|
MA ELT Dissertation |
An Investigation into Learners’ Disposition and Perceived Ability to Learn Independently in the Centre for Independent Language Learning
Back to Main Page of this Dissertation | Next Page
Link to Part: Intro, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Bib, Appx
6 Findings
These are the findings from the questionnaires, interviews and the diaries. For supporting details, see Appendices 7 to 18.
1. Do you think that becoming a more independent learner is important to you?
In the questionnaires the mean disposition of all the students was 2.95 out of four, slightly above the mid-point. The mode score for each of the items was three, reflecting this positive tendency. However, due to the low alpha for reliability (0.2603) of the disposition section of the questionnaire, the interview statements provide better information.
In the interviews all the students answered this question positively. Five diaries had no evidence either for or against this, but the second interviewee said that it was important to her, and this was confirmed by a diary entry. (See Appendix 14.) Her mean disposition in the questionnaire was 2.6, above the mid-point of the one-to-four scale, where ‘4’ indicated a high degree of independence.
2. Do you think you have become more independent in studying English since you first started at CILL?
This question was to investigate the reasons for questionnaire results for Hypothesis Three. Questionnaire data on the first part of the hypothesis, on the correlation between total disposition and duration were discounted due to problems with the reliability of the first part of the questionnaire, as detailed in Section 3.8.
The observed value of -0.000557 for the Pearson’s correlation between perceived ability and duration of CILL attendance (see Appendix Four: Questionnaire Statistics) was not (assuming an alpha level of 0.1 and df = n - 2 = 28) above the critical value of +0.4451 (Brown 1988:140). The null hypothesis cannot therefore be rejected and, based on the questionnaire results, Hypothesis Three was therefore refuted.
Because this refuted a major hypothesis of the research, the data was reanalysed for confirmation. Pearson’s coefficient assumes interval scales, and as the perceived ability scale could be interpreted as being only of ordinal status, the data was reanalysed using Spearman’s rho, as recommended by Brown (1988: 150), who says that "Typically, rho is applied to small samples (of less than 30) to test the same hypotheses as the Pearson r." The SPSS analysis gave a correlation of -.1069 at a significance of .574, and as this is not >0.05, this confirms that the null hypothesis cannot be refuted.
Separating the two factors highlighted by the factor analysis and correlating them against duration also resulted in insignificant correlations.
However, all the interviewees answered that they had improved. Five diaries had no evidence either for or against this, but the fifth interviewee’s comments on his improving study strategies suggests that he has become more independent, and this was confirmed by a diary entry. (See Appendix 17.) This student had an above-average perceived ability in the questionnaire, at 2.83 against a mean of 2.75 for all the questionnaires.
3. How do you feel about choosing which topics you need to study?
In the questionnaires the mean score for this item was 3.1, the highest of the disposition items. There was no significant correlation of this factor with duration. Five out of the six students said that choosing a topic was not a problem, and one said that sometimes she didn’t, "have any special requirement for what topic I’m going to study." (See Appendix Eight) Diary entries confirmed the feelings of three of the students about this. One had no special requirements for topics, one chose topics she was interested in, and the last student was mainly interested in the topic of speaking, and had this as his aim 44 times. He had above-average scores for both needs analysis and setting aims in the questionnaire.
4. How do you feel about writing specific aims in your learner diary?
The questionnaire results gave a mean of 2.9 for the item on the students’ perceived ability to set themselves aims. Again, there was no significant correlation of this factor with duration. Four interviewees said setting aims was no problem, one said that she thought that it was not necessary (see Appendix Eight), and one student discussed the usefulness of the diary in general, seeming not to know about the ‘Aims’ section in the learner diary. (See Appendix Eleven.)
The students comments were confirmed by their diaries five times. Two students solved problems in setting aims by using avoidance strategies, i.e. by simplifying their aims (eg. "To Improve my English") and using the same aims frequently. (See Appendices 16 and 17.) This was reflected in Interviewee Five’s score of four for setting aims in the questionnaire - it wasn’t a problem because he avoided it.
5. How do you feel about choosing materials, exercises and activities?
There was a mean score of 3.1 in the questionnaire for the disposition item on choosing materials etc., and a mean score of 2.7 for the item in the perceived ability section. There was no significant correlation of this factor with duration.
All the interviewees said that they had no problem finding materials, although one (see Appendix Eleven) said that at first she had chosen at random, and later had asked the tutors for advice. The comments of one student, that he asked the tutors to recommend materials for him, was confirmed by the diaries. He chose three in the questionnaire, agreeing with the statement "I am satisfied with my ability to select materials and activities in CILL.", which was above the mean of 2.73. For the other interviewees there was no evidence.
6. How do you feel about learning and practising English without a teacher?
The mean questionnaire score for doing activities without a teacher present was 2.86, and the students mean score for their satisfaction with their ability to work without supervision was 2.83. Factor analysis showed that this was a distinct factor within the disposition items. There was no significant correlation of this factor with duration.
Five out of the six students interviewed said that learning without a teacher was not a problem, but one said that she preferred to learn with a teacher. (See Appendix Eight.) Their comments were confirmed by their diary entries. (See Appendices 13 and 14.) Interviewee One chose ‘3’, Agreeing with the statement "I am satisfied with my ability to work without supervision in CILL." but commented on her difficulties on her questionnaire form.
