Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 3200
https://doi.org/10.69639/arandu.v13i3.2607
English teaching as perceived by students and its relationship
with learning outcomes
La enseñanza del inglés percibida por estudiantes y su relación con los resultados de
aprendizaje
Martha Aracelly Viveros Almeida
martha.viveros@upec.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2441-6954
Universidad Politécnica Estatal del Carchi
Ecuador – Tulcán
Luis Homero Viveros Almeida
luis.viveros@upec.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3612-1798
Universidad Politécnica Estatal del Carchi
Ecuador – Tulcán
Artículo recibido: 10 agosto 2026- Aceptado para publicación:16 septiembre 2026
Conflictos de intereses: Ninguno que declarar.
ABSTRACT
The quality of teaching activity constitutes a notable pedagogical factor in addressing the
contemporary challenges of English teaching in higher education. This study analyzed the
relationship between English teaching, as perceived by Ecuadorian university students, and their
learning and satisfaction. A quantitative, non-experimental, correlational, and cross-sectional
design was used, with data from 7 teachers evaluated through two anonymous online surveys
(2,550 valid responses), from which a stratified random sample of 1,200 responses was drawn.
Based on items common to both surveys, two scales were constructed: teaching process (6 items)
and learning satisfaction (5 items), recoded on a 1-to-5 scale. Reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was
.968 and .853, respectively. Since the Shapiro-Wilk test showed a lack of normality (p < .001),
Spearman's correlation coefficient was used. The results showed high levels in both variables
(teaching process: M = 4.38, SD = 0.94, 80.2% at a high level; learning and satisfaction: M =
4.42, SD = 0.71, 78.8% at a high level), with a positive, high, and significant correlation between
them (rho = .721; p < .001). It is concluded that perceived teaching process is positively associated
with student learning and satisfaction, although these findings are associative, not causal, and
constitute approximations of teaching process creativity rather than a direct, psychometrically
validated measurement.
Keywords: English teaching, teaching process, learning, student satisfaction, higher
education
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 3201
RESUMEN
La calidad de la actividad docente constituye factores pedagógicos notables para enfrentar los
desafíos contemporáneos del proceso de enseñanza del inglés en la educación superior. Este
estudio analizó la relación entre el proceso de enseñanza de profesores de inglés, percibida por
estudiantes universitarios ecuatorianos, y su aprendizaje y satisfacción. Se empleó un diseño
cuantitativo, no experimental, correlacional y transversal, con datos de 7 docentes evaluados
mediante dos encuestas anónimas en línea (2,550 respuestas válidas), de las cuales se extrajo una
muestra aleatoria estratificada de 1,200 respuestas. A partir de ítems comunes en ambas encuestas
se construyeron dos escalas: proceso de enseñanza (6 ítems) y satisfacción del aprendizaje (5
ítems), recodificadas a escala de 1 a 5. La fiabilidad (alfa de Cronbach) fue de .968 y .853
respectivamente. Dado que la prueba de Shapiro-Wilk mostró ausencia de normalidad (p < .001),
se usó el coeficiente de correlación de Spearman. Los resultados evidenciaron niveles altos en
ambas variables (proceso de enseñanza: M = 4.38, DE = 0.94, 80.2% en nivel alto; aprendizaje y
satisfacción: M = 4.42, DE = 0.71, 78.8% en nivel alto), con una correlación positiva, alta y
significativa entre ellas (rho = .721; p < .001). Se concluye que el proceso de enseñanza percibida
se asocia positivamente con el aprendizaje y la satisfacción de los estudiantes, aunque estos
hallazgos son asociativos, no causales, y constituyen aproximaciones a la creatividad docente más
que una medición directa validada psicométricamente.
Palabras clave: enseñanza del inglés, proceso de enseñanza, aprendizaje, satisfacción
estudiantil, educación superior
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo
licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
RESUMEN
La calidad de la actividad docente constituye factores pedagógicos notables para enfrentar los
desafíos contemporáneos del proceso de enseñanza del inglés en la educación superior. Este
estudio analizó la relación entre el proceso de enseñanza de profesores de inglés, percibida por
estudiantes universitarios ecuatorianos, y su aprendizaje y satisfacción. Se empleó un diseño
cuantitativo, no experimental, correlacional y transversal, con datos de 7 docentes evaluados
mediante dos encuestas anónimas en línea (2,550 respuestas válidas), de las cuales se extrajo una
muestra aleatoria estratificada de 1,200 respuestas. A partir de ítems comunes en ambas encuestas
se construyeron dos escalas: proceso de enseñanza (6 ítems) y satisfacción del aprendizaje (5
ítems), recodificadas a escala de 1 a 5. La fiabilidad (alfa de Cronbach) fue de .968 y .853
respectivamente. Dado que la prueba de Shapiro-Wilk mostró ausencia de normalidad (p < .001),
se usó el coeficiente de correlación de Spearman. Los resultados evidenciaron niveles altos en
ambas variables (proceso de enseñanza: M = 4.38, DE = 0.94, 80.2% en nivel alto; aprendizaje y
satisfacción: M = 4.42, DE = 0.71, 78.8% en nivel alto), con una correlación positiva, alta y
significativa entre ellas (rho = .721; p < .001). Se concluye que el proceso de enseñanza percibida
se asocia positivamente con el aprendizaje y la satisfacción de los estudiantes, aunque estos
hallazgos son asociativos, no causales, y constituyen aproximaciones a la creatividad docente más
que una medición directa validada psicométricamente.
Palabras clave: enseñanza del inglés, proceso de enseñanza, aprendizaje, satisfacción
estudiantil, educación superior
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo
licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 3202
INTRODUCTION
English as a foreign language has become a strategic priority for higher education
institutions because of globalization of education, academic mobility, access to international
scientific communities, and the communication needs of the labor market. Therefore, English is
not limited to memorizing grammatical structures or vocabulary; it constitutes an academic,
professional, and social competence linked to the world with which students interact. Universities
must therefore establish pedagogical conditions that allow students to use the language in a
functional, contextual, and communicatively important way.
