the series of ANOVAs reported in Table 2, there were no
significant differences between respondents from cities and villages on any
of the factors.
Table 2: Differences between respondents from cities and villages on the main
study factors (ANOVA, N = 56)
Factors Home n Mean Variance F P
Lack of Motivation City 22 2.79 0.63 2.23 0.14
Village 34 3.10 0.54
Anxiety City 22 3.08 1.35 0.64 0.43
Village 34 3.31 1.05
Teachers City 22 3.78 1.72 0.03 0.87
Village 34 3.43 1.18
Family Problems City 22 2.20 0.68 1.51 0.22
Village 34 2.56 1.46
Similarly, as shown in the series of ANOVAs reported in Table 3, there was no
significant difference between respondents taught by Arabic and non-Arabic
speaking teachers on any of the factors.
Table 3: Differences between respondents with Arabic versus non-Arabic
speaking teachers on the factors (ANOVA, N = 56)
Factors Home n Mean Variance F P
Lack of Motivation City 22 2.79 0.63 2.23 0.14
Village 34 3.10 0.54
Anxiety City 22 3.08 1.35 0.64 0.43
Village 34 3.31 1.05
Teachers City 22 3.78 1.72 0.03 0.87
Village 34 3.43 1.18
Family Problems City 22 2.20 0.68 1.51 0.22
Village 34 2.56 1.46
However, the series of ANOVAs presented in Table 4 show that the only
significant difference between respondents who failed only English and those
who failed two or more other courses was on anxiety. Those who failed two
or more other courses scored higher on anxiety than those who failed only
English requirement courses.
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
119
Table 4: Differences between respondents who failed only English versus those
who failed more than one course on the study factors (ANOVA, N = 56)
Factors Courses Failed N Mean Variance F P
Lack of English only 34 2.52 1.46 0.77 0.38
Motivation 2 or more 22 2.79 0.90
Anxiety English only 34 2.96 1.16 5.40 0.02
2 or more 22 3.62 0.95
Teachers English only 34 3.27 1.40 1.18 0.28
2 or more 22 3.62 1.30
Family Problems English only 34 2.25 1.11 1.97 0.16
2 or more 22 2.67 1.21
• Overall differences among the means of the study factors:
As shown in the ANOVA reported in Table 5, the differences between the four
study factors (i.e., lack of motivation, anxiety, teachers, & family problems)
were significant at p < .001. While the overall ANOVA did not test specific
ordering, the factors to which the respondents most attributed their failure to
were factors relating to anxiety (Mean 3.22) and teachers (Mean 3.41); and
those to which they least attributed their failure were lack of motivation (Mean
2.62) and family problems (Mean 2.42). This is encouraging in that anxiety
and teachers were both more easily addressed than lack of motivation and
family problems.
Table 5: Overall differences among the means of the factors (ANOVA, N = 56)
Factors Mean Variance F P
Lack of Motivation 2.62 1.24
10.14 <.001
Anxiety 3.22 1.16
Teachers 3.41 1.37
Family Problems 2.42 1.17
• Post-hoc Contrasts using the Tukey HSD Test:
Because the one-way ANOVA shown above does not allow for specific
comparisons, a post-hoc Tukey HSD Test was performed, which yielded the
following significant results:
• Anxiety scores were greater than lack of motivation (p < .05) and family
problems (p < .01) scores.
120
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
• Teacher scores were greater than lack of motivation (p < .01) and family
problems (p < .01) scores.
All other pairwise comparisons failed to reach significance at (p<.05).
Table 6 below summarizes the statistical analysis of the factors affecting
students’ failure. A scale is considered acceptable if the Cronbach’s alpha
is 0.70 or higher. The Cronbach›s alphas for four of the six scales were
acceptable. The alphas for ”Students” and ”Friends” were low; therefore,
the descriptive analysis reports all six scales, but only the four scales with
acceptable Cronbach’s alpha were used in the ANOVAs, and the means for
the 18 individual items were tested.