7. How do you feel about correcting your own mistakes?
The mean score for the first item on who’s role it is to correct mistakes was 2.93, favouring correcting one’s own mistakes. The students’ score for their perceived ability to evaluate their own progress was 2.5, the least independent score for all the items. There was no significant correlation of this factor with duration.
Five of the interviewees said that correcting their own mistakes was difficult, and one, the Ph.D. student, said that she corrected her own mistakes, and added, "Sometimes a tutor can help me." (See Appendix Eleven.)
Three interviewees’ comments were confirmed by their diary entries. Two said that correcting their own mistakes was difficult (see Appendices 13 and 18), reflecting their choices of ‘2’ and ‘3’ in the questionnaires, but one said that he could correct them himself (see Appendix 17), which reflected his choice of ‘4’ in the questionnaire.
8. How do you feel about testing yourself?
The mean score from the questionnaire item about testing scored 2.87 on a scale from
4 - "(a) I can test myself. I know myself if I’ve been learning well." to 1 - "(b) The teacher should give us lots of tests and show us how well we have learned." There was a significant correlation of this factor with duration, but a negative one, in other words independence in testing oneself goes down with duration of CILL attendance. However, this result is only just significant, with a Spearman’s rho coefficient of
-.3614, significant at exactly the 0.05 level. Perceived ability to evaluate one’s own learning did not correlate significantly with duration.
Two of the six interviewees said they had never tested themselves, two found it difficult, one said she sometimes tested herself, and one described ways he could test himself for presentations, but said that he would have to ask a tutor to test him on writing. (See Appendix Twelve.)
Only the fifth interviewee’s comment that he tested himself was confirmed by his diary. He described his study strategy in his diary. His choice in the questionnaire was a ‘4’ for "I can test myself. I know myself if I’ve been learning well", and a ‘3’ for "I am satisfied with my ability to evaluate my progress in CILL."
9. Have you been to any CILL workshops? What was it / were they about?" What did you think of them?
Only one student said that she had been to a workshop, which was on speaking, and she said that she found it useful. There was no evidence of any workshop attendance in any of the other diaries.
10. How often have you spoken to a CILL tutor and asked for advice? Often, not very often, a lot, never? Did you follow the advice?"
Although five of the comments made by interviewees were confirmed, there were widely varying answers. Two students said, and their diaries confirmed, that they never talked to the tutors (see Appendices 14 and 15), while two said they often did (see Appendices 17 and 18), and one said that she did every day (see Appendix 13).
11. How often have you asked a tutor for advice in your learner diary? Often, not very often, a lot, never?" Did you follow the advice?"
The interviewees’ comments varied widely. All the interviewees had asked for advice in their diaries, although two said they did not ask very often. Two said they had followed the advice, but one did not think that the advice was useful. All but one of comments were confirmed by the diary entries. The first interviewee said that she asked for advice in her diary quite often, but in fact there was only one direct request for advice in her seven diaries. However, other comments such as descriptions of her lack of ability might be seen as indirect requests for advice. The other interviewees requests ranged from not very often (4 times, see Appendix 18) to often (44 times, see Appendix 17).
12. Have you used any of the books from the study skills shelf? Which ones? Were they useful?
All but one of the students said they had never used a book from the study skills shelf. One student first identified one of the a dictionaries, which are not kept on the study skills shelf. When a more detailed description of study skills books was given, said that she had used a book like that, but couldn’t remember which one. She said that she had found it useful. (See Appendix 8.) There was no evidence in the diaries of use of any of the books from the study skills shelf.
13. Have you used the ‘How to Improve Your English’ computer program? What did you think of it? Do you have any suggestions?
Five students said that they had used this program, but two were not enthusiastic about it. One said she that it was helpful, but that she had only used it once. (See Appendix Eight.) One had only seen the listening part of the program, and did not think it was very useful. (See Appendix Nine.) Only one student had a suggestion, which was to include grammar tests. There was no evidence of any use of this program in any of the interviewees’ diaries.
14. Have you used the CILL Internet pages, like this one, with a yellow and white background? What did you use them for? What did you think of them? Do you have any suggestions?
Only one student had used the CILL Internet site, and she said that she had not found anything on presentations, which was the subject she was looking for, even though that subject is a part of the site. (See Appendix Eight.) Students frequently did not distinguish the CILL Internet site from the rest of the Internet, and did not know about the contents of the CILL site. There is no evidence of any use of the CILL Internet pages in any of the interviewee’s diaries.
15. Do you think you need more training in how to study independently? What kind of training would you like?
The mean perceived ability score for all the questionnaires was 2.75, above the mid-point. Three students said that they would like more learner training. When asked what kind of training they would like, one answered that she would like to know how to use all the machines in CILL and how to book a room (see Appendix Eight); one wanted training on how to use the computer (see Appendix Nine), one suggested advice in his diary (see Appendix Eleven), and one suggested small-group discussions (see Appendix Twelve.) The comments of three students were confirmed by entries in their diaries.
16. Can I look in your learner diary later for some examples for my dissertation?
In the interviews all the students gave their permission.
Back to Main Page of this Dissertation | Next Page
Link to Part: Intro, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Bib, Appx
Last revised on Tuesday, September 24, 2002
If you have any comments, please contact Andy Morrall at ecandym@polyu.edu.hk