However, university-level English teaching remains a complex task because of students'
motivation, the diversity of language skills, technological integration, and the necessity to provide
authentic communication opportunities. These challenges call for a teaching process that go
beyond routine, transmissive instruction. Engaging, participatory, and resourceful teaching is
fundamental because it transforms the English classroom into a more active, motivating, and
meaningful space.
For the purposes of this study, teaching process quality is understood as the extent to
which students perceive their teacher's approach as clear, collaborative, engaging, responsive,
well organized, and supported by effective materials, activities, and technology. This construct is
conceptually related to teacher inventiveness and methodology, specially, to the pedagogical
flexibility, participatory innovation, and use of resources described in the literature, but it was
measured here through institutional course-evaluation items rather than through a validated
teacher-inventiveness psychometric scale. This distinction is made explicit because it directly
affects how the results can be interpreted.
Student learning, the dependent variable of the study, is understood as students' perceived
learning experience, expressed through their evaluation of the effectiveness of materials,
activities, and technology used in the course, whether the course met their expectations, and their
willingness to recommend it. From a constructivist perspective, learning occurs when students
actively construct meaning within their learning environment; therefore, teaching process
perceived as clear, collaborative, and well resourced can be expected to relate to more favorable
learning and satisfaction perceptions.
The research problem emerges from the tension between the current demands of
university English teaching and the need for empirical evidence, in the Ecuadorian university
context, on how students' perceptions of their teachers' practice relate to their own learning
experience. As a consequence, the guiding question was: ¿to what extent is students’ perceived
teaching process related to their perceived learning at an Ecuadorian university language center?
The general objective was to examine the relationship between students' perceived
teaching process of English teachers and students perceived learning at an Ecuadorian university
INTRODUCTION
English as a foreign language has become a strategic priority for higher education
institutions because of globalization of education, academic mobility, access to international
scientific communities, and the communication needs of the labor market. Therefore, English is
not limited to memorizing grammatical structures or vocabulary; it constitutes an academic,
professional, and social competence linked to the world with which students interact. Universities
must therefore establish pedagogical conditions that allow students to use the language in a
functional, contextual, and communicatively important way.
However, university-level English teaching remains a complex task because of students'
motivation, the diversity of language skills, technological integration, and the necessity to provide
authentic communication opportunities. These challenges call for a teaching process that go
beyond routine, transmissive instruction. Engaging, participatory, and resourceful teaching is
fundamental because it transforms the English classroom into a more active, motivating, and
meaningful space.
For the purposes of this study, teaching process quality is understood as the extent to
which students perceive their teacher's approach as clear, collaborative, engaging, responsive,
well organized, and supported by effective materials, activities, and technology. This construct is
conceptually related to teacher inventiveness and methodology, specially, to the pedagogical
flexibility, participatory innovation, and use of resources described in the literature, but it was
measured here through institutional course-evaluation items rather than through a validated
teacher-inventiveness psychometric scale. This distinction is made explicit because it directly
affects how the results can be interpreted.
Student learning, the dependent variable of the study, is understood as students' perceived
learning experience, expressed through their evaluation of the effectiveness of materials,
activities, and technology used in the course, whether the course met their expectations, and their
willingness to recommend it. From a constructivist perspective, learning occurs when students
actively construct meaning within their learning environment; therefore, teaching process
perceived as clear, collaborative, and well resourced can be expected to relate to more favorable
learning and satisfaction perceptions.
The research problem emerges from the tension between the current demands of
university English teaching and the need for empirical evidence, in the Ecuadorian university
context, on how students' perceptions of their teachers' practice relate to their own learning
experience. As a consequence, the guiding question was: ¿to what extent is students’ perceived
teaching process related to their perceived learning at an Ecuadorian university language center?
The general objective was to examine the relationship between students' perceived
teaching process of English teachers and students perceived learning at an Ecuadorian university
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 3203
language center. The specific objectives were to identify the level of teaching process perceived
by students, to assess the level of learning satisfaction perceived by students, to analyze the
relationship between both variables, and to determine the internal consistency of the composite
scales used. Because the analysis is correlational and based on secondary survey data, the results
are interpreted as associative and not causal. The general hypothesis was that students' perceived
teaching process is positively and significantly associated with their perceived learning; the null
hypothesis held that no significant relationship exists between the two variables.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Approach, paradigm, and design
The study followed a quantitative approach and a positivist paradigm. This decision was
made in agreement with the objective of measuring the study variables through structured survey
items and quantitatively evaluating the relationship between perceived teaching process and
perceived learning. The design was non-experimental, since the variables were not manipulated;
cross-sectional, because data collection took place within a short, defined period; and
correlational, since the aim was to assess the degree and direction of the relationship between the
variables. Results therefore allow the identification of statistically significant associations but not
the establishment of causality.
The study was carried out at the language center of an Ecuadorian public university. The
names of the two surveys export used as data sources for this study: online modality and
satisfaction survey suggest that the courses evaluated belong to a university language center
identified in the source files; however, the exact institutional name, city, and academic period
were not independently verified beyond this filename information and are therefore not asserted
with certainty.
Population, sample, and sampling
The teaching population consisted of 7 English teachers, whose courses were evaluated
by their students through two independent, anonymous, institutional course-
evaluation/satisfaction surveys: one applied to online-modality courses and one applied as
satisfaction survey. Because both surveys were fully anonymous, collected no personal
identifying information (the identification fields returned “anonymous” and blank name fields),
and recorded the teaching group in a highly inconsistent free-text field (more than 200 different
variants for a limited number of actual groups, e.g., “FT”, “F-T”, “Ft”, “F-T ”), it was not possible
to reliably link individual student responses to a specific one of the 7 teachers. Consequently,
results are reported at the aggregate level for the group of 7 teachers as a whole, and this
constitutes a declared limitation of the study rather than an assumption presented as fact.
