CHAPTER – III III.1 INTRODUCTION -...

CHAPTER – III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY (DESIGN)

III.1 INTRODUCTION

The success of any research depends upon suitable methodology with specific

operational steps and well constructed tools. Research design decides the nature of any

research and its outcome. It is regarded as the “Heart of Research”. In fact, the research

design is the conceptual structure within which research is conducted; it constitutes the

blue print for the collection, measurement and analysis of data. Research design is needed

because it facilitates the smooth sailing of the various research operations. The choice of

the research method depends upon the nature of the problem selected and the data

necessary for the solution.

III.2 DESIGN OF THE PRESENT STUDY

The design of the present study, entitled “Attitude of Engineering college English

lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in

Engineering Curriculum and the barriers in implementation” involves the following steps

a) Statement of the problem

b) Operational Definitions

c) Objectives of the study

d) Hypothesis of the study

e) Research paradigm

III.2. a. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

In the Indian context, an engineering student’s success in the “On Campus

Recruitment” is mainly based on their demonstrations of communication skills. Though

English is the medium of instruction in the field of engineering education, the language

proficiency is not enough for them to communicate effectively. In order to overcome this,

the Anna University, Chennai, Tamilnadu has introduced, “English language

Communication Laboratory” with Technical English which develops student’s

communication skills. The success of Communication Laboratory integration with

Technical English depends upon the positive attitude of English lecturers rather than

upon infra structure. Moreover, the responsibility of developing positive perceptions of

communication activities is on the shoulders of English lecturers. It is only when teachers

feel that they have a firm grasp of the innovative method of learning, it can become a tool

for change. Hence the present study is entitled as “Attitude of Engineering College

English Lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills

Laboratory in Engineering Curriculum and the Barrie rs in Implementation.”

III.2. b. OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF THE KEY TERMS

III.2.b.(i). Attitude

Attitude has been defined in a number of ways. As far as this study is concerned,

“Attitude” refers to the beliefs, ideas, opinions, likes or dislikes, with or against and

intentions towards the course “Technical English with English Communication Skills

Laboratory in engineering curriculum”

III.2.b.(ii). Engineering College English Lecturers

Teachers who handle Technical English II and Communication Skills Lab for

B.E/B.Tech course are referred to as Engineering College English Lecturers in this study.

As per the AICTE norms, M.A; M.Phil in English with minimum 55% marks is the

prescribed educational qualification for engineering college English lecturers.

III.2.b.(iii). Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory

Theory paper of engineering English course is named as ‘Technical English’.

‘Communication Skills Laboratory’ is a compulsory practical course for B. E / B. Tech

students studying in colleges affiliated to the Anna University, Tamil Nadu. This was

introduced in November 2006. This course comprises of two papers namely ‘Language

Skill Lab-(HS210)’ for second semester and ‘Cumulative Skills Lab-(HS610)’ for sixth

semester. The lab training is given with the assistance of net worked computers and

specially designed software. Listening comprehension, reading comprehension,

vocabulary and speaking tests are conducted in ‘Language Skill Lab’ whereas

resume/report writing and presentation, group discussion and interview skills are

developed in ‘career lab’. 40% of the total marks (100) in final examination is given for

the English language lab practice and the rest of the 60% is given for the career lab

practice.

III.2.b.(iv). Barriers in implementation

As far as this study is concerned, ‘Barriers in implementation’ refers to

‘Obstacles’ which block the way or prevent to carry out or put into effect of technical

English with English communication laboratory in engineering curriculum.

III.2. c. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To find out the level of attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards

Technical English with Communication Laboratory.

2. To find out the level of attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards

Technical English with Communication Laboratory in different dimensions such

as

i. Psychological level iii. Administrative level

ii. Academic level iv. Utility level

3. a. To find out the barriers faced by engineering college English lecturers in

implementing Technical English with Communication Laboratory in Engineering

Curriculum.

b. To find out the level of barriers faced by engineering college English lecturers in


Curriculum.

