The analysis of students’ self report questionnaires: Part 2

Analysis process: Categorising, coding, and comparing students’ feedback on the communication strategy lessons

The second part of the self-report questionnaire contained five open-ended questions which allowed students to give more detail, either in English or Thai, about the lesson. Question 1, What have you learned from this lesson?, required students to address knowledge obtained from the lesson. Question 2, What do you like and/or dislike about this lesson?, elicited students’ preferences about the current lesson. Question 3, Do you think this lesson is useful for improving your English oral performance?, required students’ opinions on the usefulness of the lesson. Question 4,

156 What would you like to learn in the next lesson?, elicited their preferences for the next lesson. Question 5 requested any additional comments about the lesson.

After teaching each lesson, I translated students’ responses to each question into English which were later double-checked by the other EFL teacher to ensure accurate and reliable translation. All responses were coded, using abbreviations and numbers. For example, SRQ1:L4:S29 referred to self-report questionnaire Question 1 of Lesson 4 from the students’ code number 29. Then I sorted the responses to each question into its category. Those for Question 1 were included in a category of knowledge obtained from the lesson, responses for Question 2 in a category of the usefulness of the current lesson, responses for Question 3 in a category of students’ preference regarding the current lesson, and responses for Question 4 in a category of preference for further lessons. Any of additional comments about the lesson in Question 5 were categorised with the category which was most related.

All responses to each question were further categorised into subgroups. For example, in the category of knowledge obtained from the lessons, responses mentioning that they had learned about new vocabulary or words were grouped into vocabulary learning. Responses mentioning that they had learned to practice describing object were sorted into practice of communication via tasks and pre-task activities. Those mentioning that they had learned about the expressions used to ask for the interlocutor’s repetition were sorted into practice of using CSs. The most frequent responses in each category within and across lessons are summarised below.

Findings: Students’ feedback on the CS lessons

Categorising, coding, and comparing students’ feedback from the second part of the self-report questionnaires across the four lessons resulted in the development of four

157 categories. Students reported on (a) knowledge obtained from the lesson, (b) their preference regarding the current lesson, (c) the usefulness of the current lesson, and (d) preference for further lesson. This section concludes students’ feedback across the four lessons, supported by the examples of the most frequent responses from particular lessons.

a) Knowledge obtained from the lesson

The total responses to Question 1, What have you learned from this lesson?, across the four lessons was 60. The students reported that they had practiced communication via tasks in each lesson (22 responses), practiced using CSs (19 responses), and learned about linguistic knowledge, particularly vocabulary and pronunciation (19 responses).

The most frequent responses to what they had learned about in a particular lesson were also revealed. Pronunciation and CSs were the most mentioned knowledge obtained from Lesson 1, each of which comprised five of 15 responses. Examples of these responses included “I have learned about strategies and techniques for communication” (SRQ1:L1:S12), and “I have learned how to pronounce the English words” (SRQ1:L1:S13) while some students mentioned both as one student reported

that “I have practised pronouncing English sounds and speaking strategies” (SRQ1:L1:S01).

Vocabulary was the most frequently mentioned knowledge students gained from Lesson 2 (11 of 20 responses). For example, one student reported that “I have learned new words and used them to described objects” (SRQ1:L2:S15). Most frequent responses regarding knowledge obtained in Lessons 3 and 4 related to practice of oral communication via the assigned task (11 of 15 responses and four of eight responses

158 respectively). Examples of these responses included “I have learned to compare similarities and differences between Thai and English proverbs” (SRQ1:L3:S24) and

“practising giving information about the temple” (SRQ1:L4:S33).

b) The preference regarding the current lesson

For the total of 62 responses to Question 2, What do you like and/or dislike about this lesson?, the students mentioned that they liked the lessons, particularly in terms of performing a communication task and practice using CSs (each of which accounted for 16 responses). They also liked the practice of linguistic knowledge (15 responses). In addition, the rest of the students’ responses to this question involved their general positive comments as they described the lesson as fun, useful, unique, and new to them (15 responses).

The most frequent responses mentioned for a particular lesson included their preference for learning pronunciation in Lesson 1 (five of 15 responses). One student reported that “I like this lesson because it enabled me to correct some words that I unusually mispronounced” (SRQ2:L1:S13). Students’ preference in Lesson 2 varied, including learning vocabulary (six responses), practising CSs (five responses), and performing a communication task (five responses). Examples of these responses included “I like learning vocabulary I have never learned before” (SRQ2:L2:S10),

“What I like about this lesson is it gains my confidence and improves my problem solving skills” (SRQ2:L2:S18), and “I like practising giving description” (SRQ2:L2:S17). Practicing CSs was also most mentioned for Lesson 3 (six of 16 responses) while performing a communication task were the most favoured part of Lesson 4 (five of 10 responses). Examples of these responses included “I like that there are many ways to describe unknown words such as giving examples to get the meaning

159 across” (SRQ2:L3:S11) and “I like practising speaking and answering the questions about the temple” (SRQ2:L4:S23).

c) The usefulness of the lesson

Students’ preferences for learning in the CS lessons were linked to their views about the usefulness of the lesson. According to the responses to Question 3, Do you think this lesson is useful for improving your English oral performance?, all students reported that they found the lesson useful. Of 61 responses across the four lessons, 37 responses also included the reasons. The major reason was that the CS instruction helped them improve their oral performance (24 responses), practice using CSs (eight responses), and expand their linguistic knowledge (five responses).

The usefulness of the CS instruction in terms of improving students’ oral communication performance was also frequently mentioned for each lesson. Examples of these responses included, “I am able to apply this knowledge for communication in my career” (SRQ3:L1:S14), “It is useful for practising giving description of objects”

(SRQ3:L2:S18), “I can apply this knowledge to real life conversation” (SRQ3:L3:S09),

and “useful for improving listening and speaking skills” (SRQ3:L4:S33).

d) The preference for future lesson

Students’ responses to Question 4, What would you like to learn in the next lesson?, informed students’ emerging needs to further improve their oral communication performance (27 of 54 responses). Some of them suggested the specific topics and tasks they wanted to learn (19 responses). The suggestions included job interview, telling a story, explaining Thai culture, describing tourist attractions, and English for entertainment such as songs and movies. Needs to learn about linguistic

160 knowledge particularly grammar and sentence structure were also addressed (eight responses).

The majority of responses to this question in each lesson were also related to

students’ need to further practise their oral communication performance. Examples of these responses included “more speaking activities” (SRQ4:L1:S19) for Lesson 1 and

“more practice on giving description” (SRQ4:L2:S27) for Lesson 2. Apart from the need to improve their oral communication in general reported in Lessons 3 and 4, students also suggested topics and tasks they wanted to learn, particularly for job interviews.

To summarise, the findings from students’ feedback on the lesson revealed their positive opinions of the lessons. This may be because the CS lessons were fun, new to them, and useful. Task and pre-task activities required students’ full involvement and varied from individual, pair work, group work, and the whole class. In addition, the lesson encouraged them to have a conversation with the English speaking teacher who was considered an authentic source of English language. Further, the lesson met their emerging needs and interests. It was impossible to include all students’ interests in the lesson so I selected only those responses that were related to tourism tasks (e.g., explaining Thai proverbs instead of singing English songs).

Data from students’ self-report questionnaires provided students’ opinions about their own oral communication performance and the CS lessons. It was useful to include

students’ perspectives for evaluating and improving the CS instruction as well as

students’ learning. Therefore, these data were also noted and reflected in my teaching journals.

161