| This study was undertaken to determine if there was a difference in the amount of time needed to learn English as a Second Language by five Southeast Asian refugee groups (Vietnamese, Cambodians, Hmong, ethnic Chinese, and Laotians) when certain predictor variables were compared. It also attempted to assess the English language needs perceived by the students, teachers, and program managers.; The population was selected from adult students enrolled in the Colorado Refugee English as a Second Language (CRESL) program who had entered this country between 1976 and 1982. Several predictor variables were chosen; they included ethnicity, age, sex, previous education, time in the country, employment, and attendance rates. These variables were compared against total length of time spent in the program. Other variables were also utilized either to facilitate answering the research questions or to provide extra information about the program. Statistical analyses were accomplished by means of Pearson Product-Moment Correlations, Contingency Tables, and analysis of variance.; Nonstatistical methods were employed to answer research questions on perceived needs of refugee students. Students, teachers, and program managers were interviewed and their responses were tabulated, rank ordered, and percentages of agreement figured for each question.; Major findings of the study suggested that ethnicity, age, previous education, literacy, and length of time in the country were all significant factors in how long a student remained in the CRESL program. Sex and employment were not considered significant.; Students and teachers basically agreed on perceived needs for learning English, but students, teachers, and program managers did not agree on needs. Students and teachers/program managers indicated that CRESL was meeting needs for learning English.; Conclusions drawn from the study suggested that the CRESL program is meeting the needs of refugee students to acquire survival and/or functional English and employment. Areas which might need reappraisal included communication between students, teachers, and program managers, more uniformity in the administering of the six school locations, literacy testing improvement, a reassessment of the effectiveness of Levels 1 and 4, and a division of Level 2. |