The online-modality survey yielded 1,310 raw student responses (1,293 valid after
removing records with missing values on the analysis items), and the satisfaction survey yielded
language center. The specific objectives were to identify the level of teaching process perceived
by students, to assess the level of learning satisfaction perceived by students, to analyze the
relationship between both variables, and to determine the internal consistency of the composite
scales used. Because the analysis is correlational and based on secondary survey data, the results
are interpreted as associative and not causal. The general hypothesis was that students' perceived
teaching process is positively and significantly associated with their perceived learning; the null
hypothesis held that no significant relationship exists between the two variables.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Approach, paradigm, and design
The study followed a quantitative approach and a positivist paradigm. This decision was
made in agreement with the objective of measuring the study variables through structured survey
items and quantitatively evaluating the relationship between perceived teaching process and
perceived learning. The design was non-experimental, since the variables were not manipulated;
cross-sectional, because data collection took place within a short, defined period; and
correlational, since the aim was to assess the degree and direction of the relationship between the
variables. Results therefore allow the identification of statistically significant associations but not
the establishment of causality.
The study was carried out at the language center of an Ecuadorian public university. The
names of the two surveys export used as data sources for this study: online modality and
satisfaction survey suggest that the courses evaluated belong to a university language center
identified in the source files; however, the exact institutional name, city, and academic period
were not independently verified beyond this filename information and are therefore not asserted
with certainty.
Population, sample, and sampling
The teaching population consisted of 7 English teachers, whose courses were evaluated
by their students through two independent, anonymous, institutional course-
evaluation/satisfaction surveys: one applied to online-modality courses and one applied as
satisfaction survey. Because both surveys were fully anonymous, collected no personal
identifying information (the identification fields returned “anonymous” and blank name fields),
and recorded the teaching group in a highly inconsistent free-text field (more than 200 different
variants for a limited number of actual groups, e.g., “FT”, “F-T”, “Ft”, “F-T ”), it was not possible
to reliably link individual student responses to a specific one of the 7 teachers. Consequently,
results are reported at the aggregate level for the group of 7 teachers as a whole, and this
constitutes a declared limitation of the study rather than an assumption presented as fact.
The online-modality survey yielded 1,310 raw student responses (1,293 valid after
removing records with missing values on the analysis items), and the satisfaction survey yielded
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 3204
1,265 raw student responses (1,257 valid), for a combined valid pool of 2,550 student responses.
From this pool, a proportionally stratified random sample of 1,200 responses was drawn for
descriptive and inferential analysis, preserving the relative size of each source: 608 responses
from the online-modality survey and 592 responses from the satisfaction survey.
Information on inclusión and exclusion criteria beyond completeness of the analysis
items, on the exact enrolled student population, and on the sample-size calculation procedure is
not available in the source files and is therefore declared as not specified.
Table 1
Data sources and analysis sample
Source Raw responses Valid responses Analysis sample
Online-modality survey 1,310 1,293 608
Satisfaction survey 1,265 1,257 592
Total 2,575 2,550 1,200
Note. Teaching population: 7 English teachers (census; individual-level linkage not available due to anonymization).
Data collected between April 20 and April 23, 2026.
Variables and dimensions
The independent variable was students' perceived teaching process, used in this study as
a proxy indicator related to pedagogical iventiveness and engagement, given that the source
instruments were institutional course-evaluation surveys rather than a validated teacher-
methodology scale. It was operationalized through six items worded identically in both surveys,
rated on a five-point agreement scale (1 = Totally disagree to 5 = Totally agree). The dependent
variable was students' perceived learning and course satisfaction, operationalized through five
indicators drawn from items common to both surveys or recoded to a comparable 1-5 metric.
Table 2
Operationalization of variables
Variable Items / Indicators Measurement
Perceived teaching
process
1. Clear and understandable teaching approach; 2.
Encouraged student participation; 3. Sustained
students' interest; 4. Answered questions thoroughly;
5. Managed class time well; 6. Explained tasks
clearly
6-item scale, 5-point
agreement format,
recoded 1-5
Perceived learning
and satisfaction
1. Effectiveness of materials; 2. Effectiveness of
learning activities; 3. Effectiveness of technology
use; 4. Course met expectations (recoded); 5.
Likelihood to recommend the course (0-10, rescaled
to 1-5)
5-indicator
composite scale,
recoded 1-5
Note. Items were recoded to a 1-5 scale from the original surveys. The recommendation likelihood item (originally 0-
10) was rescaled for inclusion in the composite scale.
Instruments
Data came from two institutional, anonymous, self-administered online course-evaluation
of satisfaction questionnaires collected through a digital survey platform (evidenced by
automatically recorded submission timestamps). The two questionnaires shared a core set of items
worded identically: six items on teacher practice and three items on the effectiveness of materials,
activities, and technology, plus one item on whether the course met expectations and one 0-10
1,265 raw student responses (1,257 valid), for a combined valid pool of 2,550 student responses.
From this pool, a proportionally stratified random sample of 1,200 responses was drawn for
descriptive and inferential analysis, preserving the relative size of each source: 608 responses
from the online-modality survey and 592 responses from the satisfaction survey.
Information on inclusión and exclusion criteria beyond completeness of the analysis
items, on the exact enrolled student population, and on the sample-size calculation procedure is
not available in the source files and is therefore declared as not specified.
Table 1
Data sources and analysis sample
Source Raw responses Valid responses Analysis sample
Online-modality survey 1,310 1,293 608
Satisfaction survey 1,265 1,257 592
Total 2,575 2,550 1,200
Note. Teaching population: 7 English teachers (census; individual-level linkage not available due to anonymization).
Data collected between April 20 and April 23, 2026.
Variables and dimensions
The independent variable was students' perceived teaching process, used in this study as
a proxy indicator related to pedagogical iventiveness and engagement, given that the source
instruments were institutional course-evaluation surveys rather than a validated teacher-
methodology scale. It was operationalized through six items worded identically in both surveys,
rated on a five-point agreement scale (1 = Totally disagree to 5 = Totally agree). The dependent
variable was students' perceived learning and course satisfaction, operationalized through five
indicators drawn from items common to both surveys or recoded to a comparable 1-5 metric.
