communicative confidence in swedish english education · kultur–språk–medier examensarbete i...
Post on 07-Sep-2019
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Kultur–språk–medier
Examensarbete i fördjupningsämnet Engelska 15 högskolepoäng, avancerad nivå
The Role of Communicative Confidence
in the Swedish English Education Are the Learners Ready for the Global Arena?
Rollen kommunikativ säkerhet har i
engelskundervisningen Är eleverna redo för den globala arenan?
Jonas Berg
Jerry Olsson
Ämneslärarexamen med inriktning Engelska, 300
högskolepoäng
2016-03-06
Examinator: Björn Sundmark
Handledare: Anna Wärnsby
2
Foreword
Both authors contributed equally to the making of this study. We would like to thank
our supervisor Anna Wärnsby for her amazing support and feedback. We would also
like to thank the teachers from the school for helping us out with participants for our
study.
3
Abstract
In today's globalized society, English is one of the main ways of communication.
Therefore, teaching students English in such a way that they not only understand the
basics, but are confident enough to communicate with an international population of
varied ability and linguistic background becomes a high priority in school. In this study
we look at the reported communicative confidence level (CCL) of learners at a Swedish
upper secondary school. This quantitative study collected data from questionnaires from
upper secondary students in the Swedish school. We found that the participants
displayed an above average level of perceived communicative confidence; that a higher
academic achievement correlated with a higher CCL; that the expected need, the
context, and the interlocutors do not correlate with the CCL; and that a higher degree of
formality and unfamiliarity of a communication situation seems to correlate with a
lower CCL. To be able to make confident generalisations in the future about CCL, we
suggest this study be reproduced on a larger set of data and that actual CCL, as opposed
to participant perception of CCL, could be observed.
Keywords: Communicative Confidence Level; English as a Foreign Language; English
as a Second Language; English Education; Globalization; Global English; Lingua
Franca; Swedish Upper Secondary Education.
5
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................ 7
2. Aim and Research Questions ................. 9
3. Literature Review ................................ 10
3.1 Communicative Confidence and Language Proficiency ................... 10
3.2 Globalization of English .................................................................... 11
3.3 Summary ............................................................................................ 13
4. Method ................................................. 14
4.1 Quantitative Research ........................................................................ 14
4.2 Setting and Participants ...................................................................... 14
4.3 Ethical Considerations ....................................................................... 19
4.4 Data Elicitation................................................................................... 19
4.5 The Questionnaire .............................................................................. 20
4.5.1 Communication situations .............................................................................. 21
4.5.2 Familiarity and formality ............................................................................... 24
4.5.3 Likert scale ..................................................................................................... 25
4.6 Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 26
4.6.1 Omissions ....................................................................................................... 26
4.6.2 Software employed ......................................................................................... 27
4.6.3 Necessary data conversion ............................................................................. 28
5. Results .................................................. 30
5.1 Average CCL and Uniformity ........................................................... 30
5.2 Academic Achievement, Linguistic Background, and Usage
Expectation ............................................................................................... 32
5.3 NNS or NS Interlocutors .................................................................... 35
5.4 Communication Situations' Formality and Familiarity ...................... 36
5.5 Summary of Results ........................................................................... 40
6. Discussion ............................................ 41
6
6.1 Problematization of Our Results ........................................................ 41
6.1.1 Communicative confidence level average ...................................................... 41
6.1.2 Academic achievement .................................................................................. 42
6.1.3 Communicative confidence level uniformity ................................................. 42
6.1.4 Number of languages spoken ......................................................................... 43
6.1.5 Usage expectations ......................................................................................... 43
6.1.6 NNS and NS ................................................................................................... 44
6.1.7 Formality and familiarity ............................................................................... 45
6.2 Future Role as Teachers ..................................................................... 46
6.3 Limitations of Method and Design of the Study................................ 47
7. Summary and Conclusions .................. 49
7.1 Future Research .................................................................................. 50
8. References ............................................ 51
9. Appendix 1. Questionnaire .................. 55
10 Appendix 2. Correlations Chart .......... 59
7
1. Introduction
In the latest Special Eurobarometer, the official public opinion surveyor of the EU, by
TNS Opinion & Social (2012), the focus was on Europeans and their language. The
report presents results showing that of “those countries where respondents are most
likely to regularly use foreign languages on the internet are Sweden (71%), Denmark
(69%) and Finland (61%)” (p. 51). Since English is the foreign language in Sweden
most people claim proficiency in (p. 21), this demonstrates one of the settings where
Swedish speakers of English make use of the English language in a global setting.
The English education in the Swedish school for upper secondary education
aims to “develop language- and world-knowledge so that [the learners] can, want to,
and dare use English in various situations and for various purposes” (our translation and
emphasis, Skolverket, 2011a, p. 53). In the official English translation (Skolverket,
2011b), Skolverket has opted to not do a direct translation, but instead write
"confidence" (p. 1) instead of "dare". While this translation supports our purpose, we
have decided to use our own more literal translation of the Swedish original, since it is
that document and not the officially translated one we are basing our future career on.
We find the formulation "dare to use English" particularly interesting. Having the
courage to use English in various situations is of course related to the ability (“can”) and
the motivation (“want”), but the fact that Skolverket explicitly adds “dare” indicates that
communicative confidence is important enough to identify as a separate goal. We would
therefore like to inquire into the confidence of learners in relation to their English use.
How confident do they actually perceive themselves using their English? In what
situations would they dare to use English after having completed their English studies?
When the curriculum mentions daring to use English, it is actually talking about
communicative confidence, that is the will and ability to participate in communication
without feeling that one’s language is in the way. This could include aspects like
pronunciation and grammar, but also the self-image of how your English is perceived
by others (Clement, Dornyei, & Noels, 1994).
Innumerable factors may affect a learner’s communicative confidence and in the
Swedish school context there are some factors that may be more prevalent than others.
Firstly, academic achievement is considered to be a relevant factor, since higher grades
ideally correlate with high proficiency (see learning outcomes for the grades
(Skolverket, 2011a, p. 14)). Secondly, the linguistic background of the learner (i.e. how
8
many different languages a learner is proficient in and what those languages are) may
affect communicative confidence (see Bialystok, 2001; Beyene, 2007 in section 3.1 and
3.2). The linguistic background of the interlocutor(s) (e.g. if the learner is speaking to a
native or non-native speaker of English or if the learner shares another language with
the interlocutor) of the learner may also affect communicative confidence (Neeley,
Hinds, & Cramton, 2012; Beyene, 2007; Shehadeh, 1999). A third factor could be a
learner’s expected degree of English usage, which is closely related to finding the
English subject relevant and worthy of personal and intellectual commitment. See Tella
(2007) for discussion on the correlation between usage expectation and academic
achievement. A fourth factor might have to do with the communication situation and the
degree of formality and familiarity it entails. According to American Psychological
Association (2015) matters that stress American people the most are those connected to
money and safety, arguably formal matters. Vygotsky (1978) presents a model showing
that unfamiliar may require more support when learning a language. These are factors
that may affect the linguistic demands of a situation and thereby potentially the
confidence for those situations.
Today due to globalization, the Internet, and the spread of American culture,
English is being taught and used by people all over the world. English is used as a
Lingua Franca (see Jenkins, 2007), a figurative bridge between people with different
native languages. Present Day English is also sometimes described as World Englishes
(see Kachru & Smith, 1985). The plural form indicates that the inner circle countries’
(e.g. US, UK, AUS) versions of English are not the definitive version of English, but
that other non-Anglophone versions of English are as legitimate, containing their own
idioms, cultural words, and dialects. This defines the arena in which the learners in the
Swedish school are supposed to function. Learners' English proficiency must thus allow
them to “dare” to communicate in such an environment where not only traditional
Anglophone variants are used and with interlocutors who are not necessarily native
speakers of English. While this may inspire confidence in the learners' own Swedish
variant of English, there may still exist a cultural bias that could affect students’
communicative confidence. It is the Swedish school’s role to make sure that this
communicative confidence is at an adequate level as indicated by the “dare” mentioned
above.
9
2. Aim and Research Questions
Our aim is to look at the communicative confidence levels (CCL) of students who have
completed or are close to completing their upper secondary English education; the CCL
is scrutinized in relation to the factors that may affect its level to discover what the
relevant factors in a person’s communicative confidence are and what role the school
may have in this. Our aim is to generate further knowledge regarding this, which could
benefit teachers and academic decision makers when developing future English
education in school.
We therefore pose the following research question:
Do any of the following four factors affect the reported communicative confidence level
of learners of English from a Swedish upper secondary program and if so, in what way?
- Academic achievement
- Linguistic background of the learner and of the other interlocutor(s)
- Expected degree of English usage
- Communication situation’s formality and familiarity
10
3. Literature Review
In this section, we present the theoretical framework for this study. The section is
structured into two parts: Communicative Confidence and Language Proficiency, and
Globalization of English.
3.1 Communicative Confidence and Language Proficiency
Communicative confidence, in this text, refers to an interlocutor’s will and ability to
participate in a conversation without feeling hindered by their perception of their own
linguistic qualities, such as pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary, and grammar. The more
confident the interlocutor, the better will this support communication, as the amount of
mistakes could be reduced (Clement, Dornyei, & Noels, 1994). Beyene (2007) has
shown that if you know more languages fluently, your willingness to communicate with
native speakers (NS) of your second languages (L2) increases (Beyene, 2007). If you
learn or know more languages, your confidence in using all of them increase. Henry and
Goddard (2015) show that the biggest issue Swedish students face when studying at an
international university in English is not the language; writing papers, listening to
lectures, and participating in discussions were not considered difficult, instead, the
content being learned proved the bigger challenge (Henry & Goddard, 2015). So, when
it comes to confidence in using English as an L2, Swedish students seem to be doing
okay.
Who you speak with and in what situation the communication takes place may
also affect your communicative confidence (Clement, Dornyei, & Noels, 1994) and
willingness to communicate (WTC), especially when using an L2 (Pawlak and
Mystkowska-Wiertelak, 2015). Further, if the situation is informal or formal, involves
your boss, a stranger, or a friend. Additionally, where communication takes place may
also be of significance: whether at work, at home, or at a public location. All factors in
when determining how secure you are at engaging in communication. CCL may also be
affected by the dialect of whomever you are communicating with, as shown in a study
where NS Americans react differently to hearing different dialects of L2 English
(Delamere, 1996).
Learning English, according to the Swedish curriculum, should increase the
learners' ability to participate in a global academic and professional society (Skolverket,
11
2011a). The English subject is meant to teach the students confidence in using their L2
and to be able to communicate in a variety of contexts and situations. To be able to use
a language you need to have the confidence to use it, and paradoxically becoming
proficient in a language gives you the confidence to use it. Communicative confidence
and L2 proficiency seem to have a positive correlation (Stankov, Lee, Luo, & Hogan).
Confidence is also one of the main factors in achieving a higher grade according to
Park, Lawson, and Williams (2012).
