|
8.4
Research instrument 2: student questionnaire (internal).
8.4.1 Description
This questionnaire (tables A-55 to A-59)
was designed by the writer to provide formative information on the
programme (research question 4, section 1.2),
to reflect student perceptions of the learning environment (research question
2), and to address research questions 1 & 3 in terms of student awareness
of learning strategies and of development of CMI and learning skills.
Finally, comparison of results (section 8.5.3;
cf. Hills 1976 - sections 7.3.5,
7.3.6) with the "Teacher" version of
this instrument (section 8.5) would provide
evidence of how student/teacher ideas were changing in relation to each
other. This questionnaire was based on various published instruments:
- Hills
(1976:30), cf. TWA,
pages 48-9, 63/4, appendices C-53/4.
- Horwitz
(1988) BALLI, cf. TWA,
pages 78-9, appendix C-55.
- Willing
(1988) "Student perceptions" questionnaire, cf. TWA,
pages 92/93, appendix
C-56.
- Oxford
(1990a) SILL, cf. TWA, pages 134-39,
appendix C-59.
- Hahn
et al. (1989), cf. TWA,
page 175, appendix C-61.
Research
instrument 2 was administered (by LC administrative staff) to 28 classes
of 1st/2nd/3rd year students (n = 658)
in December 1998 (end of the second academic semester in1998) and June
1999 (end of the first semester in 1999). Seven of these classes were
taught by the writer, and the other 21 were the classes from which interview
students were chosen for research instrument 5 (cf.
section 8.7; one Freshman, Sophomore, and Junior class was chosen
randomly from each of the 7 departments in the university). The instrument
took the form of a 57-item questionnaire in five sections:
All
items were in Korean and English, and students responded in each section
on a three-point Likert scale. As with all the research items in this
study, "positive" items (e.g. "I come to class on time") were
not interspersed with "negative" ones (e.g. "I don't come to class
on time"), despite the danger of students double-guessing the designer
and providing only the answers that seemed to be expected of them. The
reason for this policy was to prevent confusion with double negatives
(e.g. "The
teacher doesn't know our learning
needs: Yes/maybe/no").
Such non-positive statements would require their own responses (e.g. "I
don't always/often/ever come
to class on time"), and would be a potential source of misunderstanding.
Given also that the goals of the programme included promotion of confidence
and motivation, there was some justification for focusing attention on
positive aspects of learning.
Results for this instrument can be viewed in
section 8.4.2, (tables A-64/5)
and in appendices D-9-33, and discussion
of these results can be found in section 8.5.3,
where results from research instruments 2 and 3 (students and teachers)
are compared.
8.4.1.1 Research
instrument 2, Section A: "My
contribution in class"
This section (table A-55) looked
at student perceptions regarding performance in the learning environment,
and gave valuable information to the teacher and programme-designer concerning
how concepts such as "participation" were being comprehended. Since
the questions represented learner-training ideas, students could reflect
on whether they were putting these into practice, and on the effect of
the level of implementation on their learning. Items in this section covered
similar ground to Willing's (1988) "Student perceptions"
questionnaire (cf. TWA, pages 92/93, appendix C-56), and
Oxford's (1990a) SILL, sections
D&F (cf. TWA, pages 134/39,
appendix C-59).
8.4.1.2
Research instrument 2, Section B: "Do we need more of anything?"
Items in section B (table A-56) continued
to investigate student perceptions (cf. Willing 1988),
and were based on conversations with students and teachers in the pilot
year (1997), regarding perceived learning needs. Responses (e.g. "We need
more grammar") demonstrated ideas of what constitutes "effective
language learning" (cf. Horwitz's BALLI
(1981): TWA pp. 78/79, appendix
C-55).
8.4.1.3 Research
instrument 2, Section C:
"The
teacher"
This section (table A-57) was based
on Hills' (1976) examination of teacher-needs as
seen by the students (Hills 1976:30), and of teacher-needs
as seen by teachers (cf. research instrument 3),
in relation to their students (Hills 1976:29; cf. TWA
pages 63/64, appendix
C-54). Items
in this section were again based on conversations with students and teachers
during 1997, and presented attributes that had been identified as desirable
during that time.
8.4.1.4 Research
instrument 2, Section D: "The English lessons in the Language Centre"
Section D (table A-58) was based on
Hahn et al.'s
(1989) research into grading classroom activities (adapted
for ANU students, following conversations with students and teachers in
the pilot year). Statements in this section were more long-term, and investigated
students' perceptions of the efficacy of the language programme in achieving
its goal of promoting confident, motivated, independent learners (cf.
Dickinson [1978], TWA
page 175, appendix C-61).
8.4.1.5 Research
instrument 2, Section E: "General"
Section E (table
A-59) represented a "post-course" needs analysis, in that students
were asked to give feed-back on specific aspects of the programme (items
44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, table
A-59), in addition to commenting further on how they had been affected
in terms of CMI (items 47, 48, 49). The items in this section represented
programme issues under consideration by the author at the time of administration
of the instrument, and could be replaced by other issues as appropriate.
The main issues represented in the 1998/1999 version of section E (table
A-59) were: i) the appropriateness
of the textbook (items 44-46); ii) development of CMI (items 47-49); iii)
streaming (items 50-53); iv) selection (items 54-55); and v) frequency
of lessons (items 56-57). Although being "closed" questions, these
performed a formative role, and took into consideration the final "open"
part of this instrument, in which students were asked to mention "One
good thing about the English class: 영어회화 수업시 좋았던 점 한가지"
and "One thing
that I want to change in the English class: 영어회화 수업시 고쳐야 할 점 한가지".
8.4.2
Instrument 2: results
Results for December 1998 and June 1999 appear in bar-graph form in
appendices D-9- D-33) and as totals
of responses and percentages in tables A-64/5.
Numbers in the shaded rows of tables A-64/5 refer to question numbers
(e.g. "5" = Question 5: "I ask classmates for help when I need it").
Numbers under these shaded rows refer to the number of student responses.
Italicised numbers below these refer to the percentage of the total represented
by these responses. Numbers in the "Totals" row indicate the total
number of responses for each question. Results
in 1998 showed that from a total of 658 students in the selected classes,
responses to each question in the instrument averaged 557 (85%), perhaps
indicative of students being unfamiliar with the formative, educative
and reflective nature of such feedback, and not wanting to answer questions
they were unsure of, or which they found sensitive (e.g. question 23 [518
responses] and 26 [514 responses] about the teacher – table
A-64). To demand 100% completion of every item, however, would have
negated the spirit of mutual respect that was part of the learning environment
in the Language Centre. By June 1999 the average number of responses to
each question rose to 589 (91%) – perhaps indicative of increased
trust in the instrument and its purposes.
Classes
in 1999 consisted of students from the same departments as those in 1998,
but did not contain exactly the same students. Some students (53.3% of
males in the sophomore year) left to do their military service, and some
sophomore/juniors had re-registered, having returned from military service.
Given the minimum number of two English classes from each department,
the mix of students was such that there was about a 30% chance of any
1998 research group student being in the same group in 1999.
Results
for research instrument 2 are discussed in section
8.5.3 .
Continue
reading this Chapter: "Research Instrument 3"
|