Table 6: Descriptive statistics for factors (N = 56)
Factors Cronbach’s alpha Item no. Range Mean SD
Lack of Motivation 0.749 3 1.00-2.33 2.62 1.11
Anxiety 0.889 3 2.00-3.22 3.22 1.08
Students 0.238 3 1.33-4.00 2.98 0.77
Teachers 0.749 3 1.00-5.00 3.41 1.17
Friends 0.514 3 1.00-4.00 2.45 0.80
Family Problems 0.870 3 1.00-5.00 2.42 1/08
• Means on Individual Items:
Table 7 shows that there was a great deal of variability in the means for
specific questions, even within a category. Lack of motivation did not seem
to be a major factor, with all of the means below three, but participants
particularly rejected the idea that English is not important (Mean 2.23). They
reported high exam anxiety (Mean 3.84) and tended to blame instructors
for not helping weak students (Mean 3.95); however, they did not see their
instructors as unkind (Mean 2.96). They reported that their close friends
failed (Mean 3.41), but did not attribute their failure to the negative influence
of their friends (Mean 1.66). This seemed to be a common thread. They cited
factors related to friends and family but took responsibility for those factors.
They cited heavy family responsibilities (Mean 3.28), but rejected family
problems as a cause (Mean 2.19) and also rejected a lack of encouragement
from parents even more strongly as a reason for failure (Mean 1.77).
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
121
Table 7: Means and standard deviations for the individual items (N = 56)
Factors Mean SD
Lack of Motivation
1. I was not motivated to study English. 2.80 0.17
2. I studied English only to pass the exam. 2.84 0.20
3. I think English is not important 2.23 0.17
Anxiety
4. I had an exam anxiety 3.84 0.16
5. I feel nervous if I speak in the classroom. 3.20 0.19
6. I fear participating in an English class. 2.62 0.19
Students
7. I only study before the exam. 2.92 0.17
8. I used to memorize without understanding. 2.86 0.16
9. I do not visit my instructor to explain the course to me. 3.14 0.14
Teachers
10. Teachers do not focus on weak students. 3.95 0.17
11. Teachers did not give us a chance to participate in the
classroom. 3.34 0.19
12. Teachers were not kind in dealing with students. 2.96 0.20
Friends
13. I spend my time socializing with friends on issues other than
studying.
2.28 0.14
14. My close friends failed English courses. 3.41 0.18
15. I failed because of negative influence of peers. 1.66 0.12
Family problems
16. I have family problems (Orphan/ my parents are divorced
etc.). 2.19 0.18
17. My parents do not encourage me to study at home. 1.77 0.16
18. I am responsible for my family issues. 3.28 0.20
•
Results of part C (Open-ended question) :
Part C of the questionnaire provided respondents with an optional open
question to talk about the reasons for their failure in detail. Of the 56
total respondents, 27 answered this question. Of these, seven respondents
indicated that their teachers were not successful in delivering the information
122
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
in the class and did not care about students. Respondents added that their
teachers had a mere aim to finish the curriculum and not to teach students.
Another seven respondents indicated that teachers did not focus on weak
students or encourage them to participate in class. Four participants stated that
teachers used unclear teaching strategies or that students did not understand
teachers’ explanations. A total of three responses indicated that teachers
talked for two continual hours without any student involvement. Finally, four
responses mentioned that teachers were very strict and that students could not
talk with them freely. Students’ responses to the open-ended item generally
indicated that teachers were the main factor contributing to their failure. This
result is similar to Heidari and Tahriri’s (2015) study – though their study was
at secondary school level, but it is in the context of teaching English as a
requirement course – in which low EFL achievement was primarily the result
of teacher-centered methods.