3.2 Globalization of English
Today, the English language is no longer limited to countries like Great Britain or the
USA. It is now a language used worldwide, even in the absence of NS:s of English
(Jenkins, 2007; Kachru & Smith, 1985). This use of English, where not every
interlocutor is an NS of the language, goes by many names, e.g. English as an
international language (EIL), Global English, English for academic purposes (EAL),
World Englishes (WE, mentioned in Introduction), among others. However, we choose
to focus on the Lingua Franca definition, originally made known by Jennifer Jenkins
(Jenkins, 2007). While some may argue that Lingua Franca is only interaction between
interlocutors who are not English NS:s (see Jenkins, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2004), we apply
Lingua Franca in a different sense (see, for example, Mauranen, 2003) and include any
communication situation in English where at least one interlocutor is not an English NS.
The point of using English as a Lingua Franca is to create a common language to
bridge various language backgrounds, allowing for communication regardless of what
your mother tongue is. However, this aid does not come without its problems. Neeley,
Hinds, and Cramton (2012) highlight the issue of forcing English upon people in the
business context. They found that English-only policies would to some extent shift the
focus from content to language to the point where interlocutors felt that they had to
spend their energy on speaking in English rather than putting that energy into conveying
information properly. Had they been using their mother tongues, the focus would have
been on sharing that valuable information they actually possessed (pp. 237-238).
Although this may be harder to achieve in a school environment, it does connect to the
curriculum goal of using English in the context of real working life.
Another potential issue with using English as a Lingua Franca lies in the
situations where an NS of English is present. In several studies (see for example Neeley
12
et al., 2012; Beyene, 2007) the interaction between native and non-native speakers of
English was found to stigmatize the non-native interlocutors. The NNS (non-native
speaker) reported feeling anxious, incompetent, disadvantaged, among others. when
interacting with NS:s (Neeley et al., 2012; Beyene, 2007). In some cases, researchers
reported that NNS would withdraw and become passive during the interaction;
sometimes the NNS would even group up with each other and omit NS from their
interactions (Neeley et al., 2012, p. 238). When NNS interacted with each other,
however, there seemed to be no stigma: the participants claimed that NNS interlocutors
could more easily share ideas (Beyene, 2007, p. 49-50). This is further supported by
Shehadeh (1999), who found that NNS-NNS interaction exhibited a higher frequency of
negotiation for meaning, which would render such an interaction more supportive than
an NS-NNS interaction (p. 658). These findings indicate that when English is used as a
Lingua Franca there may exist a certain imbalance in terms of power: an NS is
linguistically, and therefore possibly also generally, at an advantage. In addition, when
English is used as a Lingua Franca without an NS present, the NNS communication
might be more focused on transfer of meaning.
Although using English as a Lingua Franca may give rise to several problems, it
also has a lot of advantages. For example, Edu-Buandoh and Otchere (2012) found that
participants in Ghanaian Schools wanted to learn and speak English to be able to ascribe
English speaking skill to their identity; in their setting, knowing English was considered
very prestigious, and this motivated the participants to improve their English. This can
be nuanced by considering Cheung and Sung (2013), who compiled a number of studies
looking at learning English as an L2 in the world. One finding was that the appeal to
learning English does not always seem to be a desire of becoming part of a particular
NS-culture, but to be able to participate in a global culture (Cheung and Sung, 2013).
Learning English as a second language can therefore be a matter of identity and
belonging.
Another reason to learn English and use it as a Lingua Franca is brought up by
Ali, Wyatt, and Van Laar (2015), who argue that English may be used as a Lingua
Franca to help promote a positive image of one’s native language and context. This is
partly a contrast to the previous reasons, where NNS:s aimed to affiliate themselves
with an English or global culture, the difference being that this position seeks out to
remain affiliated with one’s current setting and make it part or a greater part of the
global culture instead. This falls in line with Modiano (2003), who considers a Swedish
13
variety of English: Swenglish. In his article, Modiano argues that when the Swenglish
variety is used, it is accepted by the interlocutors and functions as a communicative
vehicle. Thus, the variety gains acceptance as a valid dialect of English. This increased
acceptance can be compared with what Ali, Wyatt, and Van Laar (2015) argue: it
promotes Swedish culture and speech variety as positive and valid member of a global
culture. Modiano (2003) urges teachers to not shame the pupils and correct their
Swenglish because this may prevent the Swenglish variety from becoming an accepted
one.
3.3 Summary
In this section, we have explained two terms important for this study: communicative
confidence and the globalization of English. Communicative confidence is one of the
cornerstones in successful communication and is one of the goals of learning English in
the Swedish curriculum. Communicative confidence is a person’s ability and will to
participate in communication without being hindered by obstacles such as self-doubt. It
is also connected to the globalization of English, the idea that English is becoming more
than the mother tongue of a select few countries. English is now becoming a vehicle of
successful communication globally, even between people who do not have English as
an official language; it has become a Lingua Franca. This is however not without issues.
14
4. Method
In this chapter, we present the methodological choices we have made when conducting
the study. The chapter is divided into sections giving detailed information on the
creation, rationalizations, and execution of the questionnaire; information about the
setting and participants of the study; the ethical considerations taken throughout the
study; and the method and tools used when the data gathered was analyzed and
processed.
4.1 Quantitative Research
Quantitative research focus on statistics and quantifiable results that can be extrapolated
to be applied on a larger population. Common methods are surveys and observations
(see, for example, Nunan, 1992).
Since our research question aims to look at the correlation between CCL
(communicative confidence level) and a number of other factors, we would need data
which could be turned into average and correlation: average will allow us to look
generally at a current situation and then compare that with situations differing in time or
context; correlation will enable speculation about causation, as there can be no
causation without correlation. We therefore decided to create a questionnaire because
the data collected can more easily be quantified (Nunan, 1992, p. 143-144).
4.2 Setting and Participants
The school at which we carried out our study is located in a large city in southern
Sweden. There are approximately 700 students at the school. It offers several programs,
but the one we looked at is the behavioral science program with a focus on uniform
occupations (e.g. police, firefighter, coast guard, customs, military, among others). The
program is thus focused on further studies, however, not necessarily at university level.
Often there are specific courses or certain programs mandatory to applicants of these
jobs which are offered as part of a hire or are educations that lead to a hire. The program
has around 100 students currently attending. The other programs at the school are also
15
Figure 2. Age Distribution of Participants
focused on further studies, however, focus more on university studies than on
occupational studies; the uniform program does, however, provide all courses required
for university studies. Since the program, is oriented towards the social sciences, but
with a practical future application (uniformed jobs), the participants can be said to
straddle two worlds: a theoretical world and a practical world. This can either mean they
represent in part both worlds, or neither.
Figure 3. Gender Distribution of Participants
Our 45 participants were all learners at the upper secondary level of education. They all
attended the school described above, and all participants were from the same education
16
program (the behavioral science with a focus on uniform program). The participants
made up around half of that program's students. Most of the participants were taking
their third and final year (33 participants) and some were taking their second year
(twelve participants). The participants’ age ranged from 17 to 22, but after removing
disqualified questionnaires the range was 18 to 21. 26 of the participants were 18 years
old, seven were 19 years old, and one was 21 years old (see figure 2). After excluding
some additional questionnaires from our study (detailed below), 36 questionnaires
remained. Of those questionnaires, twelve recorded a female participant, and 24
recorded a male participant (see figure 3). Our participants therefore represent upper
secondary students who have completed or nearly completed the mandatory English
education in the Swedish school. We requested, but were denied access to statistics
regarding gender distribution at the school; hence, gender could not be controlled and
could not be used as a variable in the study, but could still be of interest in the
discussion.
Figure 4. Number of Languages Spoken by Participants.
All participants reported proficiency in Swedish, however, not all reported
Swedish as their mother tongue. Of the seven participants who spoke two languages, the
two languages were always Swedish and English. As seen in figure 4, the participants
speaking three languages made out the largest group of 17. Seven participants spoke
four languages. After that, the number of participants dropped significantly to two
17
participants speaking five languages, one participant speaking six languages, and two
participants speaking seven languages. The language distribution lends itself for
analysis when participants speak two, three, or four languages in terms of providing
enough data to be able to say something about those groups. However, it is not
unexpected to find fewer participants in the groups where proficiency in five or more
languages is reported; it is probably not as common that people speak as many as seven
languages as it is that people will speak two or three. Therefore, our sample may not
allow us to say something particular about learners speaking five or more languages, but
the number of languages spoken is still a controlled variable in our study.
The participants had various experiences of English studies in the program;
some had taken the two compulsory courses and were either not currently studying
English or were in the process of taking a third non-mandatory one, whereas others
were currently taking their second mandatory course. This means that their level of
English proficiency might vary. However, since all participants finished their first
mandatory year, they were considered ready for society at that initial level. Assuming
that the grades will not change too much in the second year and given the fact that we
collected our data late in the spring semester, the participants who recorded that they
currently are taking their second mandatory year can still be considered valid for our
purposes and ready to use English in society.
Figure 5. Usage Expectations of English After Graduation
18
Looking at the expected usage of English after graduation, a bell curve appeared
(see Figure 5). No participant recorded “very seldom”; nine participants recorded “quite
seldom”; 21 recorded “quite often”; and six recorded “very often”. This means that the
participants expects to use English to a degree slightly higher than average on our scale.
Figure 6. Latest English Grade of Participants.
The Swedish grade system for English ranges from F to A (see Skolverket,
2011a, pp. 55-63). Among the participants, three recorded an A in their latest English
course, three recorded B, nine recorded C, twelve recorded D, and nine recorded E (see
figure 6). The participants reporting an F as their latest grade were removed from
further analysis, since they were not found ready to use English in the global arena
according to the Swedish school, and thereby would not be of interest for our results.
The bell curve which appeared this time has its highest point around the grade D, which
indicates that the participants are just below average on the grade scale.
The setting and the participants were chosen for two reasons. The first reason
was that those participants were the ones we had access to due to a connection with one
of the teachers at the school, i.e. ease of access. The second reason is that English is a
mandatory choice for any upper secondary school in Sweden and while some of the
context of that learning of English might differ, the general purpose does not, that
purpose being students’ ability to “can”, “want”, and “dare” (Skolverket, 2011a) to use
their English globally (see introduction). Hence, these participants could be said to
represent the average Swedish student in English.
19
4.3 Ethical Considerations
There are four main ethical considerations that we took, which are based on the
recommendations of the Science Council (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002). The first
consideration was the Information Agreement (our translation). It means that we
informed our participants of the purpose of our study, what the role of the participants
would be, and that their participation was non-mandatory. The second consideration
was the Consent Agreement (our translation). First we made sure to obtain oral consent
from all participants and from the school. In addition, one of the personal questions on
the questionnaire asked for the age of the participant; since we did not ask for parental
consent, this was used to remove any questionnaires answered by minors. The
Confidentiality Agreement (our translation) was the third consideration. Before the data
collection commenced, all participants were informed that their participation would be
anonymous. This had two purposes: to make sure no one is identified and to ensure
honest answers. We also made gender an open question to let the participants answer in
any way they felt comfortable with. Lastly, we had an open question asking for the
participants spoken languages and allowed any or all to be checked as mother tongue.
