Postgraduate Use of English at Dhurakij Pundit University/Methodology
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
[edit | edit source]CHAPTER OVERVIEW
[edit | edit source]This chapter identifies the participants of this study, explains the research instruments and measures to ensure the quality of those tools; it describes how the data were collected and analyzed. This chapter ends with a summary
POPULATION, SAMPLE, AND & SCOPE OF THE STUDY
[edit | edit source]The population of this study consisted of DPU postgraduate business students, namely MBA and DBA students.
Table 3.2: DPU Postgraduate Business Students
| Program | Population | Sample |
|---|---|---|
| Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) | 30 | 13 |
| Master of Business Administration (MBA) | 800 | 119 |
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS, DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTRUMENTS, AND DATA COLLECTION
[edit | edit source]- 1. Research Instruments
The instruments were the questionnaire and the guideline questions of the roundtable discussions.
The questionnaire was developed by the researcher; it has seven parts:
- General Information
- Identity and Perception of the Thai Academic Community
- Perceived English Ability
- Use of English within the Community
- Perceived Language Problems
- Perceived Language Coping Ability
- Perceived Support Needed from the University.
- 2. Development of the Instruments
Two measures were implemented to ensure the high quality of the data collection instruments: content analysis and reliability analysis.
After reviewing the relevant literature, we constructed the questionnaire. For the analysis of the contents, we asked a panel of five EFL experts to decide each of the item within each construt. The index obtained was the ratioi between what was regarded as being relevant and necessary for the measurement of a particular construct and what was deemed to be unnecessary and irrelevant.
The technique was called Content Validity Ratio or CVR, which has been widely used among researchers. Lawshe's CVR, hence, was used to determine whether the items were essential/necessary for the measurement of the designed constructed.
The CVR values range from +1 (All of the experts agree that the statement is necessary for the measurement of the construct) to -1 (They all say that the statement in question is unnecessary. Therefore, the values that are closer to +1 indicate that the experts are in agreement that the item is essential to content validity. See Appendix A for the detaled report of the analysis.
Once the content analysis was completed, the remaining items were selected to form the questionnaire. The trial was conducted to analyze its reliability.
The reliability of the constructs within the questionnaire is as the following:
| Constructs Within the Questionnaire | Trialed α | Actual α |
|---|---|---|
| The Use of Listening Skill with Other members of the Thai Academic Community | 0.68 | 0.73 |
| The Use of Speaking Skill with Other members of the Thai Academic Community | 0.86 | 0.85 |
| The Use of Reading Skill with Other members of the Thai Academic Community | 0.86 | 0.83 |
| The Use of Writing Skill with Other members of the Thai Academic Community | 0.84 | 0.85 |
| Perceived Problems in Listening | 0.71 | 0.82 |
| Perceived Problems in Speaking | 0.78 | 0.78 |
| Perceived Problems in Reading | 0.82 | 0.80 |
| Perceived Problems in Writing | 0.74 | 0.83 |
| Perceived Coping Ability | 0.74 | 0.85 |
| Perceived Support from the Institution | 0.85 | 0.77 |
- 3. Data Collection
Quantitative Data
Quantitative data were collected from parts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was distributed through the cooperation from the graduate school of Dhurakij Pundit university.
Qualitative Data
Qualitative data were collected from two sources: (1) Data from the open-ended questions (Part 2 of the questionnaire) and (2) Data collected from the two focus group discussions.
DATA ANALYSIS
[edit | edit source]The data were analyzed using the following statistical procedures: frequency distribution, percentages (%), arithmetic mean (X), and standard deviation (SD).
First, the frequency distribution and percentages were used in the analysis of answers, concerning the general background of the participants.
Data from the open-ended questions were analyzed using the content analysis method.
Criteria for Interpreting the Findings
[edit | edit source]The following are the criteria for the interpretation of the results of the analyses.
1. Respondents' Use of English
Data analyzed were interpreted based on the following criteria.
| Mean Range | Level of English Use |
|---|---|
| 1.00 – 1.49 | Very Low |
| 1.50 – 2.49 | Low |
| 2.50 – 3.49 | Moderate |
| 3.50 – 4.49 | High |
| 4.50 – 5.00 | Very High |
The higher mean reflects the higher level of English use.
2. Perceived Language Problems
| Mean Range | Level of Perceived Language Problems |
|---|---|
| 1.00 – 1.49 | Lowest |
| 1.50 – 2.49 | Low |
| 2.50 – 3.49 | Moderate |
| 3.50 – 4.49 | High |
| 4.50 – 5.00 | Very High |
The higher mean reflects the higher level of language problems.
3. Perceived Language Coping Ability
| Mean Range | Level of Coping Ability |
|---|---|
| 1.00 – 1.49 | Lowest |
| 1.50 – 2.49 | Low |
| 2.50 – 3.49 | Moderate |
| 3.50 – 4.49 | High |
| 4.50 – 5.00 | Very High |
The higher mean reflects the higher level of coping ability.
4. Perceived Support Needed from the University
| Mean Range | Level of Support Needed |
|---|---|
| 1.00 – 1.49 | Lowest |
| 1.50 – 2.49 | Low |
| 2.50 – 3.49 | Moderate |
| 3.50 – 4.49 | High |
| 4.50 – 5.00 | Very High |
The higher mean reflects the higher level of support needed from the university.
5. Criteria for their English proficiency
| Mean Range | meaning |
|---|---|
| 1.00 – 1.49 | Very Poor |
| 1.50 – 2.49 | Poor |
| 2.50 – 3.49 | Average |
| 3.50 – 4.49 | Good |
| 4.50 – 5.00 | Very good |
The higher mean reflects the higher level of perceived English proficiency.
ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS
[edit | edit source]Two roundtable seminars were conducted. The title is: English for Graduate Study: What, Why, and How Much?
The first roundtable was the one for the MBA student participants. There were five participants and it was conducted on Sunday, August 2, 2009. The second roundtable was participated by 4 DBA students, held on Sunday, August 9, 2009. Both roundtables were conducted at DPU.
They were to illicit qualitative data to help support the findings from the questionnaires.
See Appendix 3 for the summaries of the two roundtables.
CHAPTER SUMMARY
[edit | edit source]Data were collected from two sources: questionnaires and transcribed roundtable discussions.