4. a. To find out the significant difference, if any, between male and female

engineering college English lecturers in their attitude towards Technical English

with Communication Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions such as

psychological, academic, administrative and utility level.

b. To find out the significant difference, if any, between rural and urban engineering

college English lecturers in their attitude towards Technical English with

Communication Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions such as


c. To find out the significant difference, if any, between government and self-

financed engineering college English lecturers in their attitude towards Technical

English with Communication Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions

such as psychological, academic, administrative and utility level.

d. To find out the significant difference, if any, between the engineering college

English lecturers with prescribed and more than prescribed educational

qualification in their attitude towards Technical English with Communication

Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions such as psychological, academic,

administrative and utility level.

e. To find out the significant difference, if any, among the engineering college

English lecturers having teaching experience of 3years, below 3 years and above

3 years in their attitude towards Technical English with Communication



5. a. To find out the significant difference, if any, between male and female

engineering college English lecturers in the barriers faced by them in

implementing Technical English with Communication Laboratory.

b. To find out the significant difference, if any, between rural and urban engineering

college English lecturers in the barriers faced by them in implementing Technical

English with Communication Laboratory.

c. To find out the significant difference, if any, between government and self-

financed engineering college English lecturers in the barriers faced by them in


d. To find out the significant difference, if any, between the barriers faced by the

engineering college English lecturers with prescribed and more than prescribed

educational qualification in implementing Technical English with Communication

Laboratory.

e. To find out the significant difference, if any, among the engineering college

English lecturers having teaching experience of 3 years, below 3 years and above

3 years in the barriers faced by them in implementing Technical English with

Communication Laboratory.

6. To find out the significant correlation, if any, between the attitude of engineering

college English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication

Laboratory and barriers faced in implementation.

7. To find out the significant correlation, if any, between the different dimension of

attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with

Communication Laboratory and barriers faced in implementation.

8. To find out the significant factor with positive loading if any, of the variables

namely psychological, academic, administrative, utility level, attitude towards

Technical English with Communication Laboratory and barriers faced in

implementation.

9. To analyze the opinions of the English lecturers working in engineering college

regarding the Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in

engineering curriculum qualitatively.

III.2. d. HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

1. The attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English

with Communication Laboratory is moderate.

2. The attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English

with Communication Laboratory with respect to the following dimensions is

moderate.

i. Psychological level iii. Administrative level

ii. Academic level iv. Utility level

3. a. The barriers faced by engineering college English lecturers in implementing

Technical English with Communication Laboratory in Engineering Curriculum

are moderate.

b. The level of barriers faced by engineering college English lecturers in


Curriculum is moderate.

4. a. There is no significant difference between male and female engineering college

English lecturers in their attitude towards Technical English with Communication



b. There is no significant difference between the attitude of rural and urban

engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with



c. There is no significant difference between the attitude of government and self

financed engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with



d. There is no significant difference between the attitude of engineering college

English lecturers with prescribed and more than prescribed educational

qualification towards Technical English with Communication Laboratory, in total

and in different dimensions such as psychological, academic, administrative and

utility level.

e. There is no significant difference among the attitude of engineering college

English lecturers having teaching experience of 3 years, below 3years and above

3 years towards Technical English with Communication Laboratory, in total and

in different dimensions such as psychological, academic, administrative and

utility level.

5. a. There is no significant difference between male and female engineering college

English lecturers in the barriers faced by them in implementing Technical English

with Communication Laboratory.

b. There is no significant difference between rural and urban engineering college

English lecturers in the barriers faced by them in implementing Technical English

with Communication Laboratory.

c. There is no significant difference between government and self financed

engineering college English lecturers in the barriers faced by them in


d. There is no significant difference between the barriers faced by the engineering

college English lecturers with prescribed and more than prescribed educational

qualification in implementing Technical English with Communication

Laboratory.

e. There is no significant difference among the engineering college English lecturers

having teaching experience of 3 years, below 3 years and above 3 years in the

barriers faced by them in implementing Technical English with Communication

Laboratory.

6. There is no significant positive correlation between the attitude of engineering

college English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication

Laboratory and barriers in implementation.

7. There are no significant positive correlations, between the different dimensions of

attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with

Communication Laboratory and barriers in implementation.

8. There is no significant factor with positive loading of the variables namely

psychological, academic, administrative, utility level, attitude towards

communication lab and barriers.