Therefore, the questionnaires did not ask for identifying information. In the description
above, the school at which the survey was carried out has been anonymized as far as
possible. The fourth and final consideration is the Application Agreement (our
translation). It means that we will not to use any collected data for commercial purposes
or outside of our study. It also means that any personal information gathered will not be
used to make decisions affecting that participant (e.g. decisions affecting their progress
or presence in school).
4.4 Data Elicitation
The data was collected at the school where all of our participants attended. It was
collected over a single day, in early April, at four separate classrooms during the school
hours. Each time we started by introducing ourselves by name, that we are university
students doing our final exam study, and described the nature of our study. We gave
instructions on how the questionnaire should be filled out, that it was anonymous, and if
they had any questions regarding comprehension or clarification they were free to ask.
We also informed them that it was to be filled in individually and that it would probably
take no more than 10 minutes. We, and a teacher, stayed in the classroom during the
20
collection process, but did not interfere or watch who answered what on the
questionnaire. Once or twice, when the majority were done with answering the
questionnaire, we prodded a student or two who apparently had stopped writing to
finish by asking if they needed help, which resulted in them not needing it, but finishing
the questionnaire instead. We then gathered all the filled in questionnaires without
marking them or identifying them. Each such session lasted between 15 and 20 minutes.
4.5 The Questionnaire
The questionnaire was created in Swedish in two parts (see Appendix 1). The first part
collected personal information of participants pertinent to the study, i.e. gender, age,
achieved grades in English and the languages spoken. Gender was an open question in
case the options we would have provided would not have included the gender the
participants identified themselves as; gender subsequently constituted one of the
variables for the analysis in this study. Age was included as a variable for correlation
analysis and to make sure the participants were of age as we had not obtained the
consent of participants’ legal guardians. The question about students' achieved grades
gave the participants the choice to fill in the grades they had achieved in English 5, 6,
and 7 if applicable, and was also an analysis variable. The question on languages
spoken included up to seven options and the students were asked to mark the ones they
identified as their mother tongues. This was partly for us to be able to identify people
whose linguistic background would have interfered with their answers. Linguistic
background was also considered an important variable (see Bialystok, 2001; Beyene,
2007).
The second part of the questionnaire consisted of closed-scale questions. Closed
means that the questions had a limited number of answers that can be chosen to each of
the questions, and scale means you are supposed to grade your answer on a scale (in our
questionnaire from 1 to 4) (Nunan, 1992, p. 143-144). We chose the closed approach
because it provided a limited number of possible answers, meaning that the data
became more easily quantifiable. The scale was included because it allowed us to gauge
the level or degree of communicative confidence participants would perceive
themselves to have; this was a vital requirement for our research question.
Initially, we chose several different countries for our communication situations
when creating our questionnaire. We wanted to cover a large number of different World
21
Englishes to reflect the current development in the world. We then conducted a pilot
study with five participants. After feedback from the pilot participants, we decided to
change all non-English speaking countries to Italy and all English speaking countries to
the United States as it proved problematic for the results we wanted. It turned out that
the specific countries mentioned influenced the participants too much, even when both
countries were NS (native speaker) or NNS (non-native speaker). We wanted the focus
to be on whether the communication was with someone with English as a native
language or not; we did not want country specific bias to be a factor (e.g. a participant
having a certain disposition towards a specific country’s level of English). We chose
Italy because it’s not a common first or secondary language in Sweden so we would not
have to exclude many participants, at least it is not one of the languages in which
schools are required to offer education (Utbildningsdepartementet, Ch. 9, 5§.). We
chose the US because we believe that it has a rather strong cultural attraction, which is
discussed in Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hecht (2006); this means that the participants could
more easily recognize themselves in those situations.
4.5.1 Communication situations
Our aim with the questionnaire was to try to find factors that would affect a
participant’s communicative confidence. While asking the participants such a question
directly would be one approach of getting to that data, it would be an approach where
our aim’s transparency might affect the results; to put this in the terms of Nunan (1992),
we would “intervene” (p. 5) too much. Yet, we could not afford being too vague, as that
would yield too much data; again putting this in terms of Nunan (1992), we would be
too “unselective” (p. 5). We therefore had to find a way of asking our participants about
these factors in a subtler and indirect way while still being specific enough to keep the
results manageable. Hence, we chose to create communication situations.
22
Table 1. Questions Where the Mother Tongue of the Interlocutor Can Be Compared and
Contrasted (translated excerpt from the questionnaire).
NS example:
Question 18. You have a friend from USA. You converse about your favorite series on
Skype in English.
NNS example:
Question 19. You have a friend from Italy. You converse about your favorite series on
Skype in English.
The communication situations would describe different situations where
different factors would vary. All situations but three (which were a triad) were
structured into dyads where the only difference between two situations would be the
mother tongue or the nationality of the interlocutor (see Table 1 in bold). In this way we
were able to compare the effect of communicating with a NS of English and a NNS of
English, which was found a valid variable in previous research (see Neeley et al., 2012;
Beyene, 2007; Shehadeh, 1999).
Table 2. Questions where familiarity in relation to the participants’ experiences can be
compared and contrasted (translated excerpt from the questionnaire).
Familiar situation example:
Question 21. You have a friend from Italy. You are writing in the Facebook chat about
your favorite bands in English.
Unfamiliar situation example:
Question 29. You have gotten a job here in Sweden at a company that sometimes conducts
business internationally. You have a client from Italy and your boss gives you the task to
take care of the deal. You and the client converse in English.
The different dyads could also be compared and contrasted depending on the formality
of the situations described (see table 2) and depending on the familiarity in relation to
the learners (see table 3). For example, one question from a dyad would describe a more
formal situation which could then be contrasted with a question from another dyad that
23
would describe a more informal situation, as can be seen in table 2. The same process
was done for questions describing more familiar and more unfamiliar situations (see
table 3).
Table 3. Questions where formality of a situation can be compared and contrasted
(translated excerpt from the questionnaire).
Informal example:
Question 12. A friend from USA is visiting you. One night, you and the friend from USA
are hanging out with one of your friends from Sweden. You are telling your friend from
Sweden about how you met your friend from USA. Only you and your friend from Sweden
know Swedish, so in order for everyone to understand, you speak in English.
Formal example:
Question 6. When you are finished with your upper secondary education, you travel to
USA to study for an occupational degree. You and your classmate from USA are doing a
group work. You speak in English while you work.
Returning to Nunan, our questionnaire can be described using the model
“Parameters in research design”-table (figure 1), a modification by Nunan of the
original model by Van Lier (in Nunan, 1992, pp. 5-6). Our questionnaire would position
itself in the upper right quadrant of the model as a “measuring” approach (see figure 1
below). The questionnaire would be very selective in the sense that we defined the
situations and parameters. The questionnaire would, however, be less interventionist
since we would describe various situations for the participant to imagine rather than
explicitly asking about a specific factor’s impact on their confidence.
24
Figure 1. Parameters in Research Design
It is, however, important to note that while our approach tries to emancipate
itself from opinion-based answers and instead aim to measure reaction to various
situations, the participants are still asked to record self-perceived confidence. Hence,
there is still an element of opinion-based answers, but the degree has been reduced with
the utilization of communication situations. The next step towards making this less
opinion-based would be to actually observe real situations instead of asking about
perceived confidence level, but that is something we leave for future research.
4.5.2 Familiarity and formality
Since familiarity and formality are two important factors in our analysis, we find it of
significance to define the two terms. The Oxford dictionary (2016) defines "familiar" as
follows: "Well known from long or close association" (Familiar, 2016) and "Often
encountered or experienced; common" (Familiar, 2016). We further nuance the
definition of a familiar situation as a situation which the participant has some previous
experience of, a situation that the participant feels confident being in, and a situation in
which the participant has a good understanding of the conventions and expectations that
apply.
Defining formality is not an easy task. Many attempts have been made; for
example, Meiners and Miller (2004), who assert that in business situations “formality is
indicated by the presence or absence of structure shaping the interaction” (p. 306 (pdf:
25
p. 6)) and that “informal interactions are likely more unstructured, spontaneous, and off-
the-record than formal ones” (p. 306 (pdf: p. 6)). While definitions like these may
suffice in certain situations, we found that for our purposes the definition was non-
conducive to our categorization.
Instead, we chose to turn to Maslow’s (1987) Hierarchy of Needs for our
definition of formality. In the hierarchy, Maslow ranks the various needs a human being
has starting with the Physiological Needs (e.g. eating, breathing, and sleeping) followed
by the Safety Needs (e.g. financial safety, a place to live, and “laws and limits” (p. 18))
as the bottom two and most fundamental needs (p. 15-18). We identify situations that
would mainly affect any of these two levels as more formal situations. This means that a
job interview would normally be classified as more formal, since it would affect one’s
financial security substantially. Maslow continues his hierarchy with the following three
upper needs in order: the Belongingness and Love Needs (“relations with people in
general” (p. 20), e.g. friendship, family, and a romantic partner), the Esteem Needs (e.g.
confidence, achievement, self-respect, being respected by others, and holding a good
reputation), and the Self-actualization Need (fulfilling one’s personal desires, e.g.
“artists must paint [and] poets must write if they are to be ultimately at peace with
themselves” (p. 22))). Conversely, we define situations that would mainly affect any of
these three needs as more informal situations. Concretizing this means that conversing
with a friend would normally be informal, since it mainly affects the three upper levels.
We chose this approach in defining formality since it allows us to categorize our
communication situations more clearly and with fewer situations falling into gray areas;
using definitions like the one of Meiners and Miller (2004) above forced us to leave
more situations unclassified, as they would fit both the definition of more formal and
more informal.
4.5.3 Likert scale
The questions in the second part of the questionnaire were answered on a Likert scale
(you indicate your level of confidence on a scale from 1 to 4). We chose the Likert scale
since we wanted to look at the broad structures, not the small nuances in the
participants’ confidence level; that is to say we wanted to see if they had a strong or
weak reaction and if it was positive or negative. Joshi, Kale, Chandel, and Pal claim that
“Likert scale was devised in order to measure ‘attitude’ in a scientifically accepted and
26
validated manner in 1932” (Joshi, Kale, Chandel & Pal, 2015, p. 397). Using an even
number of possible answers is called an asymmetric scale, since it offers less choices on
one side of neutrality. It is used when the researcher perceives no value in a neutral
response (Joshi et al., 2015, pp. 397-398)
The questionnaire had two kinds of Likert scales. There was one question that
asked the participants how much they anticipated they would use English after finishing
upper secondary school. This Likert scale ranged from “very seldom”, “quite seldom”,
“quite often” to “very often”. The remaining 29 questions all described plausible future
scenarios where the participant would use English and gave them the option to answer
how confident they would be in their use of English in that scenario. The Likert scale
for these questions ranged from “very unconfident”, “somewhat unconfident”, “quite
confident”, to “very confident”.
The questionnaire contained quite a bit of reading, the scenarios were quite
detailed and some were similar, with only small but crucial changes which were bolded.
To help with clarifying the details, we decided to create the whole questionnaire entirely
in Swedish, since the study takes place in Sweden and the native language of the
majority of the participants is Swedish. The pairing of the dyads and bolding of certain
words was also used for this purpose.
