Questionnaire design and administering procedures

This study administered a combination of personally designed demographic questionnaires, adopted and adapted versions of templates used by the Grundtvig Learning Partnership⁶ 2009 –

6The Grundtvig Learning Partnership, Quali-T, Quality in Language Teaching for Adults was carried out between August 2009 and July 2011 by teachers and adults from 7 countries (UK, Spain, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Checch Republic and Estonia) exchanging ideas on what constitutes quality in language teaching of adults. The outcome of the partnership was the development and publication of Guidelines for Quality in Language Teaching. The National Centre for Languages (CILT), UK’s representative on the partnership, is a government’s recognised centre of

69

2011 and the European Centre for Modern Languages’ for assessing quality in language teaching (Council of Europe, 2007). The adoption of established templates was deemed necessary because as Dornyei (2003: 40) points out, the questions must have already been tried and tested

“through extensive piloting.” Adapting them was also important because of the need for suitability for the context of receptor case study sites. A set each of different self-completed written questionnaires and interview questions were designed for the three groups of participants – students, lecturers, and administrators to fill in or respond to (Appendix B). The questionnaire was a hybrid of both closed- and open-ended items. It has been observed that the completion rate of closed-ended questions is comparatively higher than that of open-ended ones. This has been ascribed to the extra mental effort and time required of respondents to complete them (Dornyei 2003: 48) In order to reduce this tendency which sometimes leads to some respondents avoiding them altogether, open-ended items were placed toward the end, especially those meant for students.

Some questions, especially those with direct bearing on quality assurance, were deliberately repeated for all three categories of targeted respondents for purposes of cross-analysis. There were 25 questionnaire items for student respondents covering five thematic areas of quality in language teaching and learning, namely: 1. course presentation; 2. lecturer’s general demeanour in class; 3. pedagogical and delivery skills; 4. physical learning environment; and5. learner experience. Questions used in interviewing course lecturers comprised both closed and open-ended items arranged in a logical order to solicit their views on what they considered important for quality teaching and learning of the English language in the various institutions.

The 25 questions in the interview for the administrators sought to appreciate the subject from an HE administrator’s perspective. In the design of the three sets of questions, care was taken in the placement of “factual” or “personal” questions. Thus questions, which requested for names, gender, age, level and course of study of student; and ranks, profession and number of years in tertiary teaching or administration of lecturers and managers, were kept at the end of the questionnaires. This was considered necessary because as Dornyei (2003: 48) rightly observes, excellence for languages and the nominating authority for European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML). It has over 40 years’ track record for the successful implementation of language-related activities for local, regional, national and international policy development and practitioner support (p.34). More information about the institution can be accessed at:http://www.cilt.org.uk/home.aspx

70

“[t]hese person/classification questions tend to be very off-putting ... [and] can result in a kind of anti-climax in the respondents and may be difficult to rekindle their enthusiasm again” if such items are placed right at the beginning. Table C3-1 under Appendix C shows the total number of questionnaires administered; the expected and actual number of respondents from each case institution, and their corresponding percentages.

A total of 567 questionnaires were administered over the period April – May, 2012 at the four case institutions. Out of this, 502 responses constituting 89 percent were received from participants. An average of three days was spent on each case campus following receipt of informed consent from university/polytechnic authorities to conduct the survey. Copies of the letter of introduction from the Director of Studies, University of Bath, were also made available to subject lecturers to confirm the identity and mission of the researcher (Appendix A). This facilitated access to EAP lecture sessions for purposes of direct observation at three of the case institutions.

Participation in the survey was on a purely voluntary basis. Except in one case, where circumstances necessitated the drop-and-collect approach for student respondents, all the others were administered personally during regular class hours and responses received on the same day.

As the questionnaires were administered during the period for revision towards the end of second semester examinations, students and their teachers spared the first thirty minutes of the two-hour of their revision sessions to fill them in. With the assistance of course lecturers, student respondents were given relevant instructions on how to fill in the questionnaires and were assured of confidentiality of their identities. This was also done in writing at the beginning of the questionnaires, giving respondents the choice of anonymity. Even leaving their email addresses for subsequent contact if need be was optional.

On the part of lecturers and administrators, their busy schedules were taken into account, and so interviewing them was done at their convenience. Prior to the interviews, interviewees were each given a copy of the preliminary research questions so they could acquaint themselves with the context of the study in advance. The interviews were followed by telephone contacts and email correspondences to clarify responses that were not clear enough and to thank them for their cooperation. Their responses served as the main source of primary data of this study.

71 Determining the sample size

The sample for this survey comprised 550 undergraduate and diploma students as well as 17 academic and administrative staff drawn from two public and two private tertiary educational institutions in Ghana. Although this cannot be said to be a perfect sample, it was considered representative enough for this study. Aiming for a perfect sample size in a typical L2 survey research has been described as “unrealistic or simply not feasible ... in the psychometric sense”

(Dornyei 2003: 60). In view of this, the study adopted a sample that was deemed representative enough of the general population of each case institution. Thus, in determining the samples, relevant characteristics that respondents had in common with the whole target population like age, gender, level or course of study (for students); and academic background, rank, and experience (for teachers and managers) were taken into account. In agreement with the Grundtvig Learning Partnership (2009-2011: 26) that “evaluation of learning is an ongoing process ... [and] takes place before placing a learner into the course, during the learning process, and again once the learner comes to the end of a course”, the survey covered beginners (i.e. first-year students) as well as final first-year students to solicit their views on the quality of teaching and learning of EAP at their various institutions. Although final-year students do not usually take the English Language and Communication course, their inclusion in the survey was deemed expedient because of their comparative cognitive maturity which positioned them in better appreciating the subject from hindsight. The sampling procedure, arguably referred to as

“convenience” or opportunity” sampling was adopted as

It is the most common non-probability sampling type in L2 research where [m]embers of the target population are selected for the purpose of the study if they meet certain practical criteria such as geographical proximity, availability at a certain time, or easy accessibility (Dornyei, 2003: 61).

Dornyei further notes that “convenience samples are rarely convenience-based but are usually partially purposeful” (Ibid.). Guided by this, the study did not only consider issues relating to accessibility and availability in choosing participants, but also took into account key characteristics that could meet the research objective.

72 Factoring in client need analysis

The learning experience is said to be incomplete without evaluation. Its indispensability hinges on the fact that, through it learners, teachers and institutions are better positioned to determine learner progress and the enhancement of teaching. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEF) recognises quality as the basis for client satisfaction and provides a conceptual framework for language teaching, learning and assessment. As a tool for effective client need analysis, the CEF considers language learning activities to be founded on

“the needs, motivation, and characteristics of learners” (Council of Europe 2001: 4).To ascertain and offer a fair judgement of the level of learner satisfaction with the quality of EAP teaching and learning at the four case study institutions, these factors were considered and incorporated in the interview and survey questionnaires that were administered. For instance, respondents were asked to state why they considered the teaching and learning of EAP at tertiary level necessary;

factors they considered important in teaching; their views about the ideal teacher and whether they considered current contact hours sufficient for the study of EAP.