9. Opinions of the English lecturers working in engineering college regarding the

Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering

curriculum are moderate.

III.2. e. RESEARCH PARADIGM

Research Paradigm includes method, population, sample, variables, tools, and statistical

techniques used in the research.

III.2. e. (i) Method

The investigator adopted “Survey Method” to find out the attitude of engineering

college English Lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Laboratory in

Engineering Curriculum and the Barriers faced in Implementation.

Survey Method

The term survey has two constituents, “ sur” or “sor” which means “over’ and

“veeir” or “vor”, which means to “see” Accordingly, the word “survey” means‘to look

over’ or ‘to oversee’. According to Webster Collegiate Dictionary, survey is a critical

inspection, often official, to provide exact information, often a study of an area with

respect to a certain condition or its prevalence. Survey is the method that can tell about

what exists at present by determining the nature and degree of existing conditions. Since

the present study aims at finding out the present condition of the problem the survey

method has been adopted by the investigator.

After selecting the title of the study, the sample, tools, variables, and statistical

technique were finalized for this study. Then the data were collected from 300 English

lecturers of 57 Engineering Colleges from 4 southern districts of Tamil Nadu state. The

data, thus, collected were statistically analyzed and inferences were drawn.

III.2. e. (ii) Population

“Population”, in the sense, is constituted of all the individuals or things or events

or documents or observations, etc, confirming to a designated set of specifications which

the particular study should principally cover. (Bhandarkar, P.L., and Wilkinson, T.S.

(1999), Methodology and Technique of Social Science, pg 251). English Lecturers

working in Engineering Colleges form the population for this study.

III.2. e. (iii) Sample

“When we select some of the elements with the intention of finding out something

about the population from which they are taken, we refer to that group of elements as a

sample” (Wilkinson, 1984). “A sample is a portion selected from the “population” or

Universe.” (Wikipedia.com). “It is not possible to collect data from every respondent

relevant to the study (population), but only from some fractional part of the respondents

can be studied (sample). The process of selecting the fractional part is called “Sampling.”

There are different sampling techniques. The investigator adopted “Multi – stage random

sampling technique” for this study. The districts, colleges & teachers were selected in

different stages at random. In Multi – Stage Sampling the first stage is to select large

primary sampling unit such as districts in a state, then select certain colleges from the

districts, then certain lecturers and collect data randomly at all stages. The investigator

selected 300 English lecturers from 57 engineering colleges of four districts namely

Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari, and Virudhunagar.

Table No III.1

DISTRICT AND INSTITUTION WISE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPL E

S.no THOOTHUKUDY DISTRICT No of lecturers

1 Chandy College of Engineering 4 2 DR.G.U.Pope College of Engineering 2 3 Dr.Sivanthi Aditanar College of Engineering 6 4 Government College of Engineering 3 5 Holy Cross Engineering College 4 6 Infant Jesus College of Engineering 8 7 Jayaraj Annpackiam CSI College of Engineering 4 8 St.Mother Theresa Engineering College 4 9 Unnamalai Institute of Technology 3 10 V V College of Engineering 9

TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 11 A.R.College of Engineering & Technology 2 12 Anna University 2 13 Cape Institute of Technology 5 14 Einstein College of Engineering 6 15 Francis Xavier Engineering College 7 16 Government College of Engineering 3 17 Joe Suresh Engineering College 2 18 National College of Engineering 4 19 PET College of Engineering 5 20 PSN Institute of Technology & Science 10 21 SCAD Engineering College 8 22 The Rajaas Engineering College 3

VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT 23 Arul Migu Kalasalingam College of Engineering 24 Kalasalingam Institute of Technology 25 Kamaraj College of Engineering & Technology 26 Mepco Schlenk Engineering College 27 P.S.R.Engineering College 28 Sri Vidya College of Engineering & Technology

