Business Studies Market Research Report
Introduction
Language courses form a fundamental aspect of any secondary school’s curriculum. At Hornby High School, two second language courses are offered, these being te reo Māori and Japanese. In desiring that the best possible opportunities be sought for students of our school, such that they may be empowered to choose a second language which will be most engaging for them, market research has been conducted amongst the student population of years 9 through to 12, in order to ascertain the preferences for potential language courses in our school. Furthermore, in addition to the importance of engagement with learning, we would also like to acknowledge the learning itself, and the vast benefits for the learner of a second language. By our conducting market research on this matter, we will come to better understand the language preferences of students in the aforenoted years, and thereby recommend to the school leadership team the course of action which will best fit the preferences of the students.
Aim
The aim of this research is to investigate the possibility of new language courses being introduced within the curriculum of Hornby High School, the preferences indicated for these potential language courses, whether there be any correlation between year level and language preferences, or between first language spoken and language preferences, and how the popularity of these potential language courses compares with the popularity of those language courses already offered at Hornby High School as of 2021.
Secondary Research
In order to be able to ascertain the preferences amongst the potential language courses, it was necessary that we know how many students are in each of our target years (9-12), as well as the total number of students within the target years. We were able to obtain this year-group data from the school office. There were 463 students enrolled from years 9 to 12 at the time of our requesting the information (24 June). Within year 9, there were 138; year 10, 130; year 11, 90; and year 12, 105. With this data, we were also able to determine the percentages of these year-groups in relation to each other within the overall data set of year 9 to 12, such that year 9 should make up about 30% of our primary results; year 10, 28%; year 11, 19%; and year 12, 23%.
Thus, with the knowledge of these percentages, we were also able to adjust our data such that it was consistent with the actual percentages, wherever such an adjustment was necessary. One example of adjusting the data pertains to the “Adjusted total” results, in which we had to adjust the data for the actual numbers, as opposed to the numbers we obtained through our primary data alone. In our data set, we recorded 37 responses from year 9; 15 from year 10; 16 from year 11; and 22 from year 12. However, sometimes it was necessary that these numbers be adjusted to better reflect the real proportions of students. In our “Adjusted total” results, we thus adjusted the numbers to 27 in year 9; 25 in year 10; 18 in year 11; and 20 in year 12, for a total of 90 students.
Furthermore, by knowing the number of students in both each year-group as well as in total, we were also able to know if we had surveyed a suitable number of students. Considering that we surveyed 90 students in total, that means we surveyed 19.4% of the students in years 9 to 12, with year-group percentages of 26.8% of year 9; 11.5% of year 10; 17.8% of year 11; and 21% of year 12. These percentages help us better understand the accuracy of our data, by being able to consider if it is representative of the target population.
Market Research Plan (Primary Research)
We will aim to survey at least 48 students, with a minimum of 12 students from each year. At 48 students, out of the 463 students from years 9-12, we will have surveyed about 10.4% of the student population, and is the lowest number which will allow for a division by the four year groups with a resultant integer. 44 students would mean a response rate of only 9.5%, and any other number in between would result in a non- integer result.
Our strategy for surveying our sample is using random sampling. Random sampling will mean that we yield a high number of responses, and with relative ease. We can use random sampling because, for most of our data, we are not concerned with all of the years taken as a whole, but with regard to specific year groups taken separately. The only data where we are concerned with all four year groups taken collectively is with regard to the “Unadjusted total” and “Adjusted total” results, where we have, in the latter, adjusted the results to practically match the actual percentages as noted above.
We will send out a Google Form to all students from years 9 to 12, as opposed to undertaking an in-person survey, as a Google Form will allow us to have far greater outreach to all students, given the fact that practically all students at our school have a Chromebook, allowing them to take the survey in their own time, which also means that we can save a great deal of time which we may have had to otherwise spend on doing an in-person survey.
Summary
We have broken down our data into several elements and various aspects, including year group results, language preference results, first language results, and the total results (both unadjusted and adjusted), as well as the variation between languages in how popularity of languages evolves with each year group. In the following section, each of these parts of our research will be summarised.