4.6 Data Analysis
In this section, we present the different parts of the data analysis conducted on the
collected data. This includes omissions, software employed, and necessary data
conversion,
4.6.1 Omissions
Some questionnaires had to be removed before analysis. Five of the participants taking
their second year of studies were found to be underage; since we only had oral consent
from the participants and not their guardians, those questionnaires filled out by
underage participants were removed. Four additional questionnaires were removed
before analysis. The first questionnaire was removed because the participant recorded
language knowledge that would interfere with the results; the participant reported
knowledge of Italian, which was a language playing a major role in our questions (no
other participant reported any skills in Italian). The second questionnaire was removed
27
because the participant had not completed the questionnaire to a satisfactory degree.
The third questionnaire was removed because the participant had not completed any of
the mandatory English courses in upper secondary school. The fourth was removed
because it recorded an F in their only taken course, meaning the school had not deemed
the participant proficient in English. After removing questionnaires not meeting our
demands, we were left with 36 questionnaires to analyze.
In the data analysis, four of the 29 questions from the questionnaire described
one-way communication and were therefore deemed to be less comparable with the
other questions which all targeted two- or multi-way communication. When creating
and piloting the questionnaire, we failed to recognize this imbalance. Ultimately, we
decided that this would simply add another layer of possible reasons for divergence in
the results. For us to draw valid conclusions, it was important to keep the number of
possible reasons for divergence to a minimum; hence, we completely omitted those four
questions from the analysis.
4.6.2 Software employed
We used two software when analyzing our data. Our data was collected from the
physical questionnaires and then processed digitally in Microsoft Excel. It was then
converted into graphs and tables for the sake of clarity and analysis. We then used IBM
SPSS Statistics 23, a statistical analysis program by IBM, to check for correlations in
our data.
When presenting our data, we normally indicate the mean and sometimes the
median and mode. The mean is just the average score in a given data set and gives you a
general value and overview of that set of data. Because the mean can be heavily
influenced by a minority of extreme scores, either positive or negative, we also use the
median. The median is simply the value in the middle of the data when ordered after
magnitude (numerical order) and is less affected by extreme scores. The mode is the
score that appears most frequently in a set of data and tells you the majority score
(Field, 2009, pp. 21-23).
Microsoft Excel was used to gather all the data collected and organize it. It
allowed us to calculate means, median, and mode and create graphs and charts to help
visualize the results. The table format of Excel greatly expedited data conversion to
SPSS as well.
28
We used SPSS as the digital platform and Spearman’s Rho, one of the SPSS
tools to analyze correlations between our data sets. Using these, we can see if there is a
positive correlation (or negative) between any chosen variables of factors, how strong
that correlation is, and if any such correlation is statistically significant. If a correlation
is statistically significant it means that there is a 5 % or less probability of the
correlation to be pure chance; if it’s very significant it means there is a 1 % or less
probability to be pure chance (Field, 2009, pp. 52-53).
4.6.3 Necessary data conversion
There were two specific factors which required additional preparation and conversion of
data: the grade factor and the formality and familiarity factor. First, in order to correlate
grade data with the confidence data we had to convert the grade data into numbers from
the letter system used in Swedish school. The five grades of A, B, C, D, and E were
converted into 5,4,3,2, and 1. The failing grade of F was omitted since it indicates that
the participant has not completed the mandatory English course and is not deemed
proficient in English by the Swedish school.
Second, we could not check for correlation between familiarity and formality in
SPSS, since there was only one rank of data; familiarity and formality was a binary trait
rather than a rank. We therefore sorted the questions based on the mean CCL, then
classified each question as formal or informal and as familiar and unfamiliar. Four of
the questions (question 22-25) (all questions from two dyads) regarded online shopping;
we were not certain whether our participants had any experience of online shopping,
especially since most of them had just turned 18 (the age at which online shopping
becomes legal in Sweden). Therefore, we decided to omit questions 22-25 from our
familiarity analysis. Two of the questions (question 22 and 23) (both of the same dyad)
regarded a conversation solving an issue during online shopping, but failed to mention
the nature of the issue; hence, with our definition of formality using Maslow’s
hierarchy, we could not determine whether the issue was of a fiscal nature or an
aesthetic nature. We were therefore forced to omit these questions in our formality
analysis. Additionally, questions one to three were ambiguous in their nature in terms of
formality. These questions considered taking English courses at a Swedish university,
which could be done with the purpose of attaining a job or just for the sake of personal
growth; thus, returning to Maslow’s hierarchy, these questions could be either more
29
formal or more informal. However, the Eurobarometer (TNS Opinion & Social, 2012)
found that the purpose for learning English in Sweden was for 65% of the participants
to work abroad, for 70% of the participants to work in general, and for 48% of the
participants to achieve more personal satisfaction (p. 65). Therefore, we conclude that it
seems more common to study English in Sweden with the purpose of getting a job,
which, returning to Maslow’s hierarchy, mainly affects the bottom two needs; question
one to three were therefore classified as more formal.
Table 4. Examples of communication situations not classifiable for familiarity and/or
formality
Not classifiable for familiarity Not classifiable for formality
Question 23. You have ordered a pair of
shoes from website in Italy. The company
calls you a couple of days later and needs to
fix a problem that has arisen with your order.
The person on the phone speaks English.
Question 22. You have ordered a pair of
shoes from website in the USA. The
company calls you a couple of days later
and needs to fix a problem that has arisen
with your order. The person on the phone
speaks English.
Question 24. You have ordered a perfume
from USA. But you realize that the shipping
will be expensive, so you e-mail the
company about canceling your order. You
have a short e-mail conversation in English.
Question 23. You have ordered a pair of
shoes from website in Italy. The company
calls you a couple of days later and needs to
fix a problem that has arisen with your
order. The person on the phone speaks
English.
When we had classified all questions, we looked at the spread of formality and
familiarity across the rank of mean CCL. We counted the number of times a question
classified as formal would appear above and below the mean CCL for all participants;
then we repeated the process for each factor. We chose to identify the center based on
the mean CCL of the participants, because it showed us in what situations participants
would feel more confident than average or less confident than average.
30
5. Results
In this chapter, we present our findings. The results are divided into the following
categories: Average Communicative Confidence Level (CCL) and Uniformity;
Academic Achievement, Linguistic Background, and Usage Expectation; Non-Native
Speaking or Native Speaking interlocutors; Communication Situation’s Formality and
Familiarity; and Summary of Results. Our research question was as follows:
Do any of the following four factors affect the reported communicative confidence level
of learners of English from a Swedish upper secondary program and if so, in what way?
- Academic achievement
- Linguistic background of the learner and of the other interlocutor(s)
- Expected degree of English usage
- Communication situation’s formality and familiarity
5.1 Average CCL and Uniformity
Our results show that only two participants recorded a mean CCL at about 2,5. This was
the mean of our scale (1-4). The first participant measured at 2,44 and the second at
2,56; other participants deviated from this number by more than 0,10. Further, only four
participants recorded a mean CCL below 2,5; a large majority of 86 % (31 out of the
36) of participants recorded a mean CCL above 2,5. The total mean CCL for all
participants was 3,24. This means that our participants are slightly more confident than
what we expected. If we were to translate this into the terminology used in the
questionnaire, the average participant records a mean CCL of slightly more than “pretty
confident”.
31
Figure 7. Participants’ Mean CCL in Comparison to Mean CCL on Our Scale.
Additionally, we found a correlation between most of the questions when
comparing them to each other; 25 questions compared to each other means a total of
300 different possible comparisons ((25*25-25)/2=300). Of the 300 comparisons,
twelve were insignificant, 31 were significant, and 257 were very significant. Of the 288
significant correlations, seven were significant to a degree of 0,8 or more; as mentioned
earlier, the closer a value is to 1,0 or -1,0 the closer it is complete correlation.
Table 5. Correlations Between Questionnaire Communication Situations
What this means is that participants would display a high degree of uniformity in their
CCL; a participant with a high CCL in one question would have a high CCL in almost
every other question, and vice versa for participants with other levels of communicative
confidence (see table 5 and appendix 1).
32
5.2 Academic Achievement, Linguistic Background, and
Usage Expectation
As can be seen in figure 8, the mean communicative confidence level (CCL) is
compared to three factors: academic achievement, linguistic background, and usage
expectation. A positive value means that when confidence increases the other factor also
increases; the opposite relation applies to a negative value.
Figure 8. How Do Factors Correlate with Communicative Confidence?
A value closer to 1,0 or -1,0 means more correlation, where 1,0 means total positive
correlation; e.g. when communicative confidence increases, the other factor increases an
amount equal to the change in confidence. -1,0 means total negative correlation; e.g.
when communicative confidence increases, the other factor decreases an amount equal
to the change in confidence.
33
Figure 9. Grade Distribution in Relation to Mean CCL
As can be seen in Figure 9, there are three participants with an A or a B
respectively, nine participants with a C, twelve with a D and another nine with an E.
When looking at the correlation between the CCL of the participants and their grade in
English we find a positive correlation to a very significant degree (0,479). What this
means is basically that high grades and high CCL are connected, and low grades and
low CCL are connected (see figure 8).
Figure 10. Number of Language Spoken Relative to Mean CCL
34
Figure 10 shows the distribution of number of languages spoken between
participants in relation to their mean CCL. Each dot is one participant and shows the
number of languages they speak and their mean CCL. When looking at the correlation
between the CCL and the number of languages the participants are proficient in we can
see a small negative change to the number of languages known when CCL increases;
however, the correlation is not significant (-0,189) and can just as well be attributed to
chance. There is no correlation to any significant degree between the participants’
language proficiencies and CCL (see figure 8).
Figure 11. Spread of Usage Expectation in Relation to Mean CCL
In figure 11, the spread of usage expectation of English can be seen. Nine
participants expected to use English “quite seldom”, 21 reported “quite often”, and six
reported “very often”; no participant reported the lowest expectation “very seldom”.
When looking at the correlation between the CCL of the participants and their expected
usage of English you can see a very small positive change to the expected usage of
English as CCL increases; however, the correlation is not significant (0,147) and can
just as well be attributed to chance. There is no correlation to any significant degree
between the expected usage of English and CCL (see figure 8).
35
5.3 NNS or NS Interlocutors
Looking at table 6, we find information about confidence among students comparing
NNS (non-native speaker) and NS (native speaker) related communication. 11 of the
questions were communication within an Italian context (NNS English) and 11 were
with an American context (NS English), these were all in dyads of context, except
questions 1,2, and 3 that were a triad and omitted here because of irrelevance (see
questionnaire in Appendix 1 for examples of dyads in Swedish, e.g. 4 and 5 or 18 and
19, or see the method section titled 4.1.1 Communication Situations for an English
example).
Table 6. Mean CCL in Relation to Interlocutor Linguistic Background
Looking at all the questions where the communication was with an NS yielded a mean
average of 3,15 CCL. Looking at all the questions where the communication was with
an NNS yielded a mean average of 3,18. (see table 6). When analyzing correlation, we
found a strong positive correlation (0,870), meaning that when a participant recorded
high CCL with an NNS interlocutor they also recorded high CCL with an NS
interlocutor, and the opposite can be said for participants with a lower CCL (see table
7). The most significant correlations were always between two questions within a dyad
36
(see Appendix 1). This means that, to the participants' CCL seems to have little effect
whether the interlocutor is an NS or NNS.