29 V.P.Muthaiah Pillai Meenakshi Ammal Engineering College

KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT 30 Anna University 31 Annai Vailankanni College of Engineering 32 Arunachala College of Engineering for Women 33 Bethlahem Institute of Engineering 34 C.S.I Institute of Technology 35 DMI Engineering College 36 Immanuel Arasar J.J College of Engineering 37 James College of Engineering 38 Jayamatha Engineering College 39 K.N.S.K. College of Engineering 40 Lord Jegannath College of Engineering And 41 Loyala Institute of Technology and Science 42 M.E.T Engineering College 43 Mar Emphream College of Engineering and Technology 44 Maria College of Engineering and Technology 45 Marthandam College of Engineering 46 Narayana Guru College Of Engineering 47 Noorul Islam College of Engineering 48 Ponjesly College of Engineering 49 Raja International Institute of Technology for Woman 50 Satyam College of Engineering & Technology 51 Sivaji College of Engineering & Technology 52 St.Xavier’s Catholic College of Engineering 53 Sun College of Engineering and Technology 54 Tamizhan College of Engineering & Technology 55 Udaya School of Engineering 56 Vins Christian College of Engineering 57 Vins Christian Women’s College of Engineering

Total

The above table shows that the investigator selected 300 English lecturers from 57

Engineering colleges of four districts namely Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli, Virudhunagar

and Kanyakumari.

Table No III.2

DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ACCORDING TO THE

BACKGROUND VARIABLES

No Variables Category No Percentage

1. Gender Male 96 32.00

Female 204 68.00

2. Locale Rural 184 61.00

Urban 116 39.00

3. Type of

College

Government 10 03.00

Self financed 290 97.00

4. Educational

Qualification

Prescribed 239 80.00

More than 61 20.00

5. Teaching

Experience

3 Years 35 12.00

Below 3 years 108 36.00

Above 3 years 157 52.00

The above table shows that 32% of the respondents were male and 68% were

female, 61% of the respondents were from rural area and 39% were from urban area, 3%

of the respondents were from Government colleges and 97% of the respondents were

from self-financed colleges, 80% of the respondents have prescribed qualification and

20% of the respondents have more than prescribed qualification and 12% of the

respondents with 3years of teaching experience,

experience and 52% were with above 3 years of teaching experience.

Distribution of the Sample in terms of Background Variables

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Mal

e

Fem

ale

Gender

96

204

Num

bero

f R

espo

nden

ts

respondents with 3years of teaching experience, 36% were with below 3years of teaching

were with above 3 years of teaching experience.

Fig.No:III.1


Fem

ale

Rur

al

Urb

an

Go

vern

men

t

Sel

f-fin

ance

d

Pre

scri

bed

Mo

re th

an p

resc

ribed

3 y

ears

Locale Type of college

Educational Qualification

Teaching experience

204

184

116

10

290

239

61

Variables

were with below 3years of teaching

were with above 3 years of teaching experience.


3 y

ears

Bel

ow

3 y

ears

Ab

ove

3 y

ears

Teaching experience

35

108

157

III.2. e. (iv) Tools

Using tools such as questionnaire, tests, interview, observation, etc. procedurally

does the process of data collection, which is the indispensable stage of research. Tools

which are necessary for the data collection must be selected with care to bring the

research process a fruitful one.

Readymade tools are used by the investigators in certain researches. But in certain

cases such tools may not be suitable with the variables selected for the study. In such

cases, the investigator has to prepare (Self – Made Tools) suitable tool for collecting data.

Tools of the present study

The tools for the present study were constructed and validated by the investigator along

with S.Rasul Mohaideen. They are

1. “Attitude towards Technical English with Communication Skills

Laboratory Scale.”

2. “Barriers in implementing Technical English with Communication skills

Laboratory Inventory”

Construction of the Tool

Tool No: 1

Attitude towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory Scale.

“Attitude Scales attempt to determine what an individual perceives or feels”. (Gay, 996)

Dyer (1995), cited in Rod ward (2009) states, “attitude scales don’t need to be factually

accurate – they simply need to reflect one possible perception of the truth.”