By year group
Across all years, Spanish was the most popular language, with exception to year 10, where it was tied for first with Russian. In year 9, German was second in popularity, albeit trailing by a considerable margin. As for year 11, French is almost on par with Spanish’s popularity (4.88 vs 4.56). Somewhat similar to year 10, Russian was the second most popular language, but, like with German in year 9, trailed by quite some distance. These results may be observed in the below four graphs (Graph 1, 2, 3, 4).
Graph 1. Year 9 relative value language preference results.
Graph 2. Year 10 relative value language preference results.
Graph 3. Year 11 relative value language preference results.
Graph 4. Year 12 relative value language preference results.
By language preference
A further aspect of our research includes surveying the popularity of each of the language preferences. Interestingly, all of the languages except Spanish follow what may be approximately considered a parabolic trendline. The fact that Spanish bucks the parabolic trend is testament to its enduring popularity amongst all year groups. The following graphs (5, 6, 7, 8, 9) will show the trendline below, and the peculiarity of Spanish not following that trendline will also be made apparent in Graph 6 [note: the trendline of Spanish has been removed in order to emphasise the difference]
Graph 5. French relative value language preferences result.
Graph 6. Spanish relative value language preferences result.
Graph 7. German relative value language preferences result.
Graph 8. Russian relative value language preferences result.
Graph 9. Chinese relative value language preferences result.
By first language
We asked our survey respondents what their first language is, in order to determine if there is any correlation between first language spoken and language preference results, in keeping with our Aim. Indeed, certain notable differences were found in this regard. Respondents whose first language is English did not express nearly so much interest in learning a second language as those whose first language is not English. Among those whose first language is not English, a group which constitutes around 32% of our survey respondents, they reported significantly greater interest in taking a language course, to thereby become trilingual. Interest in learning another language was even greater amongst ESL students whose first language is either East Asian or South-East Asian, where Tagalog makes up around 69% of those language speakers within that sub-group. Interestingly, amongst those whose first language is English, the most popular language is Spanish, with the second most popular being German; whereas, amongst those whose first language is not English, Chinese is the second most popular language; and, furthermore, when you break that down even more to the East Asian and South-East Asian language first speakers, Chinese is the most popular language, with Spanish following behind. This difference reflects the cultural variation within the student population, and signifies how that cultural variation can impact upon the language preferences that the students indicate on the survey. In the graphs below, (10, 11, 12) we will be able to observe the impact that first language spoken has on language preferences.
Graph 10. English as Native Language (ENL) relative value results.
Graph 11. English as Second Language (ESL) relative value results.
Graph 12. East/South-East Asian Native Language relative value results.
By total results
A large part of our research, of course, is to compare the popularity of one language with another, as part of the broader aim of a tenable and sustainable course program. In the below two graphs (13, 14), we have compiled all of the data from each of the year groups and added it together. The first is the unadjusted results, which relies purely upon the primary data from the survey results; the second is the adjusted results, which makes use of the secondary data we obtained through the office. As may be observed in the two graphs below, all of the language courses see an increase in popularity when the proportions of year groups are adjusted. This is because of the fact that year 9’s, being over-represented in the primary data, but also less enthusiastic about taking a second language than either year 10’s or year 11’s, when their numbers were reduced to the actual, real-life percentages that we obtained from the school office, it resulted in all languages becoming more popular. The same goes for the year 10’s and 11’s where, being under-represented in the primary data but also the two groups most enthusiastic about taking a language course, when the proportions were adjusted in line with the secondary data, such also contributed to each language becoming more popular. Also contributing to the increase in popularity of each language was the fact that the year 12’s, who were also slightly over-represented as well as generally unenthusiastic about taking a language course, when their numbers were reduced, it also resulted in the popularity of each language course increasing.
Graph 13. Relative value total results (unadjusted)
Graph 14. Relative value total results (adjusted)
Variation
It is also of importance that any potential language course introduced will enjoy longevity, such that any possible language course appeals to all year groups. To this extent, we have determined the variation within languages by the numbers in each year group who have selected “Strongly Agree” to them taking a given language. In this way, we are able to determine the stability of the popularity of each language. As can be seen below in the following table, French has the greatest variation and Spanish has the least, which indicates that French’s popularity varies significantly amongst year groups, which is a negative factor if we are attempting to introduce a language which will be tenable and sustainable over the long-term, whereas Spanish is generally popular amongst all year groups, which can be observed by the reduced variation in the number choosing “Strongly Agree” to taking Spanish in each year.