Table 7. Correlation Between Mean CCL with a Speaker from USA and Italy
5.4 Communication Situations' Formality and Familiarity
In this section, we present our results regarding the formality and familiarity of the
communication situations. Tables 8 and 9 contrast, for example, familiarity and
formality; these tables can also be found in the method section titled Necessary Data
Conversion (see also Appendix 1 for the full questionnaire with the numbered
questions).
Table 8. Example of Contrasting Familiar and Unfamiliar Communication Situations
Familiar situation example:
Question 21. You have a friend from Italy. You are writing in the Facebook chat about
your favorite bands in English.
Unfamiliar situation example:
Question 29. You have gotten a job here in Sweden at a company that sometimes conducts
business internationally. You have a client from Italy and your boss gives you the task to
take care of the deal. You and the client converse in English.
Let us first look at familiarity (see table 10). All questions classified as
unfamiliar situations (questions 2-7, 16-17, and 28-29) ended up below the mean CCL
of all participants; further, the seven situations ranked with the lowest CCL were
unfamiliar situations.
37
Table 9. Example of Contrasting Informal and Formal Communication Situations
Informal example:
Question 12. A friend from USA is visiting you. One night, you and the friend from USA
are hanging out with one of your friends from Sweden. Du are telling your friend from
Sweden about how you met your friend from USA. Only you and your friend from Sweden
know Swedish, so in order for everyone to understand, you speak in English.
Formal example:
Question 6. When you are finished with your upper secondary education, you travel to
USA to study for an occupational degree. You and your classmate from USA are doing a
group work. You speak in English while you work.
For familiar situations (questions 1, 12-15, and 18-21), however, the spread is more
equal, where 56% ended up above the mean CCL for all participants and 44% below the
mean CCL for all participants; the five situations ranked with the highest CCL (ignoring
unclassifiable situations) were all familiar situations. This means that a more familiar
situation does not necessarily affect the CCL of the participants; however, a more
unfamiliar situation seems to, quite convincingly, be related with lower CCL.
38
Table 10. Familiarity in Relation to Mean CCL
Moving on to formality (see table 11), a majority (82%) of the questions
(questions 1-7 and 28-29) classified as formal situations ended up below the mean CCL
of all participants; the seven situations ranked with the lowest CCL were formal. As in
the previous case the opposing counterpart did show a more balanced spread: in fact, the
split was perfectly even, and 50% of the situations classified as informal ended up
above the mean CCL (and vice versa); the three situations ranked with the highest CCL
were informal situations. This seems to indicate that a more informal situation does not
affect the CCL; a more formal situation, on the other hand, seems to be associated with
lower CCL.
3,43 f
3,38 f
3,38 f
3,35 x
3,35 x
3,32 f
3,30 f
3,30 f
3,22 f
3,22 u
3,19 u
3,16 u
3,14 f
3,14 x
3,11 f
3,11 x
3,08 f
3,03 f
3,00 u
3,00 u
2,97 u
Key: 2,97 u
f = familiar 2,95 u
u = unfamiliar 2,92 u
x = unclassified 2,81 u
Mean
CCL
Familiarit
y
Center based on
mean CCL (3,24)
Unfamili
ar (%)
55%
(6/11)
0%
(0/10)
45%
(5/11)
100%
(10/10)
Familiar
(%)
50%
(2/4)
Unclassifi
ed (%)
50%
(2/4)
39
Table 11. Formality in Relation to Mean CCL
However, despite the indication of these patterns, the actual difference in CCL
between the highest and the lowest is not very significant. On our scale of 1-4, the
lowest mean confidence level recorded was 2,81 and the highest 3,43; the difference
being a mean score of 0,62. This means that although the correlation seems to suggest
that the CCL is higher in a more familiar situation and/or in a more informal situation,
the strength of that correlation may not be sufficient. Further research into this area is
needed before a more definite claim can be made.
3,43 i
3,38 i
3,38 i
3,35 f
3,35 f
3,32 i
3,30 i
3,30 i
3,22 i
3,22 i
3,19 f
3,16 i
3,14 i
3,14 x
3,11 f
3,11 x
3,08 i
3,03 i
3,00 f
3,00 f
2,97 f
Key: 2,97 f
f = formal 2,95 f
i = informal 2,92 f
x = unclassified 2,81 f
Informal
(%)
Formal
(%)
Mean
CCLFormality
Center based on
mean CCL (3,24)
100%
(2/2)
Unclassifi
ed (%)
0%
(0/2)
50%
(6/12)
18%
(2/11)
50%
(6/12)
82%
(9/11)
40
5.5 Summary of Results
Our results show that the mean CCL among participants was somewhat higher than the
median on our scale, which means that they report a fairly high CCL. In addition, we
found that participants seemed to record a quite uniform CCL, where a participant who
recorded a high CCL on one question would mostly record a high CCL on every other
question (and vice versa). Our findings also showed a very strong positive correlation
between academic achievement and CCL, thus our findings show that a participant
reporting a higher CCL also has a higher final grade in English. On the other hand, the
following three factors considered did not correlate with CCL: usage expectation of
English after finishing their secondary education, the number of languages spoken, and
interlocutors speaking English either as a mother tongue or as a second or foreign
language. We found a significant correlation when comparing reported CCL for
communication with an NS and communication with an NNS. That is, students rated
their CCL high or low regardless of the interlocutor’s language background. Finally, our
data showed a connection between formal communication situations and a lower CCL,
while informal communication situations had no such connection. This means that
formal settings seems to affect student’s CCL negatively, while informal settings have
no bearing on CCL. When it comes to familiar communication settings, we found a
similar pattern; unfamiliar situations were associated with lower CCL, while familiar
situations seemed to have no connection.
41
6. Discussion
In this section we discuss our findings from the results section and relate them to the
previous research presented in the literature section. We then discuss our results in
relation to the classrooms. This is finally followed by critical considerations regarding
our study and suggestions for further research.
6.1 Problematization of Our Results
This section is divided into seven sections, based on the categories from the results
section.
6.1.1 Communicative confidence level average
Our results showed that the mean CCL (communicative confidence level) of our
participants was above the scale’s mean of 2,5 at 3,4, meaning the average participant
reported their CCL at somewhere between “pretty confident” and “very confident”. In
the Eurobarometer (TNS Opinion & Social., 2012), Sweden ranks just around the
Europe average of 25% at English listening (24%), reading (28%), and online
communication (30%) skills (pp. 28-39). If we compare the Eurobarometer with our
results we can possibly deduce that while skills might be average, confidence levels are
above that. This is in opposition to previous research, which shows a positive
correlation between confidence and academic achievement (See Park, Lawson, and
Williams (2012) and Stankov, Lee, Luo, and Hogan (2012) in the Literature Review).
The Eurobarometer; however, does not measure oral communicative skills maybe
because of difficulties to make such a test reliable, and our questionnaire and data
collection focused on that to a larger extent. Perhaps, Swedes would have shown higher
skill levels if tested on oral, communicative confidence. The Eurobarometer also
collects data from all ages, while our data was collected from people aged 18-21, and
looking at an average 18-21-year-old Swede’s skill in English might better corroborate
our findings. While it is good news that CCL average is higher than expected, because
of the aforementioned correlation between confidence and academic achievement, we
must look into the rest of the results to find further causes for these levels of CCL.
42
6.1.2 Academic achievement
Academic achievement was the only variable we found with a positive correlation, or
any kind of correlation, with CCL among the participants. That means that participants
with a high grade report a high CCL. It is, however, hard to tell what influence what;
does having a high grade increase your confidence, or does a high CCL help you
achieve higher grades? There might be a synergy of the two factors influencing each
other as well. Our findings corroborate what Park, Lawson, and Williams (2012) and
Stankov, Lee, Luo, and Hogan (2012) suggest: that greater confidence could predict
higher academic achievement. However, it is worth remembering that grade is just an
indicator of the skills acquired in school and decided by the curriculum, and perceived
confidence is not necessarily the actual confidence you exhibit in a particular
communication situation. This line of thinking is corroborated by Hennebry, Yi Lo, and
Macaro (2012), whose study claimed that the English as an L2 (second language)
education skills acquired were not enough for students, with good grades, when they
started studying in an Anglophone setting in international schools. Thus, consulting our
results and the findings of Park et al. and Stankov et al, a possible conclusion could be
that increased CCL or even increased perceived CCL can be conducive for English
learning.
6.1.3 Communicative confidence level uniformity
Another finding in the results was the uniformity of the participant’s CCL. In 96 % (288
out of 300) of the cases there was a significant, positive correlation between the
reported answers on the communication situations in the questionnaire. That means that
no matter the context of the situation we presented to the participant, in a vast majority
of cases, a person would self-report about the same CCL consistently throughout the
questionnaire. This is further corroborated by the results connected to the number of
languages the participant reported proficiency in, the usage expectation of English from
the participant, and the mother tongue of the communication situation, discussed below.
We found no previous studies corroborating or contradicting this, meaning this could be
an interesting topic for further studies.
43
6.1.4 Number of languages spoken
Our results showed that there was no correlation between the number of languages a
participant recorded proficiency in and their self-perceived CCL. Bialystok (2001)
provides evidence which suggests that attaining proficiency in a second language
(becoming bilingual) may positively affect academic achievement. Relating this to the
correlation between academic achievement and confidence, mentioned above, suggests
that learning a second language may increase the level of confidence. This is further
nuanced by Beyene (2007), who argued that speaking more languages may increase
one’s willingness to communicate with an NS of one of those languages, which, when
related to the assumption that increased motivation increases confidence (see the
following section titled Usage Expectations), suggests that speaking more languages
should increase one’s confidence towards situations including native speakers (NS) of
those languages. Altogether, these findings seem to suggest a tendency where knowing
more languages increases one’s communicative confidence; our results, however, show
that the number of languages spoken does not seem to have any effect. Further, there are
not a lot of studies done on multilingual students with more than two languages, and our
findings are not substantial enough to make a strong claim. We therefore have to leave
any definitive conclusions to future research.
6.1.5 Usage expectations
Lightbown and Spada discuss motivation in relation to the learner’s position or attitude
towards the target language and its communities. They divide motivation for learning a
language into two categories, the first of which is relevant for our purposes. The first
category, “instrumental motivation” (Gardner & Lambert, 1972), asserts that
[i]f learners need to speak the second language in a wider range of social situations or
to fulfil professional ambitions, they will perceive the communicative value of the
second language and are therefore likely to be motivated to acquire proficiency in it.
(as cited in Lightbown & Spada, p. 87).
This suggests that increased perceived need for a language increases motivation to
learning that language, which does not necessarily mean that learning actually occurs,
but does mean that learning is more likely to occur than if the learner had not felt
motivated. This is further supported by Tella (2007), who found that increased
44
motivation correlated with increased academic achievement. As previously shown in
Park, Lawson, and Williams (2012) and Stankov, Lee, Luo, and Hogan (2012), higher
confidence could predict academic achievement, meaning that increased motivation
should mean higher confidence.