The procedure followed in the construction of these tools is described under different

heads:

i) Planning of the tool: “Attitude towards English Communication Laboratory Scale”

constructed by the investigator aims at measuring the attitude of the engineering college

English lecturers towards English Communication Laboratory. Due considerations were

given to the variables tested. The dimensions for the scale were planned and defined.

ii) Item Writing: Writing suitable items for the tool is the important step in the

construction of any research tool. After a thorough and careful review of the literature,

and the interviews with a few English Lecturers, H.O.D’s and students of engineering

colleges, evaluation specialists, English Laboratory Technicians and assistants, the

investigator collected materials, and constructed a pool of statements (items) presumed to

reflect their attitude towards English Communication Laboratory. The initial tool had 56

statements.

iii) Item editing: Item editing is the process of checking and scrutinizing. The initial tool

was submitted to a panel of experts which comprises of engineering college English

department H.O.D, lecturer, student, research scholar and English laboratory assistant for

modifications. After scrutiny, they suggested some modifications and removed some

questions which are vague in nature. The ambiguous items were rewritten in simple

language. After editing, a final form of attitude scale was ready.

iv) Arrangement of Items: After item editing, the items were arranged properly under

the dimensions of attitude scale such as psychology, academic, administrative and utility

level.

v) Preliminary try out: A preliminary try out with a small sample was made to try out

the weakness and workability of the items. Bearing the commands in mind, modifications

were made and sensitive questions were avoided.

vi) Draft Scale: After the preliminary try out, the first draft of the tool was prepared, the

tool comprised 56 items.

vii) Pilot Study: The main aim of the pilot study is to select items which discriminate

with favorable attitude from those with unfavorable attitude. The first draft tool

consisting of 56 statements (items) was tried out with the 50 lecturers from 17

Engineering Colleges who were selected for Pilot Study.

viii) Final tool: The final tool consisting of 46 items was used for final study.

ix) Establishing Reliability and Validity

Validity

A test is valid when the performances that it measures correspond to the same

performance as otherwise independently measured or objectively defined (Jack and

Norman 1993).

Content Validity

Content Validity looks at whether instrument measures what it is indented to measure and

whether the instrument elicited accurate information (Cox, 1996, Huck & Cormier,

1996). After the draft tool preparation, it has been sent for jury opinion. In order to ensure

validity issues, items in the tool were revived by experts, so as to guarantee face and

content validity. Then the investigator carried out all the suggestions of the experts. Thus

the content validity of the tool was established.

Item validity

The first draft tool consisting of 56 statements (items) was tried out with the 50 lecturers

from 17 Engineering Colleges who were selected for pilot study. To establish the item

validity, the responses were scored and “Item total correlation” was performed. . The

correlation between total and individual item was found. According to (Anne Anastasi,

1976), the items which were having value above 0.27 (for df 48, the table value of

correlation is 0.27) were retained and other items were eliminated. With this

modification, it was hoped that the item would become more valid, so as to be included in

the tool.

Table No III.3

Correlation Value for the items on attitude towards Technical English with

Communication Skills Laboratory scale

Item No ‘r '

value Remark

Item No

‘r ' value Remark

1 0.463 S 29 0.336 S 2 0.441 S 30 0.043 NS 3 0.492 S 31 0.185 NS 4 0.503 S 32 0.283 S 5 0.699 S 33 0.141 NS 6 0.563 S 34 0.098 NS 7 0.537 S 35 0.382 S 8 0.352 S 36 0.49 S 9 0.321 S 37 0.051 NS 10 0.291 S 38 0.17 NS 11 0.026 NS 39 0.491 S 12 0.463 S 40 0.316 S 13 0.293 S 41 0.775 S 14 0.302 S 42 0.819 S 15 0.296 S 43 0.672 S 16 0.109 NS 44 0.599 S 17 0.454 S 45 0.59 S 18 0.285 S 46 0.486 S 19 0.432 S 47 0.565 S 20 0.297 S 48 0.645 S 21 0.515 S 49 0.626 S 22 0.573 S 50 0.192 NS 23 0.699 S 51 0.458 S 24 0.731 S 52 0.561 S 25 0.624 S 53 0.293 S 26 0.66 S 54 0.735 S 27 0.403 S 55 0.367 S 28 0.456 S 56 0.124 NS

(S – Selected; NS – Not Selected)

Reliability

According to Huck and Cornier (1996:76), “the basic idea of reliability is summed up by

the world consistency.” A scale is reliable when it will produce the same results when

applied to the same sample. For establishing the reliability of the tool, the test – retest

method was followed. For this, the draft tool was administered on 50 English lecturers

from 17 Engineering Colleges randomly selected and got the response. After 15 days the

same tool was administered to the same set of lecturers for establishing reliability of the

tool by using the test – retest method. Then the product moment co-efficient of

correlation was found. It is 0.72. Thus, the tool is taken as reliable.