Table 2
Operationalization of variables
Variable Items / Indicators Measurement
Perceived teaching
process
1. Clear and understandable teaching approach; 2.
Encouraged student participation; 3. Sustained
students' interest; 4. Answered questions thoroughly;
5. Managed class time well; 6. Explained tasks
clearly
6-item scale, 5-point
agreement format,
recoded 1-5
Perceived learning
and satisfaction
1. Effectiveness of materials; 2. Effectiveness of
learning activities; 3. Effectiveness of technology
use; 4. Course met expectations (recoded); 5.
Likelihood to recommend the course (0-10, rescaled
to 1-5)
5-indicator
composite scale,
recoded 1-5
Note. Items were recoded to a 1-5 scale from the original surveys. The recommendation likelihood item (originally 0-
10) was rescaled for inclusion in the composite scale.
Instruments
Data came from two institutional, anonymous, self-administered online course-evaluation
of satisfaction questionnaires collected through a digital survey platform (evidenced by
automatically recorded submission timestamps). The two questionnaires shared a core set of items
worded identically: six items on teacher practice and three items on the effectiveness of materials,
activities, and technology, plus one item on whether the course met expectations and one 0-10
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 3205
recommendation-likelihood item. The remaining items in each questionnaire were survey-specific
(e.g., platform-use items in the Satisfaction survey, connectivity and modality-preference items
in the online-modality survey) and were not used in the composite scales in order to preserve
comparability across both data sources.
Response categories originally used agreement wording (e.g., “Totally disagree” to
“Totally agree”) or effectiveness wording (e.g., “Extremely ineffective” to “Totally effective”);
these were recoded to a common 1-5 numeric scale for analysis. The course-expectations item
(Yes / Not sure / No) was recoded to 5 / 3 / 1, and the 0-10 recommendation item was linearly
rescaled to a 1-5 metric.
Because these are institutional evaluation instruments and not a previously validated
psychometric scale of teacher inventiveness, no content-validity judgment by an expert panel or
construct-validity evidence (e.g., factor analysis) is available for the specific composites built for
this study. This is declared as a limitation rather than assumed.
Reliability
Internal consistency of the two composite scales was estimated with Cronbach's alpha,
calculated directly on the analysis sample (n = 1,200).
Table 3
Reliability of the composite scales (n = 1,200)
Scale Items Cronbach's
alpha
Perceived teaching process 6 .968
Perceived learning satisfaction 5 .853
Note. Cronbach's alpha values indicate excellent internal consistency for the Perceived Teaching Process scale and
good internal consistency for the Perceived Learning and Satisfaction scale. Reliability was calculated based on the
recoded 1–5 composite scales described in Table 2.
Both coefficients indicate adequate to high internal consistency for the analysis sample.
No confidence intervals or exploratory/confirmatory factor analyses were computed.
Data collection procedure
Data were collected through the two questionnaires described above, applied to the
respective student groups within a short period (April 20 to April 23, 2026, according to the
timestamps recorded in the source files). Both surveys were cross-sectional, self-administered
online, and anonymous. Information on the exact instructions given to respondents, the order of
item presentation, and specific strategies to control social-desirability or straight-lining bias is not
available and is declared as not specified.
Ethical considerations
Both source questionnaires were fully anonymous: the identification field consistently
returned “anonymous” and no respondent name was recorded. No personally identifying
information was available for either students or teachers. Beyond this anonymization, no
recommendation-likelihood item. The remaining items in each questionnaire were survey-specific
(e.g., platform-use items in the Satisfaction survey, connectivity and modality-preference items
in the online-modality survey) and were not used in the composite scales in order to preserve
comparability across both data sources.
Response categories originally used agreement wording (e.g., “Totally disagree” to
“Totally agree”) or effectiveness wording (e.g., “Extremely ineffective” to “Totally effective”);
these were recoded to a common 1-5 numeric scale for analysis. The course-expectations item
(Yes / Not sure / No) was recoded to 5 / 3 / 1, and the 0-10 recommendation item was linearly
rescaled to a 1-5 metric.
Because these are institutional evaluation instruments and not a previously validated
psychometric scale of teacher inventiveness, no content-validity judgment by an expert panel or
construct-validity evidence (e.g., factor analysis) is available for the specific composites built for
this study. This is declared as a limitation rather than assumed.
Reliability
Internal consistency of the two composite scales was estimated with Cronbach's alpha,
calculated directly on the analysis sample (n = 1,200).
Table 3
Reliability of the composite scales (n = 1,200)
Scale Items Cronbach's
alpha
Perceived teaching process 6 .968
Perceived learning satisfaction 5 .853
Note. Cronbach's alpha values indicate excellent internal consistency for the Perceived Teaching Process scale and
good internal consistency for the Perceived Learning and Satisfaction scale. Reliability was calculated based on the
recoded 1–5 composite scales described in Table 2.
Both coefficients indicate adequate to high internal consistency for the analysis sample.
No confidence intervals or exploratory/confirmatory factor analyses were computed.
Data collection procedure
Data were collected through the two questionnaires described above, applied to the
respective student groups within a short period (April 20 to April 23, 2026, according to the
timestamps recorded in the source files). Both surveys were cross-sectional, self-administered
online, and anonymous. Information on the exact instructions given to respondents, the order of
item presentation, and specific strategies to control social-desirability or straight-lining bias is not
available and is declared as not specified.
Ethical considerations
Both source questionnaires were fully anonymous: the identification field consistently
returned “anonymous” and no respondent name was recorded. No personally identifying
information was available for either students or teachers. Beyond this anonymization, no
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 3206
information on institutional ethics-committee approval, approval codes, or informed-consent
procedures is available in the source files and is declared as not specified.