We found that there was not a significant correlation between perceived need for
English and CCL. This contradicts our argument above. Concretizing our results then,
means that a participant expecting a lot of English use might have a high CCL just as
well as a low CCL; a participant might expect a lot of English use and rise to the
occasion or might find the task far too overwhelming. We leave this for future research.
6.1.6 NNS and NS
We found that it did not seem to matter whether the interlocutor was an NS or not. This
contradicts Shehadeh’s (1999) and Beyene’s (2007) findings. Shehadeh found that an
NNS-NNS interaction would be more supportive and intelligible than an NS-NNS
interaction, because of the higher frequency of negotiation for meaning. Beyene found
that NNS-NS interaction was more stigmatizing and stressful for the NNS than NNS-
NNS interaction was. Our results show that neither of these effects seem to be of
significance: NNS-NS and NNS-NNS interactions were found to correlate with an equal
CCL in our data. Further, our results also contradict a number of comments from some
of the participants from our pilot study. The pilot participants claimed, while giving
feedback on the questionnaire, that talking to an NS would be easier, since that speaker
would have a better command of the English language; interaction with an NNS would
require using a lot more communicative strategies, which can be taxing. The pilot
participants’ claims fall in line with Shehadeh’s findings that NNS-NNS interaction
require us of more strategies. But this claim also contradicts Shehadeh, since the
participants perceived such an environment more demanding.
An aspect that may have influenced this dissonance is the fact that our study
targeted participant perception. Firstly, in the Swedish school the communicative
situations are rarely authentic Lingua Franca situations where the interlocutors use
English as a way of allowing for communication; mostly the learners all speak Swedish,
although it may not be their mother tongue, and English is only spoken because it is the
target language in the classroom. Also, NS:s are not common in the English as a second
language class in Sweden, meaning that the interaction in English with NS:s of English
45
is also limited. This means that the learners would not have much experience of
interaction with NS:s of English nor of interaction where English was the only or best
language to achieve understanding, at least in school contexts. Secondly, the
participants probably do not have much experience of English interaction in most of the
communication situations described in the questionnaire, since the questionnaire and
our study targets English usage after finishing the education they are currently
participating in. Hennebry, Yi Lo, and Macaro (2012) further support this: English
education in NNS settings seemed to be inadequate or at least not fully satisfactory in
terms of meeting the demands of studies in Anglophone settings (p. 225). This suggests
that our participants may perceive readiness for communication situations that may not
fully exist outside of their current school environment. Had we been able to physically
position the participants in communication situations and observe the interaction, our
results may have differed, potentially in the direction of Shehadeh’s and Beyene’s
findings.
6.1.7 Formality and familiarity
More familiar and more informal communication situations seemed to correlate with
higher CCL in our data.
Starting with familiarity, this falls in line with Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of the
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The theory presents a linear model of learning
consisting of three zones. The leftmost zone represents what a learner already knows
(i.e. knowledge familiar to the learner); the rightmost zone represents what the learner
may not currently make known (i.e. very unfamiliar); the zone in between these two
zones is the ZPD, which represents the knowledge a learner may make known with the
help of a mentor (i.e. unfamiliar, but not to the extent where progress is more or less
impossible) (Vygotsky, 1978). A participant in a familiar communication situation
would, hence, place somewhere around the leftmost zone on Vygotsky’s model,
meaning that the participant would have knowledge about that situation and, as our
results seem to indicate, a higher CCL.
As for formality, our results can possibly be explained consulting the American
Psychological Association (2015), who found that in America “money” and “work” (p.
2) are the two most common stress factors. Bringing back Maslow’s hierarchy, we find
that these two factors mainly affect the bottom two levels of the hierarchy. It therefore
46
seems that in more formal situations, one could expect more stress. Our results showed
a similar tendency, where more formal situations correlated with lower CCL. It can
therefore be concluded that more formal situations may be associated with negative
aspects like stress and low CCL.
6.2 Future Role as Teachers
A number of points can be made about the relevance of our findings.
First, the CCL seemed to be quite uniform for each participant and at a fairly
high level. Further, the academic achievement of the participants seemed to positively
correlate with higher CCL, which, as has been argued, seemed to suggest that higher
CCL can be conducive for English development. For the classroom, there might be a
reason to explicitly focus on developing CCL, to further facilitate the learning of
English.
Second, there seems to be the need to discuss and nuance the expectations of
CCL among the learners, which the pilot participants have helped to highlight. They
claimed that speaking with an NNS would be harder because they would have to use a
lot more strategies (see section 6.1.6). However, in this statement they seem to have
failed to acknowledge the implications of being NNS:s themselves. Speaking with an
NS would still require the use of strategies (see, for example, Long & Sato (1983) who
argue for the use of “modified interaction”). Potentially, the pilot participants have
suggested that there is the need to nuance the perception of what interactions with NS
and NNS means and how strategies are supposed to be used and function. While it is
satisfactory to have found out that the learners are aware of strategy usage, it would be
beneficial if they also could see strategy use positively. Shehadeh (1999) emphasizes
strategy use to make interactions more intelligible; in fact, it might even be quite
essential for the learners to embrace strategies as a tool rather than view it as a hurdle.
Third, formality seems to be the cause of stress in other studies and was found to
correlate with low CCL in our study. This suggests that formality might be an aspect of
learning worth putting extra focus on in the education of English, to make those
contexts more approachable and more familiar.
Finally, our results seem to indicate that the Swedish school is doing quite well
in terms of meeting the goal of “develop[ing] language- and world-knowledge so that
[the learners] . . . dare use English in various situations and for various purposes” (our
47
translation, our emphasis, Skolverket, 2011a, p. 53) since our participants reported a
fairly high average CCL. This may appear contradictory to what the PISA results for
Sweden show (Skolverket, 2013), which report a decline in the Swedish school
performance. However, the PISA focuses exclusively on mathematics, natural science,
and reading comprehension (in Swedish). Our study therefore may provide insight into
other subjects of the Swedish school, namely English, and highlights that it may not be
entirely true that performance decline in the Swedish school exists across the board.
6.3 Limitations of Method and Design of the Study
As with any study there are, of course, limitations to consider. We address them in this
section.
One of the main data analysis tools in this study is correlations, and it is always
important to remember that correlation does not equal causation: two factors correlating
does not necessarily mean they affect each other. However, you can use the correlations
to corroborate other studies claiming similar results, and find grounds for further
studies.
Another aspect to consider when looking at correlation is the question of what
came first. For example, did a participant report a high CCL because their grade was
high or was their grade high because they reported a high CCL. To identify which of
these factors affected which, a more specialized study is needed.
The selection and the size of the data collected can also be questioned. The final
total of participants in the study was 36 (see section 4.6.1 for details on omission of a
number of filled questionnaires from the study) which is quite low for a quantitative
study. However, when taking into account the setting and the fact that the program
totaled at approximately 100 students, the results are still applicable to that group.
One of the main variables studied in this paper also requires clarification. This
study investigates self-perceived communicative confidence, not to be confused with
actual communicative confidence. You need to be aware that what the participants
report is only their own belief in their confidence, as it might never have been tried or
analyzed by the participant. This is why this study looks at how prepared the
participants feel they are after finishing English in school.
The choice not to include interviews could possibly affect the discussion and
conclusions drawn in this study. Greater understanding of some of the results could
48
have been achieved if interviews had been conducted with some or all of the
participants, but we chose a quantitative approach to the topic of CCL rather than a
qualitative.
In hindsight, we have realized that familiarity and formality could have been
more accurately tested had we designed the questionnaire differently. Regarding
familiarity, we have no actual way of knowing whether a communication situation
would be familiar to our participants; instead, we assume based on the participants’
context that certain situations are more familiar for the participants (e.g. conversing on
Facebook or talking to friends at a café) and other situations are more unfamiliar for the
participants (e.g. working for a company in Sweden with international clients or
working at a restaurant in Italy). What could have improved our accuracy is the addition
of questions asking about the participants’ habits (e.g. if they usually shop online or if
they usually travel abroad).
49
7. Summary and Conclusions
We have investigated the communicative confidence level (CCL) of learners in a
Swedish upper secondary program. CCL is singled out as an important factor in the
English education in Sweden (see LGY11). In this study we asked the following
research question:
Do any of the following four factors affect the reported communicative confidence level
of learners of English from a Swedish upper secondary program and if so, in what way?
- Academic achievement
- Linguistic background of the learner and of the other interlocutor(s)
- Expected degree of English usage
- Communication situation’s formality and familiarity
We found that high academic achievement correlated with high perceived CCL. The
linguistic background of the interlocutor (i.e. whether the interlocutor is a native or non-
native speaker of English) was found to be of little significance for the perceived CCL.
The linguistic background of the learner (i.e. the number of languages a participant
recorded proficiency in) and the expected degree of English usage did not correlate with
perceived CCL either. Finally, unfamiliar communication situations and formal
communication situations seemed to correlate with a lower perceived CCL.
In addition, we found that the average CCL of the learners was fairly high,
especially when compared to the rest of Europe in the Eurobarometer. Also, we found
significant degree of uniformity in the CCL of each participant, suggesting that a
participant with a high CCL would record a high CCL in almost every situation and vice
versa.
On the basis of the results above, we are able to draw three conclusions. First, an
increase in CCL seems to increase academic achievement in English, thus suggesting
that explicit focus on CCL development in the classroom is of potential benefit to the
learners. Second, from our pilot study we were able to identify an attitude towards
strategy usage suggesting that schools may not only teach strategies, but also teach
learners about the purpose and status of strategies as an effective communicative tool.
Third, formality may induce stress and lead to low CCL; hence, it may be beneficial to
work purposefully also with formal contexts in the classroom.
50
7.1 Future Research
Our study has identified several potential areas for future research. Firstly, this
study should be conducted on a larger set of data that could allow for generalisations to
be made across the data set. As mentioned in section 6.3 few have participated in our
study. Increasing the number of participants would allow one to make more generalized
statements and get a better grip on the average CCL, and what it correlates with, of a
larger populace.
Another suggested area of research is the logical next step from our study;
looking at actual skills and communicative confidence in students who have completed
the mandatory English courses in Sweden. This suggested study would give a more
precise understanding whether Swedish schools manage to fulfill the goal of teaching
English to Swedish students in a globalized world.
Further, another direction future research could take is investigating in more
detail any of the variables that was compared to CCL in this study, e.g. English grade
correlated with CCL, and do interviews to determine which of the two affects the other.
One aspect we have excluded was the impact gender may have, mostly because
of an uneven distribution (one girl for every two boys). Further studies could look more
closely at how gender impacts CCL. This could be done, for example, in concert with
research concerning “timid girls and confident boys” stereotypes in classrooms.
Qualitative interviews, for example, could help gain insight into this area.
Looking at languages spoken and CCL could also be a possible area of research.
Our results showed no correlation between number of languages participants recorded
proficiency in and their CCL:s. A larger data set could help gain better insight into what
effects, if any, the number of languages you know and your CCL or actual proficiency
in each language.