Thus “The Attitude towards English Communication Laboratory Scale” was prepared by

the investigator and used for the present study. It consists of 46 statements of four

dimensions with 5 point rating scales such as strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree,

and strongly disagree.

Table No III.4

Description of the items selected for attitude towards English

Communication Skills Laboratory Scale”

S.No Dimensions Item Number No of items

1 Psychological level 1- 13 13

2 Academic level 14 - 25 12

3 Administrative level 26 - 28 3

4 Utility level 29 - 46 18

Total 46

(x) Scoring

46 items were selected. Each item requires the respondents to make a decision on their

level of agreement on a 5 point scale (strongly agree, agree undecided, disagree, strongly

disagree). The marks were awarded as 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 for the positive statements and 1, 2, 3,

4, 5 for the negative statements. The number beside each response becomes the value for

that response and the total score is obtained by adding values for each response. The

maximum mark is 230 and the minimum is 46.

Table No III.5

Details of Positive and Negative Items

S.No Particulars No’s of items Total no. of

items

1 Positive Statements 1, 3- 6, 10-12, 17 – 26, 30, 32-46. 34

2 Negative Statements 2, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14-16, 27-29, 31. 12

Total Statements 46

Table No III.6

Details of the Scoring

S.No Option Marks

1 Strongly Agree 5

2 Agree 4

3 Undecided 3

4 Disagree 2

5 Strongly Disagree 1

Tool: 2

“Barriers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills

Laboratory Inventory”

The major steps followed in the construction of this tool are also described under

different headings.

i) Planning of the Tool

The “Barriers in implementing Technical English with Communication Laboratory

Inventory” constructed by the investigator, aims at measuring the barriers in


Curriculum. The items to be included and evaluative procedure were planned and

defined.

ii) Item Writing

After a thorough and careful review of the literature, and the interviews with a few

English lecturers, H.O.D’s and students of engineering colleges, evaluation specialists,

English laboratory technicians and assistants, the investigator collected materials and

constructed statements (items) dealing with different aspects of barriers in implementing

English communication laboratory. The initial tool had thirty statements.

iii) Item editing

The initial tool was circulated to a panel comprising of engineering college English

department H.O.D, lecturer, student, research scholar and English lab assistant in order to

larify the nature of each item. The panel identified the favorableness and unfavorableness

of each item. The ambiguous items were rewritten in simple language.

iv) Arrangement of items: After item editing, the items were arranged properly.

v) Preliminary try out: A preliminary try out with a small sample was made to try out

the weakness and workability of the items. Bearing the commands in mind, modifications

were made and sensitive questions were avoided.

vi) Draft Scale: After the preliminary try out, the first draft of the tool was prepared.

vii) Pilot Study: The first draft tool consisting of 30 statements (items) was tried out with

the 50 lecturers from 17 engineering colleges who were selected for pilot study.

viii) Final tool: The final tool, consisting of 23 items was used for final study.

ix) Establishing Reliability and Validity

Validity

Content Validity: In order to ensure validity issues, items in the tool were revived by

experts, so as to guarantee face and content validity. Then the investigator carried out all

the suggestions of the experts. Thus the content validity of the tool was established.

Item validity: The pilot study was conducted to establish the item validity of the research

tool. The tool was administered to 50 English lecturers from 17 engineering colleges. The

items in the tool were selected through item analysis. The investigator tried to refine the

tool by finding out the most suitable items to be included in the final tool. The item

analysis was carried out to find out the item difficulty index and item discriminating

power of each item. The scores were arranged in the descending order. The upper 27

percent of the scores and the lower 27 percent of the scores were selected and calculated.

Item difficulty level

The item difficulty of an item is the percentage of respondents who answer the

items correctly in a tool. It is calculated using the formula.

Difficulty Index =

R- The number of examinees who got the item correctly.