Statistical techniques
Data were processed using Python (pandas and SciPy libraries) directly on the raw survey
exports. Descriptive statistics characterized the levels of perceived teaching process and perceived
learning/satisfaction. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality of the two composite
variables; because both departed significantly from normality (p < .001), Spearman's rho was used
to evaluate the association between them, consistent with an ordinal, non-parametric approach.
The significance level used throughout was p < .05, and the main correlation was significant at p
< .001.
RESULTS
Results are presented according to the study's objectives. First, descriptive results for the
two composite variables and their items are shown; then, the correlational analysis between
perceived teaching process and perceived learning satisfaction is presented.
Table 4
Descriptive results of the composite variables (n = 1,200)
Variable M SD High (%) Medium
(%) Low (%)
Perceived teaching process 4.38 0.94 80.2 12.7 7.2
Perceived learning /
satisfaction 4.42 0.71 78.8 15.3 5.9
Note. Levels defined as Low < 3, Medium 3-3.99, High ≥ 4, on the 1-5 recoded metric.
The first specific objective was to identify the level of teaching process perceived by
students. Results showed a high average level (M = 4.38, SD = 0.94), with 80.2% of responses in
the high range. This indicates that students frequently perceived their English teachers as clear,
participatory, engaging, responsive, well organized, and effective at explaining tasks.
The second specific objective was to assess the level of learning/satisfaction perceived
by students. Results showed a similarly high average level (M = 4.42, SD = 0.71), with 78.8% of
responses in the high range, reflecting favorable perceptions of the effectiveness of materials,
activities, and technology, as well as high expectation-fulfillment and recommendation
likelihood.
Table 5
Item-level descriptive statistics (n = 1,200)
Item M SD
Teaching approach was clear and understandable 4.38 0.98
Encouraged student participation 4.43 1.01
Sustained students' interest 4.29 1.04
Answered students' questions thoroughly 4.42 1.02
Managed class time well 4.38 1.01
Explained course tasks clearly 4.39 1.01
Effectiveness of teaching materials 4.31 0.95
Effectiveness of learning activities 4.38 0.92
information on institutional ethics-committee approval, approval codes, or informed-consent
procedures is available in the source files and is declared as not specified.
Statistical techniques
Data were processed using Python (pandas and SciPy libraries) directly on the raw survey
exports. Descriptive statistics characterized the levels of perceived teaching process and perceived
learning/satisfaction. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality of the two composite
variables; because both departed significantly from normality (p < .001), Spearman's rho was used
to evaluate the association between them, consistent with an ordinal, non-parametric approach.
The significance level used throughout was p < .05, and the main correlation was significant at p
< .001.
RESULTS
Results are presented according to the study's objectives. First, descriptive results for the
two composite variables and their items are shown; then, the correlational analysis between
perceived teaching process and perceived learning satisfaction is presented.
Table 4
Descriptive results of the composite variables (n = 1,200)
Variable M SD High (%) Medium
(%) Low (%)
Perceived teaching process 4.38 0.94 80.2 12.7 7.2
Perceived learning /
satisfaction 4.42 0.71 78.8 15.3 5.9
Note. Levels defined as Low < 3, Medium 3-3.99, High ≥ 4, on the 1-5 recoded metric.
The first specific objective was to identify the level of teaching process perceived by
students. Results showed a high average level (M = 4.38, SD = 0.94), with 80.2% of responses in
the high range. This indicates that students frequently perceived their English teachers as clear,
participatory, engaging, responsive, well organized, and effective at explaining tasks.
The second specific objective was to assess the level of learning/satisfaction perceived
by students. Results showed a similarly high average level (M = 4.42, SD = 0.71), with 78.8% of
responses in the high range, reflecting favorable perceptions of the effectiveness of materials,
activities, and technology, as well as high expectation-fulfillment and recommendation
likelihood.
Table 5
Item-level descriptive statistics (n = 1,200)
Item M SD
Teaching approach was clear and understandable 4.38 0.98
Encouraged student participation 4.43 1.01
Sustained students' interest 4.29 1.04
Answered students' questions thoroughly 4.42 1.02
Managed class time well 4.38 1.01
Explained course tasks clearly 4.39 1.01
Effectiveness of teaching materials 4.31 0.95
Effectiveness of learning activities 4.38 0.92
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 3207
Effectiveness of technology use 4.41 0.93
Course met expectations (recoded 1-5) 4.58 0.99
Likelihood to recommend the course (recoded 1-5) 4.44 0.68
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation. All items were measured on a 1–5 scale. The items "Course met
expectations" and "Likelihood to recommend the course" were recoded from their original response formats to a 1–5
scale to allow comparability with the other items.
The third specific objective was to analyze the relationship between perceived teaching
process and perceived learning/satisfaction. Because the Shapiro-Wilk test indicated that both
composite variables departed significantly from a normal distribution (p < .001 in both cases),
Spearman's rank correlation was used. The analysis showed a positive, high, and statistically
significant correlation between the two variables (rho = .721; p < .001; n = 1,200), supporting the
general hypothesis and allowing rejection of the null hypothesis.
Table 6
Correlation between perceived teaching process and perceived learning/satisfaction (n = 1,200)
Variables rho p Interpretation
Teaching process –
Learning/satisfaction .721 < .001 High, positive, statistically significant
correlation
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation. All items were measured on a 1–5 scale. The item "Course met expectations"
and "Likelihood to recommend the course" were recoded from their original response formats to a 1–5 scale for
comparability with the other items.
As a complementary check, composite scores were compared across the two data sources:
mean teaching-process scores were virtually equivalent between the online-modality survey (M
= 4.39, SD = 0.90) and the Satisfaction survey (M = 4.38, SD = 0.97), as were mean learning
satisfaction scores (M = 4.43, SD = 0.71, and M = 4.42, SD = 0.72, respectively). This suggests
that the observed association is not an artifact of one particular data source.
The magnitude of the coefficient indicates a robust association between the variables.