Table 1. Variation by year in popularity of language preferences
Reasons for taking a second language
In our survey, we included one qualitative question: “What are your reasons for selecting your chosen languages?” Upon reviewing the responses to the question, some common responses include a desire to learn more about other cultures, for which learning another language helps immensely; travel reasons; family reasons, i.e. to speak the language which their ethnicity speaks back home (which in turn relates to learning about culture and where one comes from); career opportunities; as well as to expand upon some basic pre-existing familiarity with their chosen language.
Evaluation
Our market research on possible language courses at Hornby High School has had several strengths and several weaknesses. In the following section, these strengths and weaknesses will be discussed in relation to our Aim.
The strengths we enjoyed include the high response rate, the good representation in terms of first languages spoken, and the quality of the qualitative data. The response rate was almost double our expectations as put forth in the plan, at 90 responses compared with the 46 we were aiming for at minimum. Having such a high response rate allowed us to more accurately determine, and with more confidence say, which language preferences were most popular amongst the students. It also helped us when it came to segmenting some of the data, as without a high response rate, we may not have been able to look at the data by first language spoken and reasonably determine with accuracy as to whether there is indeed any correlation. As for the second strength, that representation which is predicated at least partially on the high response rate, we were able to get a broad range of first languages spoken. That was of particular necessity for segmenting the data by ESL respondents, as if we got too many responses from E/S.E.A native speakers, and too few responses from Pasifika native speakers, it would result in an unrepresentative and an inaccurate data set, and would therefore not allow us to fulfill our Aim. Our third strength, the quality of the qualitative data, helped us to determine why respondents are choosing their preferences, which also helped us to fulfill our Aim, regarding the popularity of the possible courses with those already offered, where a large number of respondents echoed the sentiment that the current language courses offered do not interest them so much as those we have offered, which indicates that there is an opening in the market for new language courses at Hornby High School.
The weaknesses we experienced in our survey include the fact that we surveyed students on only some of the language courses available through NCEA, the lack of year 10 respondents, and a lack in the quantity of qualitative data. The fact that we surveyed students on only some of the available courses was due to a lack of comprehensive secondary research on that matter; our flawed technique was such that we thought of some language courses which NCEA might have offered, then searched those courses up to confirm that they are offered, and then included them in the survey. In hindsight, this was a completely illogical method of conducting secondary research on the languages offered by NCEA, and we thus in turn did not include several languages offered by NCEA. Perhaps foremost of these languages would have been Korean. If we had conducted proper secondary research on the languages offered by NCEA, we would have included Korean (among others), which would have likely been quite a popular language, especially amongst E/S.E.A native speakers. We noted our error first when some respondents began to complain in the last question regarding why they selected their chosen languages, of the fact that we did not offer Korean. If we had included Korean, its popularity would likely have been comparable to that of either Spanish or Chinese, the latter of which may have been chosen by some as a substitute, being the only Asian language we included. Thus, because we did not conduct proper secondary research, we have partially compromised the validity of our survey.
The lack of year 10 respondents was also a weakness. In our survey, we received responses from only 15 responses from year 10, making up only 16.7% of our data, when they should have made up around 28% according to our secondary research on the proportions of students in each year. That the year 10’s were under-represented in the data set relative to other years is not of great importance, for we can adjust the numbers to fit the actual proportions as obtained through the office. The problem here rests with the fact that 15 respondents from year 10 makes up only 11.5% of that year group; although that is higher than the minimum for which we were aiming, it is nonetheless borderline-inadequate, especially considering that we were able to survey 26.8% of year 9’s, 17.8% of year 11’s, and 21% of year 12’s. As a result, our year 10 data is substantially more at risk of being inaccurate than other year groups, which may in turn impact upon our ability to fulfill our Aim, especially with regard to the part of our aim pertaining to determining whether there be any correlation between year level and language preference, as by having a smaller sample size from year 10, we are more likely to get a skewed picture of their preferences, which therefore results in less accurate data for that year group.