The respondents also mentioned motivation, inappropriate study methods,
the difficulty of the course, time of the lectures and the extra curriculum as
factors for their failure in the intensive program. Responses also showed
that many integrated factors were responsible for their failure in English
requirement courses. Six respondents stated that there was no need to include
the English course in their curriculum because their major was Arabic or
Islamic studies and they would never use English in their lifetimes. They also
stated that there was no connection or link between English and their majors.
This shows that they were not motivated to study English at all. Further, six
respondents stated that English was difficult and they did not know how to
study it, thus indicating the importance of proper guidance by the teachers.
Finally, five respondents noted that lengthy lectures and extra curriculum
could be considered factors for their failure.
Discussion:
The present study aimed to explore factors which contributed to students’
failure in English as a requirement course at the University of Bisha. This
section discusses the findings of this research according to the participants’
responses regarding factors affecting their failure in English requirement
courses.
Motivation (Mean 2.62) was one of the three least important factors. However,
anxiety (Mean 3.22) was one of the two most important factors for students’
failure. Test anxiety (Mean 3.84) in particular, was one of the important factors
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
123
for their failure. Thus, findings revealed that students did not see lack of
motivation as an important factor related to their failure (Mean 2.62). This is
in line with previous studies which were done in the Saudi context (Alqurashi,
2014; Alshahrani, 2016; Javid, Al-Asmari, & Farooq, 2012; Nouraldeen &
Elyas, 2014). They all asserted that Saudi EFL learners were motivated to
learn English as a foreign language. However, anxiety scored (Mean 3.22)
higher than motivation, indicating that it was an effective filter according to
the monitor-theory (Krashen, 1982). The greater the level of student anxiety,
the lesser their learning achievements are. These results are consistent with
(Alrabia, 2014a; Alrabia, 2014b), who found that anxiety was one of the
main factors associated with low student achievement. Elyas and Rehman
(2018) suggested that teachers should be aware of the importance of helping
students deal with such anxiety. They also recommended that examiners and
invigilators should help students relax during exams by showing supportive
attitudes and sympathy.
On the other hand, the teacher factor was the most influential factor
contributing to student failure with a mean score of (3.41). The highest
scoring item of the 18 items indicated that teachers did not focus on weak
students (Mean 3.95). Another issue was that teachers did not give students
opportunities to participate in the classroom (Mean 3.34). This made it further
apparent that teachers did not pay attention to weak students. This issue was
also suggested by the responses to the open-ended questions.
The results of the present study are supported by previous research. For
instance, Khan (2011) stated that “It is the prime responsibility of the teacher/
educator to explore the causes of existing barriers and find possible solutions
so that the teaching/learning can smoothly take place for the ultimate growth
and development” (p. 243). Cherif, Movahedzadeh, Adams, & Dunning
(2013) also argued that it was the responsibility of the teacher to motivate
students and teach them through successful learning strategies. Heidari and
Tahriri (2015) found that low achievement among EFL students was primarily
the result of traditional teaching approaches (i.e., the teacher-centered or
grammar-translation approach).
Student failures to visit their instructors in search of explanations scored
(Mean 3.41). Other factors related to student failure were “items that
students memorize without comprehending” (Mean 2.86) and “students only
study before the exam” (Mean 2.96). These results also indicated that it is a
teaching-based responsibility to determine and find solutions to the factors
leading to learning problems in the EFL classroom setting (Khan, 2011).
124
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
The factors of family (Mean 2.42) and friends (Mean 2.45) had relatively little
effect on student failure. Respondents indicated that most of their friends had
failed an exam (Mean 3.41), but they did not believe that they failed because
of negative friend influences (Mean 1.66); this had the lowest score of all 18
items. They did cite heavy family responsibilities (Mean 3.28), but rejected
family problems as a cause (Mean 2.19) for their failure. They rejected the
lack of encouragement from parents even more strongly as a reason for
their failure (Mean 1.77). This showed that students did not agree that their
failure in English courses was because of negative influences of friends or
family issues. Qualitative findings supported the quantitative results as no
respondent mentioned friends and family as factors for their failure.