However, because of the non-experimental, cross-sectional design, and because of the analysis is
based on institutional evaluation surveys rather than a validated inventiveness instrument, the
results should not be interpreted as evidence of a causal effect, nor as a direct measurement of
teacher inventiveness. The association observed is best described as: students who perceive their
teacher's practice more favorably also tend to report more favorable perceptions of their own
learning and satisfaction with the course.
DISCUSSION
The study found a positive, high, and statistically significant relationship between
students' perceived teaching process of their English teachers and their perceived
learning/satisfaction at an Ecuadorian university language center. The Spearman coefficient (rho
= .721; p < .001) supports the general hypothesis and leads to rejection of the null hypothesis,
indicating that, within the population studied, more favorable perceptions of teaching process are
associated with more favorable learning and satisfaction perceptions.
Effectiveness of technology use 4.41 0.93
Course met expectations (recoded 1-5) 4.58 0.99
Likelihood to recommend the course (recoded 1-5) 4.44 0.68
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation. All items were measured on a 1–5 scale. The items "Course met
expectations" and "Likelihood to recommend the course" were recoded from their original response formats to a 1–5
scale to allow comparability with the other items.
The third specific objective was to analyze the relationship between perceived teaching
process and perceived learning/satisfaction. Because the Shapiro-Wilk test indicated that both
composite variables departed significantly from a normal distribution (p < .001 in both cases),
Spearman's rank correlation was used. The analysis showed a positive, high, and statistically
significant correlation between the two variables (rho = .721; p < .001; n = 1,200), supporting the
general hypothesis and allowing rejection of the null hypothesis.
Table 6
Correlation between perceived teaching process and perceived learning/satisfaction (n = 1,200)
Variables rho p Interpretation
Teaching process –
Learning/satisfaction .721 < .001 High, positive, statistically significant
correlation
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation. All items were measured on a 1–5 scale. The item "Course met expectations"
and "Likelihood to recommend the course" were recoded from their original response formats to a 1–5 scale for
comparability with the other items.
As a complementary check, composite scores were compared across the two data sources:
mean teaching-process scores were virtually equivalent between the online-modality survey (M
= 4.39, SD = 0.90) and the Satisfaction survey (M = 4.38, SD = 0.97), as were mean learning
satisfaction scores (M = 4.43, SD = 0.71, and M = 4.42, SD = 0.72, respectively). This suggests
that the observed association is not an artifact of one particular data source.
The magnitude of the coefficient indicates a robust association between the variables.
However, because of the non-experimental, cross-sectional design, and because of the analysis is
based on institutional evaluation surveys rather than a validated inventiveness instrument, the
results should not be interpreted as evidence of a causal effect, nor as a direct measurement of
teacher inventiveness. The association observed is best described as: students who perceive their
teacher's practice more favorably also tend to report more favorable perceptions of their own
learning and satisfaction with the course.
DISCUSSION
The study found a positive, high, and statistically significant relationship between
students' perceived teaching process of their English teachers and their perceived
learning/satisfaction at an Ecuadorian university language center. The Spearman coefficient (rho
= .721; p < .001) supports the general hypothesis and leads to rejection of the null hypothesis,
indicating that, within the population studied, more favorable perceptions of teaching process are
associated with more favorable learning and satisfaction perceptions.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 3208
Regarding the first specific objective, students perceived a high level of teaching process
among the group of 7 English teachers evaluated, particularly in terms of clarity, participation,
responsiveness, and time management. These characteristics are conceptually related to
innovative and engaging teaching, although, as noted, they were captured through course-
evaluation items rather than through a dedicated inventiveness scale.
Regarding the second specific objective, students reported favorable perceptions of their
learning experience, linked to the perceived effectiveness of materials, activities, and technology,
as well as to expectation fulfillment and willingness to recommend the course. This result suggests
that student learning perceptions should be examined not only through performance outcomes but
also through experiential dimensions of the course.
Regarding the third specific objective, the identified relationship supports the broader
premise that engaging, participatory, and well-resourced teaching process are associated with
more favorable learning experiences in university English teaching. However, given the non-
experimental, cross-sectional design and the reliance on institutional survey data rather than a
validated inventiveness instrument, this relationship cannot be interpreted as causal or as direct
evidence about teacher methodology specifically.
The internal-consistency coefficients obtained for the composite scales used in this study
(.968 and .853) indicate that, for this sample, the items grouped under each dimension behaved
coherently; nonetheless, these coefficients describe the scales as constructed for this secondary
analysis and should not be equated with the psychometric properties of a validated teacher-
methodology or student-learning instrument.
The results suggest the value of strengthening teacher professional development around
participatory, communicative, and technology-supported practices. For the institution, the
findings support continued monitoring of course-evaluation data as one source of evidence on the
student experience. For researchers, the study offers an empirical illustration of how institutional
evaluation-survey data can be re-analyzed to explore associations between teaching process and
student-perceived learning, while highlighting the methodological limits of doing so without a
purpose-built instrument.
Study Limitations
First, the mismatch between the originally intended instrument and the data actually
available: the analysis relies on institutional course-evaluation/satisfaction surveys, not on a
validated 24-item teacher methodology questionnaire or a validated 20-item student-learning
questionnaire. Consequently, the “teaching process” and “learning satisfaction” variables used
here are proxy composites, not direct, validated measurements of teacher methodology or student
learning.
Moreover, another limitation is the lack of individual teacher identification. Because both
surveys were anonymous and recorded the teaching group inconsistently, student responses could
Regarding the first specific objective, students perceived a high level of teaching process
among the group of 7 English teachers evaluated, particularly in terms of clarity, participation,
responsiveness, and time management. These characteristics are conceptually related to
innovative and engaging teaching, although, as noted, they were captured through course-
evaluation items rather than through a dedicated inventiveness scale.
Regarding the second specific objective, students reported favorable perceptions of their
learning experience, linked to the perceived effectiveness of materials, activities, and technology,
as well as to expectation fulfillment and willingness to recommend the course. This result suggests
that student learning perceptions should be examined not only through performance outcomes but
also through experiential dimensions of the course.
