Correlation analysis of the pre and post-intervention questionnaires

In order to test the hypothesis that learners’ preferences and perceptions would change after the implementation of TBLT and DA, the relationship between related variables of the pre- and post- intervention questionnaires was analysed using correlation analysis. The analysis allowed the direction and strength of the relationship to be evaluated. Since different areas were asked in the questionnaires, each area (e.g. listening, oral presentations, participation mode, and feedback) was computed and reported. Kendall’s tau’s and Spearman’s correlation were selected because of the non-parametric, ordinal type of these datasets (see Appendix I) for

statistical results). As the correlation coefficient values of both tests did not differ much, only Kendall’s tau (𝜏) is reported here. First, the teaching focus construct is presented, divided into listening, speaking, reading and writing. This is followed by oral presentations, participation mode, and feedback/mediation.

4.3.1 Teaching focus

From the level of familiarity with listening, speaking, reading and writing activities expressed by students in the pre-intervention questionnaire, it is interesting to see if they perceived these aspects differently in the post-intervention questionnaire. Correlation analysis between corresponding items in the two questionnaires was run. The items including the coefficient and actual significant values are presented in summary tables:

Table 4.3.1 Correlations between some ‘teaching focus’ variables

* Not all items within each sub-scale are displayed (see Appendix I for all items). This table contains only items described below, for illustration.

Pre-Q Post-Q Coefficient

𝜏 (2-tailed) value sig.

Listening Pre01 Post19 .314 .054

Pre28 Post19 .084 .586

Pre34 Post19 .027 .858

Speaking Pre05 Post21 -.029 .854

Pre07 Post21 .107 .497

Pre23 Post21 .009 .950

Pre31 Post21 .191 .197

Reading Pre02 Post10 -.224 .148

Pre02 Post24 -.101 .509

Pre38 Post10 .139 .350

Pre38 Post24 .114 .440

Pre45 Post24 .092 .529

Writing Pre03 Post25 -.129 .420

Pre39 Post25 .167 .270

Pre44 Post25 .272 .075

With regard to listening, there was a positive relationship between learners’ preferences/familiarity with listening activities (Pre01, Pre28 and Pre34) and their perceptions of listening and watching different giving presentations in helping them to learn about effective presentation (Post19). However, this relationship was not significant. For speaking, only two items showed a small positive relationship; the focus on speaking (Pre07) and pronunciation (Pre05), and taking part in oral exercises (Pre23) and role-play (Pre31) were not significantly related to students’ perceptions that this TBLT course helped improve their speaking skills (Post21). A negative correlation was found between their preferences for pronunciation practice (Pre05) and whether students felt that TBLT course helped improve speaking skills (Post21, 𝜏 = -.029). This could be interpreted as showing that the course did not give sufficient practice of pronunciation compared to learners’ expectations. Students might consider pronunciation as a significant speaking skill, and thus feel that the course should also highlight pronunciation practice.

Overall, learners’ preferences for and familiarity with reading activities were not significantly related to their opinions on reading after the course. However, a small positive relationship was found, for example, between their familiarity with reading texts for language analysis (Pre38) and their perception of whether reading company websites was useful for a study of language (Post10, 𝜏 = .139), and also whether reading the company websites helped them learn new words about business (Post 24, 𝜏 = .114). Furthermore, Pre45 (reading silently to find out information) was related to Post24 (𝜏 = .092). However, learners’ preferences for the focus on reading (Pre02) was negatively correlated with their perceptions of whether reading website materials about companies was useful for a study of language (Post10, 𝜏 = -.224) and

whether reading the companies’ websites helped them learn new words about business (Post24, 𝜏 = -.101). Likewise, learners’ preferences for and familiarity with writing were not statistically correlated with their perceptions of writing activities organised in this course, although most items indicated a slight positive relationship. A negative correlation was found between learners’ preferences for the teaching focused on writing (Pre03) and whether they felt taking notes on important ideas and writing short passages helped them remember the content of their presentations better (Post25, 𝜏 = -.129).

4.3.2 Oral Presentations

Within the oral presentations construct, there was a significant correlation between some variables asked in the pre- and post- intervention questionnaires, as follows.

Table 4.3.2 Correlations between ‘oral presentations’ variables

Pre-Q Post-Q Coefficient

𝜏 (2-tailed) value sig.

Pre08 Post08 .316* .028 Pre08 Post17 .323* .030 Pre08 Post18 .415** .005 Pre36 Post17 .310* .034 Pre41 Post34 .291* .046 Pre46 Post17 .306* .040

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Firstly, learners’ preferences for preparing and giving presentations on their own (Pre08) were significantly related to their reports of whether they were nervous or confident in giving a presentation (Post08, 𝜏 = .316, p<.05), whether they were worried about correct grammar and making mistakes (Post17, 𝜏 = .323, p<.05), and whether they learnt a lot from listening to their peers’ presentations (Post18, 𝜏 = .415, p<.01). It could be said that the more students liked developing and giving

presentations on their own, the more they felt nervous in giving a presentation, the more they worried about making grammatical mistakes, and the more they learned from listening to peers’ presentations. Secondly, there was a significant correlation between their familiarity with planning and giving an individual presentation (Pre36) and their worries about correct grammar and making mistakes (Post17, 𝜏 = .310,

p<.05). This means the more learners are familiar with planning and giving a presentation independently, the more they are worried about mistakes. Thirdly, watching themselves on VDO recordings of meetings or presentations (Pre41) was significantly correlated with the perception that practising giving a presentation to their group and to the class helped boost their self-confidence (Post34, 𝜏 = .291,

p<.05). The more they valued watching themselves on recorded meetings and presentations, the more they thought practising presentations in class was helpful in improving their confidence. The last pair of significantly correlated items was those of the use of dictionaries or grammar books (Pre46) with their worries about correct grammar and making mistakes (Post17, 𝜏 = .306, p<.05). The more they used these resources, the more they worried about making mistakes.