T- The total number of examinees who tried the item.

Item Discriminating power

The discriminating power of a test item is a measure of an items ability to

discriminate between those who scored high on the total test and those who scored low.

It is calculated using the formula.

Discriminating power = RU-RL

½ T

RU - The number of examinees in the upper group who got the item right.

RL - The number of examinees in the lower group who got the item right.

T – One half of the total number of examinees included in the item analysis

Selection criteria

According to Prue Anderson, (2008, p. 79), the items were selected. The items with

difficulty level between 40 and 80 and discriminating power greater than 0.4 were

selected for the present tool.

Table III.7

Difficulty level and discriminating power of items in “Barriers of Technical English

with Communication Skills Laboratory Inventory”

Item No. Difficulty

level Discriminating

power Remarks

1 62.5 0.75 S

2 62.5 0.125 NS 3 68.75 0.625 S 4 62.5 0.75 S 5 62.5 0.75 S 6 68.75 0.625 S 7 75 0.5 S 8 56.2 0.875 S 9 62.5 0.75 S 10 70.3 0.375 S 11 62.5 0.75 S 12 68.7 0.625 S 13 62.5 0.75 S 14 87.5 0.25 S 15 87.5 0.25 S 16 81.2 0.375 S 17 68.7 0.625 S 18 68.7 0.625 S 19 62.5 0.75 S 20 18.7 0.125 NS 21 9.26 0.037 NS 22 75 0.5 S 23 18.89 0.063 NS 24 68.7 0.625 S 25 14.62 0.111 NS 26 81.2 0.375 S 27 33.33 0.133 NS 28 87.5 0.25 S 29 25.93 0.124 NS 30 75 0.5 S

(S – Selected; NS – Not Selected)

In the present study, a number of 30 items were prepared for the draft tool. After

the item analysis, 7 items were deleted .Finally the “Barriers of Technical English with

Communication Laboratory Inventory” tool contains 23 items.

(x) Scoring: As far as the scoring procedure is concerned the option “Yes” is awarded 1

marks and “No” is awarded 0 mark. The number beside each response becomes the value

for that response and the total score is obtained by adding values for each response.

Table No III.8 Details of the Scoring

Thus, the maximum mark would be 23 and minimum 0.

Reliability

For establishing the reliability of the tool, the test – retest method was followed. For this,

the draft tool was administered on 50 English lecturers from 17 Engineering Colleges

randomly selected and got the response. After 15 days the same tool was administered to

the same set of lecturers for establishing reliability of the tool by using the test – retest

method. Then the product moment co-efficient of correlation was found. It is 0.72. Thus,

the tool is taken as reliable.

S.No Option Marks

1 Yes 1

2 No 0

Administration of the tools

The investigator personally visited the chosen engineering colleges and collected data

from English lecturers for this study. The personal data form, “Attitude towards English

Communication Laboratory Scale”, “Barriers of Technical English with Communication

Laboratory Inventory” were administered.

III.2. e. (v) Variables

The investigator selected the following background variables for this study.

• Gender (male/female)

• Locale (rural/urban)

• Type of College (government/ self-financed)

• Teaching Experience (3yrs/ below 3years / above 3years

• Educational Qualification (prescribed/more than prescribed)

III.2. e. (vi) Statistical Techniques

The following statistical techniques were used for the analysis of the data to draw

meaningful generalization.

• Percentage analysis – to find out the level of attitude of engineering college

English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Lab.

• ‘t’-test - to find out the difference between two variables.

• F-test - to find out the difference among more than two variables

• Correlation – to find out the relationship between the variables.

• Factor analysis

III.3.DELIMITATION

� The study is restricted with limited variables.

� The ‘Attitude Scale’ doesn’t include all the dimensions.

� The ‘Barriers Inventory’ doesn’t include all the barriers.

III.4.CONCLUSION

In this chapter, “Design of the study”, the plan and procedure for the research

work is given clearly and in the ensuing chapter, all the statistical techniques used are

dealt with the suitable tabular columns and appropriate illustrations.

CHAPTER – III III.1 INTRODUCTION -...

Documents

Transcript of CHAPTER – III III.1 INTRODUCTION -...