Regarding the third specific objective, the identified relationship supports the broader
premise that engaging, participatory, and well-resourced teaching process are associated with
more favorable learning experiences in university English teaching. However, given the non-
experimental, cross-sectional design and the reliance on institutional survey data rather than a
validated inventiveness instrument, this relationship cannot be interpreted as causal or as direct
evidence about teacher methodology specifically.
The internal-consistency coefficients obtained for the composite scales used in this study
(.968 and .853) indicate that, for this sample, the items grouped under each dimension behaved
coherently; nonetheless, these coefficients describe the scales as constructed for this secondary
analysis and should not be equated with the psychometric properties of a validated teacher-
methodology or student-learning instrument.
The results suggest the value of strengthening teacher professional development around
participatory, communicative, and technology-supported practices. For the institution, the
findings support continued monitoring of course-evaluation data as one source of evidence on the
student experience. For researchers, the study offers an empirical illustration of how institutional
evaluation-survey data can be re-analyzed to explore associations between teaching process and
student-perceived learning, while highlighting the methodological limits of doing so without a
purpose-built instrument.
Study Limitations
First, the mismatch between the originally intended instrument and the data actually
available: the analysis relies on institutional course-evaluation/satisfaction surveys, not on a
validated 24-item teacher methodology questionnaire or a validated 20-item student-learning
questionnaire. Consequently, the “teaching process” and “learning satisfaction” variables used
here are proxy composites, not direct, validated measurements of teacher methodology or student
learning.
Moreover, another limitation is the lack of individual teacher identification. Because both
surveys were anonymous and recorded the teaching group inconsistently, student responses could
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 3209
not be linked to a specific one of the 7 teachers. The results therefore describe the group of
teachers in aggregate and do not allow individual-level comparisons or conclusions about any
single teacher.
In addition, it can be found the cross-sectional design, which does not allow the
observation of changes over time or the establishment of causality. Although a strong correlation
was found, it cannot be claimed that teaching process directly produces improvements in learning.
Furthermore, another limitacion is the correlational scope of the study. It allows
estimating associations between variables but does not control for intervening variables such as
students' initial English level, teacher experience, group size, institutional resources, or students'
prior motivation.
Thus, there is a concern about the instrument comparability. Because the two source
surveys shared only a subset of identically worded items, the composite scales were built from a
limited number of common items (6 and 5, respectively), which may not fully capture the breadth
of either construct.
Another limitation is the absence of formally established content or construct validity for
the composites used here: no expert-panel judgment or factor-analytic evidence is available, since
these were not originally designed as research instruments but as institutional evaluation surveys.
Finally, another limitation relates to the voluntary, self-selected nature of course-
evaluation surveys, which may introduce response bias if students with stronger opinions
(positive or negative) were more likely to respond.
Recommendations
It is recommended that future research on this topic use a validated teacher-inventiveness
instrument (e.g., with dimensions of originality, pedagogical flexibility, methodological
innovation, and use of resources) applied directly to teachers, together with a validated student-
learning questionnaire, rather than relying on institutional satisfaction surveys as a proxy.
Besides, data-collection instruments include a reliable, standardized teacher group
identifier from the outset, so that future analyses can examine differences across individual
teachers rather than only aggregate, group-level associations.
Future studies should consider longitudinal or quasi-experimental designs to examine
changes in student learning associated with teaching- process interventions, and could apply
regression or structural equation models to estimate the relative weight of each dimension.
Complementing questionnaires with interviews, focus groups, or classroom observations would
help clarify how innovative and engaging teaching process manifest concretely in university
English classrooms.
Finally, it is recommended that future studies expand the sample to several Ecuadorian
universities and compare results by region, teaching modality, academic program, and English
not be linked to a specific one of the 7 teachers. The results therefore describe the group of
teachers in aggregate and do not allow individual-level comparisons or conclusions about any
single teacher.
In addition, it can be found the cross-sectional design, which does not allow the
observation of changes over time or the establishment of causality. Although a strong correlation
was found, it cannot be claimed that teaching process directly produces improvements in learning.
Furthermore, another limitacion is the correlational scope of the study. It allows
estimating associations between variables but does not control for intervening variables such as
students' initial English level, teacher experience, group size, institutional resources, or students'
prior motivation.
Thus, there is a concern about the instrument comparability. Because the two source
surveys shared only a subset of identically worded items, the composite scales were built from a
limited number of common items (6 and 5, respectively), which may not fully capture the breadth
of either construct.
Another limitation is the absence of formally established content or construct validity for
the composites used here: no expert-panel judgment or factor-analytic evidence is available, since
these were not originally designed as research instruments but as institutional evaluation surveys.
Finally, another limitation relates to the voluntary, self-selected nature of course-
evaluation surveys, which may introduce response bias if students with stronger opinions
(positive or negative) were more likely to respond.
Recommendations
It is recommended that future research on this topic use a validated teacher-inventiveness
instrument (e.g., with dimensions of originality, pedagogical flexibility, methodological
innovation, and use of resources) applied directly to teachers, together with a validated student-
learning questionnaire, rather than relying on institutional satisfaction surveys as a proxy.
Besides, data-collection instruments include a reliable, standardized teacher group
identifier from the outset, so that future analyses can examine differences across individual
teachers rather than only aggregate, group-level associations.
Future studies should consider longitudinal or quasi-experimental designs to examine
changes in student learning associated with teaching- process interventions, and could apply
regression or structural equation models to estimate the relative weight of each dimension.
Complementing questionnaires with interviews, focus groups, or classroom observations would
help clarify how innovative and engaging teaching process manifest concretely in university
English classrooms.
Finally, it is recommended that future studies expand the sample to several Ecuadorian
universities and compare results by region, teaching modality, academic program, and English
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 3210
proficiency level, in order to generate stronger evidence to inform institutional policies aimed at
improving foreign-language teaching.
proficiency level, in order to generate stronger evidence to inform institutional policies aimed at
improving foreign-language teaching.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 3211
REFERENCES
Garner, J. K., & Kuhn, M. (2022). Impacts of facilitating invention education on teachers' school
year practices: A technical report prepared for Camp Invention®. The Center for
Educational Partnerships, Old Dominion University.