Lastly, future research could look at the reasons behind the very high or non-
existent correlation between some questions. For example, seven out of twelve (out of a
total of 300) of the questions with no correlation occurred when trying to correlate
question number four to the other questions. That means that no matter what
participants answered on any other questions there was no connection to what they
answered on question four. Question four is about working in the USA at a McDonalds.
Further studies could investigate what makes this and certain other questions stand out.
51
8. References
Ali, M., Wyatt, M., & Van Laar, D. (2015). Pakistani postgraduate students'
orientations for learning English as a second language: A factor analytic study.
System, 51, 77-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.013
American Psychological Association (2015). Stress in America Paying With Our
Health. Retrieved from
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2014/stress-report.pdf
Beyene, T. (2007). Fluency as stigma: Implications of a language mandate in global
work. Stanford University.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Cheung Matthew Sung, C. (2013). Learning English as an L2 in the global context:
Changing English, changing motivation. Changing English, 20(4), 377-387.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1358684x.2013.855564
Delamere, T. (1996). The importance of interlanguage errors with respect to
stereotyping by native speakers in their judgements of second language learners'
performance. System, 24(3), 279-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0346-
251x(96)00022-x
Edu-Buandoh, D. & Otchere, G. (2012). “Speak English!” A prescription or choice of
English as a Lingua Franca in Ghanaian schools. Linguistics and Education,
23(3), 301-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.06.003
Familiar. (2016). in Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved from
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/familiar
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage
Publications.
Fushino, K. (2010). Causal relationships between communication confidence, beliefs
about group work, and willingness to communicate in foreign language group
work. TESOL Quarterly, 44(4), 700-724.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.235993
Gardner, R. & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language
learning. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.
Gienow-Hecht, J. (2006). A European considers the influence of American culture.
eJournal USA, 11(1).
52
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2008/06/20080608094132xj
yrrep0.2717859.html#axzz46pJFMwm
Hennebry, M., Lo, Y., & Macaro, E. (2012). Differing perspectives of non-native
speaker students’ linguistic experiences on higher degree courses. Oxford Review
of Education, 38(2), 209-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.651312
Henry, A. & Goddard, A. (2015). Bicultural or hybrid? The second language identities
of students on an English-mediated university program in Sweden. Journal of
Language, Identity & Education,14(4), 255-274.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2015.1070596
Ito, N. (2008). Exploring the nature of language anxiety: Experiences of non-native
English speaking college students in the United States (Ph.D.). University of New
Orleans.
Jauregi, K., de Graaff, R., van den Bergh, H., & Kriz, M. (2012). Native/non-native
speaker interactions through video-web communication: a clue for enhancing
motivation?. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1), 1-19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.582587
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. (2015). Likert Scale: Explored and explained.
British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396-403.
http://dx.doi.org/10.9734/bjast/2015/14975
Kachru, B. & Smith, L. (1985). Editorial. World Englishes, 4, 209-212.
Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL
settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3-18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2010.519030
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. Oxford [England]:
Oxford University Press.
Long, M. & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions
of teachers’ questions. In Seliger, H.W. & Long, M.H. (Eds.), Classroom-oriented
research in second language acquisition (pp. 268-85). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury
House.
Maslow, A. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Mauranen, A. (2003). The corpus of English as Lingua Franca in academic settings.
TESOL Quarterly, 37, 513–527.
53
Meiners, E. & Miller, V. (2004). The effect of formality and relational tone on
supervisor/subordinate negotiation episodes. Western Journal of Communication,
68(3), 302-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570310409374803
Modiano, M. (2003). Euro-English: A Swedish perspective. ENG, 19(02).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0266078403002074
Neeley, T., Hinds, P., & Cramton, C. (2012). The (un)hidden turmoil of language in
global collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 41(3), 236-244.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.03.008
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Pajares, F. & Miller, M. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics
performances: The need for specificity of assessment. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 42(2), 190-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.2.190
Park, H., Lawson, D., & Williams, H. (2012). Relations between technology, parent
education, self-confidence, and academic aspiration of Hispanic immigrant
students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(3), 255-265.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/ec.46.3.c
Pawlak, M. & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2015). Investigating the dynamic nature of
L2 willingness to communicate. System, 50, 1-9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.02.001
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a Lingua Franca.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–242.
Shehadeh, A. (1999). Non-native speakers' production of modified comprehensible
output and second language learning. Language Learning, 49(4), 627-675.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00104
Skolverket. (2011a). Läroplan, examensmål och gymnasiegemensamma ämnen för
gymnasieskola 2011. Skolverket. Retrieved from
http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2705
Skolverket. (2011b). English. Skolverket. Retrieved from
http://www.skolverket.se/polopoly_fs/1.174543!/Menu/article/attachment/English
%20120912.pdf
Skolverket. (2013). PISA 2012 - 15-åringars kunskaper i matematik, läsförståelse och
naturvetenskap. Skolverket. Retrieved from
http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=3126
54
Stankov, L., Lee, J., Luo, W., & Hogan, D. (2012). Confidence: A better predictor of
academic achievement than self-efficacy, self-concept and anxiety?. Learning and
Individual Differences,22(6), 747-758.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.013
Tella, A. (2007). The impact of motivation on student’s academic achievement and
learning outcomes in mathematics among secondary school students in Nigeria.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(2), 8.
TNS Opinion & Social. (2012). Special Eurobarometer 386: Europeans and their
languages. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf
Utbildningsdepartamentet. (2011). Skolförodningen (2011:185).
Vetenskapsrådet (2002). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-
samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55
9. Appendix 1. Questionnaire
Vänligen svara på frågorna så sanningsenligt som du kan. A. Kön: B. Ålder: C. Fyll i slutbetyget du fick i respektive kurs. Om du ej läst kursen, gör ett streck.
Engelska 5 Engelska 6 Engelska 7
D. Fyll i de språk du talar. Kryssa i rutan till höger om språket är ett modersmål.
Språk Modersmål
E. Hur ofta förväntar du dig att använda engelska efter gymnasieexamen?
1 Väldigt sällan 2 Ganska sällan 3 Ganska ofta 4 Väldigt ofta
F. Ange hur säker du känner dig på att kommunicera på (endast) engelska i följande situationer: 1. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning läser du en kurs i engelska på ett universitet i Sverige. Du och din klasskamrat ska göra ett grupparbete. Ni båda kan svenska men ni talar på engelska medan ni jobbar.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
2. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning läser du en kurs i engelska på ett universitet i Sverige. Du och din klasskamrat ska göra ett grupparbete. Du kan svenska men din klasskamrat kan inte svenska; ni har båda engelska som andraspråk. Ni talar på engelska medan ni jobbar.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
3. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning läser du en kurs i engelska på ett universitet i Sverige. Du och din klasskamrat ska göra ett grupparbete. Du kan svenska men din klasskamrat kan inte svenska och har engelska som modersmål. Ni talar på engelska medan ni jobbar.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
56
4. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning reser du till USA för att jobba. Du har precis fått jobb på ett McDonald’s. Du tar beställningar i kassan. Alla beställningar görs på engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
5. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning reser du till Italien. Du har precis fått jobb på ett McDonald’s längs motorvägen. Du tar beställningar i kassan. Eftersom det är många internationella förbiresande så görs alla beställningar på engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
6. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning reser du till USA för att studera till yrkesexamen. Du och din klasskamrat från USA ska göra ett grupparbete. Ni talar på engelska medan ni jobbar.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
7. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning reser du till Italien för att studera till yrkesexamen. Du och din klasskamrat från Italien ska göra ett grupparbete. Ni talar på engelska medan ni jobbar.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
8. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning hittar du en annons om ett jobb som du länge drömt om i USA. Du skriver en ansökan på engelska och skickar in.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
9. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning hittar du en annons om ett jobb som du länge drömt om i Italien. Du skriver en ansökan på engelska och skickar in.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
10. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning reser du till USA för att studera. Din första uppgift är att skriva en uppsats. Utbildningen är på engelska så du skriver också uppsatsen på engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
11. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning reser du till Italien för att studera. Din första uppgift är att skriva en uppsats. Utbildningen är på engelska så du skriver också uppsatsen på engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
12. En kompis från USA är på besök hos dig. Du och kompisen från USA hänger med en av dina kompisar från Sverige en kväll. Du berättar om hur ni träffades i USA för din kompis från Sverige. Det är bara du och din kompis från Sverige som kan svenska, så för att alla ska förstå varandra berättar du på engelska.
57
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
13. En kompis från Italien är på besök hos dig. Du och kompisen från Italien hänger med en av dina kompisar från Sverige en kväll. Du berättar om hur ni träffades i Italien för din kompis från Sverige. Det är bara du och din kompis från Sverige som kan svenska, så för att alla ska förstå varandra berättar du på engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
14. Du och ett gäng kompisar är på ett café. De flesta av er kommer från Sverige och kan svenska, men några av er kommer från Italien och kan inte svenska. Av respekt talar ni på engelska hela tiden, även när ni inte direkt talar med de som inte kan svenska. Du och din kompis hamnar i en djup diskussion. Ni kan båda svenska, men ni talar ändå på engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
15. Du och ett gäng kompisar är på ett café. De flesta av er kommer från Sverige och kan svenska, men några av er kommer från USA och kan inte svenska. Av respekt talar ni på engelska hela tiden, även när ni inte direkt talar med de som inte kan svenska. Du och din kompis hamnar i en djup diskussion. Ni kan båda svenska, men ni talar ändå på engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
16. Du och din familj är på semester på USA. Ni är på en rundvandring på ett museum. Guiden talar på engelska. Du är intresserad av en av utställningarna, så du frågar guiden. Ni samtalar på engelska om utställningen.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
17. Du och din familj är på semester i Italien. Ni är på en rundvandring på ett museum. Guiden talar på engelska. Du är intresserad av en av utställningarna, så du frågar guiden. Ni samtalar på engelska om utställningen.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
18. Du har en kompis från USA. Ni samtalar om era favoritserier över Skype på engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
19. Du har en kompis från Italien. Ni samtalar om era favoritserier över Skype på engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
20. Du har en kompis från USA. Ni skriver i Facebook-chatten om era favoritband på engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
58
21. Du har en kompis från Italien. Ni skriver i Facebook-chatten om era favoritband på engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
22. Du har beställt ett par skor på en hemsida från USA. Företaget ringer dig ett par dagar senare och behöver reda ut ett problem som uppstått med din beställning. Personen i telefonen pratar engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
23. Du har beställt ett par skor på en hemsida från Italien. Företaget ringer dig ett par dagar senare och behöver reda ut ett problem som uppstått med din beställning. Personen i telefonen pratar engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
24. Du har beställt en parfym från USA. Men du inser att frakten kommer bli dyr, så du mailar företaget om att få avbeställa produkten. Ni har en kort mail-konversation på engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
25. Du har beställt en parfym från Italien. Men du inser att frakten kommer bli dyr, så du mailar företaget om att få avbeställa produkten. Ni har en kort mail-konversation på engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
26. Du är ute på stan när någon går fram till dig och frågar om var närmaste bankomat finns. Personen frågar dig på engelska med en tydlig amerikansk accent.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
27. Du är ute på stan när någon går fram till dig och frågar om var närmaste bankomat finns. Personen frågar dig på engelska med en tydlig italiensk accent.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
28. Du har fått ett jobb här i Sverige på ett företag som ibland gör internationella affärer. Ni har en kund från USA och din chef ger dig uppgiften att hantera affären. Du och kunden samtalar på engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
29. Du har fått ett jobb här i Sverige på ett företag som ibland gör internationella affärer. Ni har en kund från Italien och din chef ger dig uppgiften att hantera affären. Du och kunden samtalar på engelska.