The third weakness is the lack of qualitative data in our survey. The questions in our survey were mostly limited to quantitative data, with only one question in the survey being qualitative; that is, the final question on why the respondent selected their chosen languages. As a result of the lack of qualitative data, we do not have as full a picture as we would have liked regarding why certain languages were selected over others. Due to the heavy emphasis placed on quantitative data in our survey, we were able to know what the students wanted, but not why they wanted a certain language or languages. However, so far as the one qualitative question we asked, we received satisfactory responses from most, albeit often simple. And so, although the quality was adequate (as noted above as a strength), the quantity was inadequate. As a result of the fact that we did not have a great quantity of qualitative data, we were less able to fulfill our Aim in the sense that we largely cannot know why respondents chose one language over another, even if we may infer, we cannot know with reasonable certainty.
In order to capitalise on the strengths of our data, in future we could contact the teachers to ask if their students could take the survey, as this would likely improve our already-strong response rate, especially amongst the year 10s, where we did not receive as many responses as we would have liked. We could further improve the good representation by improving the response rate, as by improving the response rate, we will also be improving the representation in turn, by reaching out to those students who may have otherwise not have responded to our survey. Thus, by improving the response rate, we will also be improving the representation in the survey, and thereby capitalising on those two strengths. As for the qualitative data, we may also potentially improve our qualitative data by improving the response rate. As such, we may thus observe the principal, overarching significance of having a high response rate. If we can achieve a high response rate, we will be able to fulfill our Aim more effectively, as we will be able to have more confidence in our data set, and with greater confidence in the data set comes a heightened ability to determine which possible language courses would be most popular if introduced within the curriculum of our school.
In order to cover our weaknesses, including the lack of year 10 respondents, of course, again, improving the response rate would directly remove the issue of the lack of year 10 respondents altogether. As for the fact that we only surveyed students on some of the language courses that NCEA offers, that was merely an oversight on our part, owing to the lack of secondary research that we conducted, and thus in future to remove this issue, we would conduct further, more extensive and comprehensive secondary research. The lack of qualitative data is due to the fact that we asked only one question which was qualitative, as all the rest of our questions were quantitative. In order to remove this issue, we would in the future, include not one but several qualitative questions in our survey. By asking more qualitative questions, we would be able to ascertain why students are choosing their chosen languages, as opposed to just what language preferences they are choosing. This conforms to our Aim because we will be able to more accurately determine the language preferences, the correlation between year group and language preference and between first language spoken and language preference, as well as the general popularity of these languages and their long-term sustainability within the school curriculum.
Conclusion
Thus, to conclude this report, we may summarise our findings as such: Spanish is by far the most popular language preference, with its popularity already comparable to Japanese, and well exceeding te reo Māori; Chinese is the most popular language amongst E/S.E.A NL speakers; and the popularity of second language courses generally follows a parabolic trendline (with exception to Spanish). In the following section, these three key findings will be described.
Spanish is, as noted, by far the most popular language preference of those offered in the survey. Indeed, 21.1% said that they strongly agreed that, were it offered, they would take Spanish; that figure eclipses all other languages, with the second closest being Chinese at 14.4%. Considering the unrivalled popularity of Spanish, we thus recommend that Spanish be introduced as part of the curriculum at Hornby High School. We foresee an opening in the market, as the only possible competition is Japanese and te reo Māori; but yet, there would not be significant competition between either of the courses already offered and Spanish. Both of the pre-existing courses already enjoy a strong base of interest, especially te reo Māori. It is important to acknowledge that Spanish would not be in direct competition with either of these languages already offered, so as to ensure the mana of those teaching these courses is upheld, as our aim is certainly not to swap out one of these languages for the other but rather to introduce a new language which will complement those already taught, and which will not unduly shorten the rolls of the two pre-existing language courses. Introducing Spanish to the curriculum would not only uphold the mana of those teaching these pre-existing courses, but also uphold the pūtake of our school, which is to educate and culturally enrich, as noted in the Introduction. If we can introduce another language course with broad popularity, students will be empowered to learn that which most interests them, and many students have an unfulfilled want to take a second language course at our school, but yet cannot because neither of the two on offer currently interest them. Spanish is a language with vast appeal. By introducing Spanish we will be able to more effectively foster a “centre of creative excellence,” for students learn at their best when the content of their learning interests them, and therefore, considering the popularity of Spanish, it would make sense to introduce it so as to uphold the pūtake of our school and thus in turn strive closer to the school’s aspiration of being a centre of creative excellence.