Conclusions:
This study investigated six factors believed to be responsible for university
students’ failure to pass English requirement courses (i.e., lack of motivation,
anxiety, students, teachers and the roles of family and friends). Quantitative
results showed that the factors of anxiety, teachers and inappropriate study
methods were more responsible for student failures than motivation, friends
and family problems. Qualitative results supported the quantitative results,
as both showed that teachers were mostly responsible for students’ failures.
More specifically, failed students blamed their teachers for not attempting
to reduce their anxiety, not paying attention to them and not guiding them
in finding appropriate study methods. Rather, teachers tended to deal with
students in an authoritative way and merely aimed to finish the curriculum.
As indicated by the above quantitative and qualitative results, one of the
most important ways to avoid student failure is to help them overcome exam
anxiety. This can be accomplished by providing them with more practice
and conducting mock tests with low consequences. These strategies would
gradually increase students’ confidence, thus preparing them for actual
exams.
To sum up, students consider that teachers, exam anxiety and inappropriate
study methods could be the reasons for their failures. However, they do not
think that factors such as friends, lack of motivation and family issues are
the reasons for their failure. Thus, the quantitative and the qualitative results
indicated that it is the teachers’ responsibility to help weak students with
the appropriate study methods, reduce their anxiety and encourage them to
develop lifelong study habits, rather than just study before exams. It is also
the moral duty of teachers to help students overcome negative influences of
friends and family problems if any. Obviously, teachers have no direct role
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
125
in these cases but should report unusual behavior to the Students Guidance
Unit or Academic Guidance Unit.
Implications and Recommendations:
The study findings entail that teachers should address issues of anxiety by
increasing their levels of encouragement and support to their students. They
should guide students in finding appropriate study methods and pay more
attention to weak students during class activities. It is also recommended
that the English curriculum for students should reflect their interests or their
major, and that teachers should be trained to use student-centered approach
that focuses on involving all students in the learning process. Some teachers
might resist such trend, claiming they have sufficient teaching experience, but
these teachers should be motivated to attend training programs on modern
teaching methods.
Finally, it is suggested that further research should be conducted to determine
why weak students do not individually visit their teachers for further instruction.
It is also recommended that future research should focus on university
students who successfully pass their English requirement courses in order to
investigate the factors that help these students achieve excellence so as to
make use of those factors and reflect them in the learning process.
References:
Ahmad, A. M. M. (2018). Bad study habits of EFL learners as indicators of their
poor performance: A case of the University of Bisha.
International Journal
of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7
(2), 185-196.
Akbari, Z. (2016). The study of EFL students’ perceptions of their problems, needs
and concerns over learning English: The case of MA paramedical students.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232
, 24-34.
Alhammad, M. (2017) Motivation, Anxiety and gender: How they influence the
acquisition of English as a second language for Saudi students studying in
Ireland. PEOPLE:
International Journal of Social Science. 3
(2), 93-104.
Alharbi, M. A. (2019). Saudi Arabia EFL university students’ voice on challenges
and solution in learning academic writing.
Indonesian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 8
(3), 576-587.
Al-Nasser, A. S. (2015). Problems of English language acquisition in Saudi
Arabia: An exploratory-cum-remedial study.
Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, 5
(8), 1612-1619.
Alqurashi, F. (2014). The Effects of Motivation on EFL College Students’
Achievement.
Studies in English Language Teaching, 2
(4), 385-400.
126
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
Alrabai, F. (2014a). A Model of Foreign Language Anxiety in the Saudi EFL
Context.
English language teaching, 7
(7), 82-101.
Alrabai, F. (2014b).
Reducing language anxiety & promoting learner motivation:
A practical guide for teachers of English as a foreign language
. Morrisville,
North Carolina: Lulu Press.
Alrabai, F. (2016). Factors underlying low achievement of Saudi EFL learners.