4.3.3 Participation mode

To examine if there was any difference in learners’ perceptions of participation mode, working in group in particular, before and after attending this task-based course, a correlations analysis was carried out. Table 4.3.3 below shows correlated items between learners’ preferences for working in class and groups and their feeling after participating in group work and discussions.

Table 4.3.3 Correlations between ‘participation mode’ variables

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

As for the participation mode, the learners’ preference for the whole class working together in activities (Pre09) was significantly correlated with whether they felt relaxed when participating in group discussions (Post29, 𝜏 = .331, p<.05). The more students preferred working as a whole class, the more they felt relaxed in group discussions. There was a strong positive relationship between offering ideas/opinions during group discussions (Pre32) and learners’ perceptions that taking part in pair work made them feel relaxed and learn better (Post 31). This was statistically significant at 𝜏 = .446, p<.01. Offering their ideas in group discussions (Pre32) was correlated to their perceptions that individuals worked productively on their own (Post11, 𝜏 = .309, p<.05). The same was between doing project work in groups (Pre43) and their perceptions when taking part in pair work (Post31, 𝜏 = .360,

p<.05). However, a significantly negative relationship was found between doing project work in groups (Pre43) and their feelings as to whether they think working with other classmates in small group is enjoyable (Post05, 𝜏 = -.320, p<.05). This can be interpreted as the more they were involved in project work, the less enjoyable they found it when working in small groups with their peers.

Pre-Q Post-Q Coefficient

𝜏 (2-tailed) value sig.

Pre09 Post29 .331* .028

Pre32 Post11 .309* .040

Pre32 Post31 .446** .003

Pre43 Post05 -.320* .025

4.3.4 Feedback and error correction (mediation)

The relation between learners’ perceptions of feedback and error correction stated in the pre- and post- questionnaires was examined. Table 4.3.4 shows correlations between variables on feedback, which are mostly positive.

Table 4.3.4 Correlations between ‘feedback and error correction (mediation)’ variables

Pre-Q Post-Q Coefficient

𝜏 (2-tailed) value sig.

Pre12 Post28 .347* .021 Pre13 Post20 .322* .036 Pre15 Post06 -.314* .034 Pre19 Post20 .410** .007 Pre25 Post35 .308* .031 Pre30 Post28 .293* .044 Pre35 Post28 .387** .007 Pre42 Post28 .540** .000 Pre47 Post28 .402** .005

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

There were more variables with strong positive correlations that were significant (𝜏 = .05, p<.01,) in the feedback/error correction (mediation) compared to other constructs. The Post28 item was highly correlated to 5 pre-questionnaire items. That is, learners’ feelings that they were relaxed when interacting with the teacher to solve problems/mistakes (Post 28) were significantly correlated to their preferences for the teacher asking them to find and correct their own mistakes (Pre12, 𝜏 = .347, p<.05), with getting feedback from the teacher in small groups (Pre30, 𝜏 = .293, p<.05), and with receiving feedback from the teacher individually (Pre35 𝜏 = .387, p<.01). The other two items that had significantly strong relationship with Post28 were receiving feedback that the teacher gave to the class as a whole (Pre42, 𝜏 =.540, p<.01), and receiving feedback from their classmates on writing (Pre47, 𝜏 =.402, p<.01). This means that the more students prefer the teacher to encourage them to tackle mistakes

on their own, and receive group and individual feedback, the more they feel relaxed while interacting and solving mistakes with the teacher. The latter was also correlated with their preferences for the teacher giving feedback to the class as a whole (Pre13). Nevertheless, their preferences for the teacher giving feedback to individuals (Pre15) was negatively related to their perceptions that the teacher’s ways of giving feedback by asking them guided questions are effective (Post06, 𝜏 = - .314, p<.05). This means the more they preferred receiving feedback individually, the less they regarded receiving feedback through the teacher asking questions as effective.

In summary, this section presented the reliability of the questionnaires, the differences between the two groups of learners’ mean ratings, and the relationship between selected pre-/post- questionnaire variables using correlation analysis. For learners’ rating manners, the t-test results revealed small differences in their ratings. There were only 8 items from the two questionnaires that can be identified with significantly different means. As these items were distributed across different scales, and showed no patterns, the two groups can be treated as one. Finally, the correlation analysis of selected item-pairs in the pre-and post-questionnaires indicated that there were more correlated items in the feedback/mediation construct than in others. None of the items in the teaching focus construct (of the pre- and post- questionnaires) were significantly related, although they had positive relationships.