Our second key finding is that Chinese is the most popular language preference amongst E/S.E.A NL speakers. The significance of this is that a subset of the students within our school are more enthusiastic for Chinese than for Spanish, which is the prevailing preference amongst the data set in general. Despite the fact that Chinese is more popular than Spanish amongst E/S.E.A NL speakers, it is not recommended that Chinese be introduced as a language course in place of Spanish. There are a number of factors opposing its introduction, including the fact that they are both Sinitic languages, and therefore would be in direct competition with each other, the fact that there is a relatively easy transference of skills and knowledge between Japanese and Chinese, as well as the fact that Spanish would be better suited to upholding the pūtake of our school than Chinese. To expand upon these negative factors opposing the introduction of Chinese, we must note that because of the direct competition between Chinese and Japanese, to introduce Chinese as a course would be to injure the mana of the Japanese teacher, as its introduction would likely reduce the size of the Japanese class. If the mana of the Japanese teacher were to be injured in such a way, it may result in a feeling of discontent amongst the employed staff at Hornby High School, which would hurt workplace relations and potentially result in decreased motivation or productivity amongst some staff. In such a way, we may understand the significance of upholding mana in the workplace. In addition to not upholding mana, the introduction of Chinese would not adhere as well to the pūtake of the school:—that is, to educate and culturally enrich. The introduction of Chinese would not adhere to the pūtake because only some of the students actually want to see Chinese introduced; this may be noted so far as the fact that Chinese is the only language in the survey where a majority disagreed to taking it, with only 46.6% indicating some sort of agreeance, whereas an overwhelming 73.3% indicated some sort of agreeance to taking Spanish. Even to focus on those who responded with “strongly agree” to Chinese made up only 14.4%, with 21.1% strongly agreeing that they would take Spanish. Therefore, we must recommend against the introduction of Chinese over Spanish, considering the limited and lukewarm appeal to most students in our school. Considering our pūtake is educate and culturally enrich, if students do not want to take Chinese, then there is no point in offering it, as it will neither educate nor culturally enrich the vast majority of students in our school.
Our third key finding is that Spanish does not follow the same parabolic trend as the other languages offered in the survey, as may be observed in Graph 6. There is a great deal of significance here, as it clearly demonstrates the temporal continuity of the appeal of Spanish relative to the other language choices we offered in the survey. The broad-based support for the introduction of Spanish is evident, given the fact that, unlike the other four language courses offered, Spanish does not see substantial differences year-by-year in its popularity. As can be observed with the other four languages in Graph 5, 7, 8, 9, they follow a parabolic trendline, which indicates that their popularity is rather unstable, with a less solid base of support than Spanish. The fact that Spanish has a more solid base of support than the other four languages also reinforces our recommendation that any language course which is introduced will adhere to the pūtake of the school, for if some language were introduced, it needs to enjoy strong support from all years and thus be sustainable, such that the pūtake of the school may be upheld. For the pūtake of the school cannot be upheld through an unpopular subject course, as it will not engage students, and engagement being necessary to learning, if students are not engaged they will not be learning, and thus the pūtake of the school will be compromised. Furthermore, it would be a waste of the school’s resources, both human and monetary, if a language course were to be introduced, only to prove unpopular amongst the students, with the class numbers too small to continue, such as would more than likely be the case with Chinese, especially because of the direct competition with the pre-existing Japanese course offered at our school.
Our recommendation, therefore, is to introduce a Spanish language course within the curriculum of Hornby High School. Given the popularity of Spanish, and taking into consideration the Māori business concepts of mana and pūtake, we consider that its introduction within the school curriculum would bring great benefit to the students, and would be a very popular subject course were it introduced. Therefore, in light of these deliberations, we must recommend Spanish before all other possible language courses included in our survey to be introduced to Hornby High School, owing to its vast popularity and broad-based support amongst the student populace.
