Main study questionnaire

The revised questionnaires for the main study were first administered in July 2009 when I was in the UK. I was therefore not personally responsible for the distribution of the instrument. With the help of personal contacts at KAU, over 200 questionnaires were distributed for the 2008-2009 academic year. 152 questionnaires were returned. The distribution was repeated later in 2009 for the 2009-10 academic year, resulting in a total of 240 completed questionnaires (25 from the pilot study and 215 from the main study). Samples from different academic years were considered beneficial to elicit the perceptions of students across different cohorts. The discrepancy between the response rates in the three samples was associated with the different methods of administration. The response rate was low when questionnaires were distributed to students online with the help of teachers and the distance

were distributed with the help of personal contacts to students during their final exams at the end of the year.

47.9% of the 240 study responses were from males and 52.1% from females. The sex ratio of the respondents in the main study was approximately 1:1 so it was not skewed towards one specific gender. The design of the questionnaire took into account the recommendations of McDonough & McDonough (1997) with respect to its short length, consisting of 45 questions in 2 pages. The following considerations were also applied with respect to each of the items in the questionnaire (from Mertens, 1998). My name and address was provided, and the purpose was outlined. Brief instructions to complete the questionnaire were included, and respondents were assured that their replies were anonymous. The purpose of each item was considered with reference to the research questions. Responses using Likert scales were included to facilitate quantitative analysis. The items were short, clear, and straight forward with simple easy wording. Negative wording, sensitive topics, and threatening questions were avoided. The items were numbered, grouped and organized into a logical sequence. The questionnaire began with simple general items about the demographic characteristics of the respondents before specific items about the WBDL programme. The purposes of the items, grouped into a logical sequence, are outlined in Table 3.3. The correspondence between the questionnaire items and the research questions are outlined in Table 3.4.

Table 3.3 Purposes of the questionnaire items

Items Purpose of items

1-6 To collect factual information about the demographic characteristics of the respondents (time of joining the WBDL programme, sex, age, major, occupation, and place of residence).

7-12 To collect background information concerning the respondents’ previous experience using computers and the Internet, and attendance at e- learning courses

13-15 To elicit the respondents’ perceptions concerning the opportunities of the WBDL programme (whether it is the best way to learn English, whether or not there is confidence in the programme, and the aspects that are most liked).

16 To elicit the respondents’ perceptions concerning the constraints of the WBDL programme (the aspects that are most disliked).

17-21 To collect factual information about the respondents’ use of the WBDL programme (where, when, and how it was used).

22-23 To elicit the respondents’ perceptions about the quality of the course website.

24-30 To elicit the respondents’ perceptions about the usefulness of various aspects of the WBDL programme with respect to learning English as a foreign language.

31-45 To elicit the perceptions of the respondents (using a Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) about the opportunities and constraints of the WBDL programme, with respect to the use of computers and the organisation, delivery, and effectiveness of the programme.

Table 3.4 Correspondence between research questions and items

Research question Corresponding questionnaire items RQ#1: How do both the teachers

and learners at KAU use the new WBDL programme in practice?

17-21 To collect factual information about the learners’ use of the WBDL programme (where, when, and how it was used).

RQ#2: What do both the teachers and learners perceive to be the opportunities afforded by the new WBDL programme (i.e., the attributes of the programme that are most helpful in achieving its educational objectives)?

13-15 To elicit the learners’ perceptions concerning the opportunities of the WBDL programme (whether it is the best way to learn English, whether or not there is confidence in the programme, and the aspects that are most liked).

24-30 To elicit the learners’ perceptions about the usefulness of various aspects of the WBDL programme with respect to learning English as a foreign language.

37-45 To elicit the learners’ perceptions (using a Likert scale) about the opportunities of the WBDL programme.

RQ#3: What do both the teachers and learners perceive to be the constraints of the new WBDL programme (i.e., the attributes of the programme that generally prevent or limit the achievement of its educational objectives)?

16 To elicit the learners’ perceptions concerning the constraints of the WBDL programme (the aspects that are most disliked).

31-36 To elicit the learners’ perceptions (using a Likert scale) about the constraints of the WBDL programme.

The closed answers required a choice of 1 from 5 options, or a dichotomous (yes or no) response. Closed responses were advantageous because the items could be answered rapidly. In contrast, open-ended questions that required long answers may have caused fatigue and/or be ignored. In addition, the compilation of closed responses could be carried out more quickly and efficiently than if open ended questions had been used (McDonough & McDonough, 1997; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2007). The response

variables were coded numerically with integers between 1 and 5, and entered into the SPSS data editor as categorical variables measured at the nominal or ordinal level (see Appendix I B).