1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker
Tack för din medverkan!
59
10 Appendix 2. Correlations Chart
1/4 (upper left)
Question
1
Question
2
Question
3
Question
4
Question
5
Question
6
Question
7
Question
12
Question
13
Question
14
Question
15
Question
16
Spearman
's rho
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
1,000 ,764** ,821** ,461
**,587
**,761
**,651
**,613
**,569
**,674
**,565
** ,331*
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,024
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,764** 1,000 ,746
**,486
**,610
**,742
**,654
**,482
**,492
**,651
**,503
**,447
**
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,001 ,000 ,001 ,003
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,821**
,746** 1,000 ,498
**,536
**,824
**,623
**,576
**,585
**,682
**,629
** ,308*
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,034
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,461**
,486**
,498** 1,000 ,766
**,660
**,402
**,482
**,494
** ,371* ,326* ,270
Sig. (1-
tailed),002 ,001 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,007 ,001 ,001 ,013 ,026 ,056
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,587**
,610**
,536**
,766** 1,000 ,581
**,664
**,489
**,532
**,391
** ,318* ,329*
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,009 ,029 ,025
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,761**
,742**
,824**
,660**
,581** 1,000 ,608
**,648
**,585
**,550
**,514
**,498
**
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,001
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,651**
,654**
,623**
,402**
,664**
,608** 1,000 ,438
**,436
**,392
** ,286* ,376*
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,007 ,000 ,000 ,004 ,004 ,009 ,046 ,012
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,613**
,482**
,576**
,482**
,489**
,648**
,438** 1,000 ,908** ,781
**,689
**,628
**
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,001 ,000 ,001 ,001 ,000 ,004 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,569**
,492**
,585**
,494**
,532**
,585**
,436**
,908** 1,000 ,710
**,670
**,494
**
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,001 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,004 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,674**
,651**
,682**
,371*
,391**
,550**
,392**
,781**
,710** 1,000 ,753
**,474
**
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,013 ,009 ,000 ,009 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,002
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,565**
,503**
,629**
,326*
,318*
,514**
,286*
,689**
,670**
,753** 1,000 ,473
**
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,001 ,000 ,026 ,029 ,001 ,046 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,002
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,331*
,447**
,308* ,270 ,329
*,498
**,376
*,628
**,494
**,474
**,473
** 1,000
Sig. (1-
tailed),024 ,003 ,034 ,056 ,025 ,001 ,012 ,000 ,001 ,002 ,002
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,479**
,557**
,365* ,222 ,326
*,488
**,372
*,557
**,488
**,488
**,493
**,890
**
Sig. (1-
tailed),002 ,000 ,014 ,096 ,026 ,001 ,013 ,000 ,001 ,001 ,001 ,000
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,642**
,587**
,609**
,439**
,556**
,751**
,504**
,731**
,594**
,657**
,510**
,667**
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,004 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Question
1
Question
2
Question
3
Question
4
Question
5
Question
6
Question
7
Question
12
Question
13
Correlations
Question
14
Question
15
Question
16
Question
17
Question
18
60
2/4 (upper right)
Question
17
Question
18
Question
19
Question
20
Question
21
Question
22
Question
23
Question
24
Question
25
Question
26
Question
27
Question
28
Question
29
,479**
,642**
,760**
,611**
,476**
,639**
,709**
,411** ,360* ,659
**,492
**,599
**,551
**
,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,006 ,015 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,557**
,587**
,564**
,519**
,458**
,728**
,767**
,503**
,454**
,659**
,466**
,557**
,469**
,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,003 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,003 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,002
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,365* ,609**
,630**
,505** ,340* ,693
**,661
** ,383* ,334* ,620**
,425**
,733**
,647**
,014 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,021 ,000 ,000 ,011 ,023 ,000 ,005 ,000 ,000
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,222 ,439**
,520** ,162 ,256 ,521
** ,386* ,276 ,197 ,458** ,271 ,468
** ,378*
,096 ,004 ,001 ,173 ,066 ,001 ,010 ,051 ,125 ,003 ,055 ,002 ,012
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,326* ,556**
,604** ,224 ,332* ,674
**,610
**,406
** ,321* ,449**
,391**
,516**
,439**
,026 ,000 ,000 ,095 ,024 ,000 ,000 ,007 ,028 ,003 ,009 ,001 ,004
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,488**
,751**
,735**
,480**
,435**
,751**
,713** ,310* ,261 ,749
**,537
**,671
**,603
**
,001 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,004 ,000 ,000 ,033 ,062 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,372* ,504**
,538** ,236 ,334* ,621
**,637
**,409
** ,354* ,485**
,403**
,562**
,467**
,013 ,001 ,000 ,083 ,023 ,000 ,000 ,007 ,017 ,001 ,007 ,000 ,002
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,557**
,731**
,799**
,557**
,622**
,675**
,602**
,502**
,533**
,751**
,658**
,578**
,596**
,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,488**
,594**
,696**
,466**
,562**
,655**
,631**
,541**
,577**
,620**
,545**
,510**
,463**
,001 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,002
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,488**
,657**
,649**
,635**
,496**
,678**
,620**
,509**
,536**
,623**
,486**
,592**
,544**
,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,493**
,510**
,511** ,370* ,289* ,681
**,579
**,444
**,532
**,535
** ,329* ,653**
,498**
,001 ,001 ,001 ,013 ,044 ,000 ,000 ,003 ,000 ,000 ,025 ,000 ,001
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,890** ,667**
,572** ,340* ,446
**,578
**,436
**,412
**,438
**,635
**,484
**,435
**,494
**
,000 ,000 ,000 ,021 ,003 ,000 ,004 ,006 ,004 ,000 ,001 ,004 ,001
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
1,000 ,622**
,595**
,420**
,478**
,522**
,554**
,448**
,478**
,647**
,473**
,415**
,442**
,000 ,000 ,005 ,002 ,001 ,000 ,003 ,002 ,000 ,002 ,006 ,003
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,622** 1,000 ,854** ,606
**,568
**,731
**,651
**,473
**,421
**,736
**,563
**,695
**,678
**
,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,005 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
61
¾ (bottom left)
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,760**
,564**
,630**
,520**
,604**
,735**
,538**
,799**
,696**
,649**
,511**
,572**
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,611**
,519**
,505** ,162 ,224 ,480
** ,236 ,557**
,466**
,635**
,370*
,340*
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,001 ,001 ,173 ,095 ,002 ,083 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,013 ,021
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,476**
,458**
,340* ,256 ,332
*,435
**,334
*,622
**,562
**,496
**,289
*,446
**
Sig. (1-
tailed),002 ,003 ,021 ,066 ,024 ,004 ,023 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,044 ,003
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,639**
,728**
,693**
,521**
,674**
,751**
,621**
,675**
,655**
,678**
,681**
,578**
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,709**
,767**
,661**
,386*
,610**
,713**
,637**
,602**
,631**
,620**
,579**
,436**
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,010 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,004
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,411**
,503**
,383* ,276 ,406
**,310
*,409
**,502
**,541
**,509
**,444
**,412
**
Sig. (1-
tailed),006 ,001 ,011 ,051 ,007 ,033 ,007 ,001 ,000 ,001 ,003 ,006
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,360*
,454**
,334* ,197 ,321
* ,261 ,354*
,533**
,577**
,536**
,532**
,438**
Sig. (1-
tailed),015 ,003 ,023 ,125 ,028 ,062 ,017 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,004
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,659**
,659**
,620**
,458**
,449**
,749**
,485**
,751**
,620**
,623**
,535**
,635**
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,003 ,003 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,492**
,466**
,425** ,271 ,391
**,537
**,403
**,658
**,545
**,486
**,329
*,484
**
Sig. (1-
tailed),001 ,002 ,005 ,055 ,009 ,000 ,007 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,025 ,001
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,599**
,557**
,733**
,468**
,516**
,671**
,562**
,578**
,510**
,592**
,653**
,435**
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,004
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Correlatio
n
Coefficient
,551**
,469**
,647**
,378*
,439**
,603**
,467**
,596**
,463**
,544**
,498**
,494**
Sig. (1-
tailed),000 ,002 ,000 ,012 ,004 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,001 ,001
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
0,8 or higher significance Insignificant
Significant at the 0,05 level (Correlation with the same question)
Question
23
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
Question
19
Question
20
Question
21
Question
22
Question
24
Question
25
Question
26
Question
27
Question
28
Question
29
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
62
4/4 (bottom right)
,595**
,854** 1,000 ,692
**,744
**,621
**,639
**,646
**,599
**,762
**,748
**,605
**,594
**
,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,420**
,606**
,692** 1,000 ,770
** ,322* ,440**
,563**
,519**
,609**
,596** ,318* ,486
**
,005 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,028 ,004 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,029 ,001
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,478**
,568**
,744**
,770** 1,000 ,345* ,464
**,733
**,694
**,577
**,693
** ,272 ,406**
,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,020 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,054 ,007
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,522**
,731**
,621**
,322*
,345* 1,000 ,881** ,426
**,449
**,621
**,430
**,715
**,525
**
,001 ,000 ,000 ,028 ,020 ,000 ,005 ,003 ,000 ,004 ,000 ,001
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,554**
,651**
,639**
,440**
,464**
,881** 1,000 ,495
**,521
**,597
**,510
**,622
**,434
**
,000 ,000 ,000 ,004 ,002 ,000 ,001 ,001 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,004
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,448**
,473**
,646**
,563**
,733**
,426**
,495** 1,000 ,947** ,397
**,546
**,409
** ,359*
,003 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,005 ,001 ,000 ,008 ,000 ,007 ,016
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,478**
,421**
,599**
,519**
,694**
,449**
,521**
,947** 1,000 ,430
**,546
** ,383* ,271
,002 ,005 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,003 ,001 ,000 ,004 ,000 ,011 ,055
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,647**
,736**
,762**
,609**
,577**
,621**
,597**
,397**
,430** 1,000 ,707
**,572
**,564
**
,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,008 ,004 ,000 ,000 ,000
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,473**
,563**
,748**
,596**
,693**
,430**
,510**
,546**
,546**
,707** 1,000 ,478
**,525
**
,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,004 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,001
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,415**
,695**
,605**
,318* ,272 ,715
**,622
**,409
**,383
*,572
**,478
** 1,000 ,839**
,006 ,000 ,000 ,029 ,054 ,000 ,000 ,007 ,011 ,000 ,002 ,000
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
,442**
,678**
,594**
,486**
,406**
,525**
,434**
,359* ,271 ,564
**,525
**,839
** 1,000
,003 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,007 ,001 ,004 ,016 ,055 ,000 ,001 ,000
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
top related