International Journal of English Linguistics, 6
(3), 21-37.
Alshahrani, A. A. S. (2016). L2 Motivational Self System Among Arab EFL
Learners: Saudi Prespective.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics and
English Literature, 5
(5), 145-152.
Al-Sohbani, Y. A. Y. (2015). An investigation of the reasons behind the weaknesses
in English among public secondary school leavers.
Journal of Teaching and
Teacher Education, 4
(01), 41-51.
Al-Zoubi, S. M., & Younes, M. A. B. (2015). Low academic achievement: causes
and results. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(11), 2262-2268.
Chairunnisa, C., Apriliaswati, R., & Rosnija, E. (2017). An Analysis on Factors
Influencing Students’ Low English Learning Achievement.
Jurnal Pendidikan
dan Pembelajaran Untan, 6
(3), 1-10.
Cherif, A., Movahedzadeh, F., Adams, G., & Dunning, J. (2013).
Why do students
fail
. In the 2013 NCA HLC annual conference (pp. 35-51), 5-9 April, Hyatt
Regency Chicago, Illinois.
Elyas, T. & Rehman, A. A. (2018). Test Anxiety. In J. I. Liontas (ed.),
The TESOL
Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching
. Hoboken, New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons.
Gardner, R. C. (1968). Attitudes and motivation: Their role in second-language
acquisition.
TESOL Quarterly, 2
(3), 141-150.
Hamad, M. M. (2016). Hindrance of maintaining communicative language
teaching (CLT) at Saudi colleges in Tohama.
Journal of Education and
Human Development, 5
(3), 137-148.
Heidari, H., & Tahriri, A. (2015). Low-achievement factors from language
teachers’ perspective: evidence from an EFL context.
Acta Scientiarum:
Human and Social Sciences, 37
(1), 65-73.
Javid, C. Z., Al-Asmari, A., & Farooq, U. (2012). Saudi undergraduates’
motivational orientations towards English language learning along gender
and university major lines: A comparative study.
European Journal of Social
Sciences, 27
(2), 283-300.
Khan, I. A. (2011). An analysis of learning barriers: The Saudi Arabian context.
International Education Studies, 4
(1), 242-247.
Krashen, S. (1982).
Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition
.
Oxford: Pergamon Press Inc.
Dr. Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali
Volume 25, Issue (3), September, 2019
https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.25.3.5
Journal of Social Studies
127
Leong, L. M., & Ahmadi, S. M. (2017). An analysis of factors influencing learners’
English speaking skill.
International Journal of Research in English Education,
2
(1), 34-41.
Noom-Ura, S. (2013). English-Teaching Problems in Thailand and Thai Teachers’
Professional Development Needs.
English Language Teaching, 6
(11), 139-
147.
Nouraldeen, A. S., & Elyas, T. (2014). Learning English in Saudi Arabia: a
socio-cultural perspective.
International Journal of English Language and
Linguistics Research, 2
(3), 56-78.
Reja, U., Manfreda, K. L., Hlebec, V., & Vehovar, V. (2003). Open-ended vs.
close-ended questions in web questionnaires.
Developments in applied
statistics, 19
(1), 159-177.
Sa’ad, T. U., Adamu, A., & Sadiq, A. M. (2014). The causes of poor performance
in mathematics among public senior secondary school students in Azare
metropolis of Bauchi State, Nigeria.
Journal of Research & Method in
Education, 4
(6), 32.
Shahzad, S., Ali, R., Qadeer, M. Z., & Ullah, H. (2011). Identification of the
causes of students’ low achievement in the subject of English.
Asian Social
Science, 7
(2), 168-171.
Souriyavongsa, T., Rany, S., Abidin, M. J. Z., & Mei, L. L. (2013). Factors causes
students low English language learning: A case study in the National
University of Laos.
International Journal of English Language Education,
1
(1), 179-192.