Henriksen, D., Creely, E., Henderson, M., & Mishra, P. (2021). Creativity and technology in
teaching and learning: A literature review of the uneasy space of implementation.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4), 2091–2108.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09912-z
Kurusu, K., Oda, C., Go, M. A. C., Wu, D., Saure, K. B., & Narang, S. (2024). English in the
internationalization of higher education and international student mobility. AILA Review,
37(1), 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.24002.kur
McKinney, W. (2010). Data structures for statistical computing in Python. Proceedings of the 9th
Python in Science Conference, 56–61. https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a
Ochoa, C., Cabrera, P., Quiñónez, A., Castillo, L. M., & González, P. F. (2016). The effect of
communicative activities on EFL learners' motivation: A case of students in the Amazon
region of Ecuador. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 18(2), 39–48.
https://doi.org/10.14483/calj.v18n2.10018
Quansah, F., Cobbinah, A., Asamoah-Gyimah, K., & Hagan, J. E., Jr. (2024). Validity of student
evaluation of teaching in higher education: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 9,
Article 1329734. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1329734
Samosir, S. M., Ke, I.-C., & Manik, K. N. (2025). The effective English teacher: Perceptions from
student teachers and teacher educators. Journal of General Education and Humanities,
4(1), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.58421/gehu.v4i1.391
Santini, F. de O., Ladeira, W. J., Sampaio, C. H., & Costa, G. da S. (2017). Student satisfaction
in higher education: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,
27(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2017.1311980
Saragi, L. A. P., Yana, D., Putri, A., & Edi, W. (2022). Students' and teachers' perception of
learning English for young learners. Tamaddun Life, 21(2), 186–197.
https://doi.org/10.33096/tamaddun.v21i2.207
Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and
interpretation. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 126(5), 1763–1768.
https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete
samples). Biometrika, 52(3–4), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591
REFERENCES
Garner, J. K., & Kuhn, M. (2022). Impacts of facilitating invention education on teachers' school
year practices: A technical report prepared for Camp Invention®. The Center for
Educational Partnerships, Old Dominion University.
Henriksen, D., Creely, E., Henderson, M., & Mishra, P. (2021). Creativity and technology in
teaching and learning: A literature review of the uneasy space of implementation.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4), 2091–2108.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09912-z
Kurusu, K., Oda, C., Go, M. A. C., Wu, D., Saure, K. B., & Narang, S. (2024). English in the
internationalization of higher education and international student mobility. AILA Review,
37(1), 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.24002.kur
McKinney, W. (2010). Data structures for statistical computing in Python. Proceedings of the 9th
Python in Science Conference, 56–61. https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a
Ochoa, C., Cabrera, P., Quiñónez, A., Castillo, L. M., & González, P. F. (2016). The effect of
communicative activities on EFL learners' motivation: A case of students in the Amazon
region of Ecuador. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 18(2), 39–48.
https://doi.org/10.14483/calj.v18n2.10018
Quansah, F., Cobbinah, A., Asamoah-Gyimah, K., & Hagan, J. E., Jr. (2024). Validity of student
evaluation of teaching in higher education: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 9,
Article 1329734. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1329734
Samosir, S. M., Ke, I.-C., & Manik, K. N. (2025). The effective English teacher: Perceptions from
student teachers and teacher educators. Journal of General Education and Humanities,
4(1), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.58421/gehu.v4i1.391
Santini, F. de O., Ladeira, W. J., Sampaio, C. H., & Costa, G. da S. (2017). Student satisfaction
in higher education: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,
27(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2017.1311980
Saragi, L. A. P., Yana, D., Putri, A., & Edi, W. (2022). Students' and teachers' perception of
learning English for young learners. Tamaddun Life, 21(2), 186–197.
https://doi.org/10.33096/tamaddun.v21i2.207
Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and
interpretation. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 126(5), 1763–1768.
https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete
samples). Biometrika, 52(3–4), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 3212
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research
instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Vanegas Pesántez, M. I., Betancourtt Aguilera, J. O., & Recalde García, F. A. (2024).
Methodologies and didactic approaches in teaching English as a foreign language in
Ecuadorian education. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 8(1), 9540-9553.
https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v8i1.10272
Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski,
E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., van der Walt, S. J., Brett, M., Wilson, J.,
Millman, K. J., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A. R. J., Jones, E., Kern, R., Larson, E., Carey, C. J.,
… SciPy 1.0 Contributors. (2020). SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific
computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17(3), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-
019-0686-2
Zha, Z., & Greenier, V. (2023). Chinese teachers' perceptions of creativity in the EFL classroom:
Advancing a culturally situated conceptualization of creativity. Teaching English
Language, 17(2), 169–195.
Wongkraso, P., Sitti, S., & Piyakun, A. (2015). Effects of using invention learning approach on
inventive abilities: A mixed method study. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(5), 523–
530. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2117
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research
instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Vanegas Pesántez, M. I., Betancourtt Aguilera, J. O., & Recalde García, F. A. (2024).
Methodologies and didactic approaches in teaching English as a foreign language in
Ecuadorian education. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 8(1), 9540-9553.
https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v8i1.10272
Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski,
E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., van der Walt, S. J., Brett, M., Wilson, J.,
Millman, K. J., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A. R. J., Jones, E., Kern, R., Larson, E., Carey, C. J.,
… SciPy 1.0 Contributors. (2020). SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific
computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17(3), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-
019-0686-2
Zha, Z., & Greenier, V. (2023). Chinese teachers' perceptions of creativity in the EFL classroom:
Advancing a culturally situated conceptualization of creativity. Teaching English
Language, 17(2), 169–195.
Wongkraso, P., Sitti, S., & Piyakun, A. (2015). Effects of using invention learning approach on
inventive abilities: A mixed method study. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(5), 523–
530. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2117