CHAPTER – IV ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION OF...

CHAPTER – IV

ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

IV.1.INTRODUCTION

Data analysis and interpretation is the process of assigning meaning to the

collected information and determining the conclusions, significance and implications of

the findings. It is an important and exciting step in the process of research. In all research

studies, analysis follows data collection.

According to C.R.Kothari (1989), “The term analysis refers to the computation of

measures along with searching for patterns of relationship that exist among data-groups”.

Analysis involves estimating the values of unknown parameters of the population and

testing of hypotheses for drawing inferences.

The aim of present study is to find out the “ Attitude of Engineering College

English Lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in

Engineering Curriculum and the Barriers in Implementation.” The investigator collected

data from 300 English lectures of 57 Engineering Colleges from 4 southern districts. The

collected data are arranged properly, analyzed systematically and interpreted precisely.

IV.2.ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION

Objective No.1

Hypothesis: 1

The level of attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English

with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum is moderate.

Table No: IV.1

Table showing the level of attitude of engineering college English lecturers

towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory

No Variables Category No Low Moderate High

No % No % No %

1. Gender Male 96 12 12.50 76 79.1 8 8.33

Female 204 25 12.25 150 73.5 29 14.21

2. Locale Rural 184 23 12.50 134 72.8 27 14.67

Urban 116 12 10.34 86 74.1 18 15.51

3. Type of College

Government 10 2 20.00 5 50.0 3 30.00

Self financed 290 35 12.06 209 72.0 46 15.86

4. Educational Qualification

Prescribed 239 24 10.00 179 74.8 36 15.00

More than prescribed

61 8 13.11 43 70.4

0

10 16.39

5. Teaching Experience

3 Years 35 2 5.71 25 71.4 8 22.85

Below 3 108 16 14.81 74 68.5 18 16.66

Above 3 157 14 8.91 119 75.7 24 15.28

Total 300 35 11.66 219 73 46 15.33

From the table it is inferred that 11.66%, 73% and 15.33% of engineering college

English lecturers have come under the category of low, moderate and high level of

attitude towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory respectively.

The table also shows the level of attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards

Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory with reference to different

background variables.

Pie-diagram showing the percentage level

English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory

Figure IV.1

diagram showing the percentage level of attitude of engineering c


in total

Low

12%

Moderate

73%

High

15%

Level of attitude in total

of attitude of engineering college


Figure IV.2

Bar graph showing level of attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards

Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory with respect to their back

ground variables

Objective No.2

Hypothesis: 2

Level of attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with

Communication Skills Laboratory in psychological, academic, administrative and utility

level is moderate

Table No: IV.2

Table showing level of attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards

Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in different dimensions

Dimensions Low Moderate High

No % No % No %

Psychological 30 10.00 228 76.00 42 14.00

Academic 36 12.00 217 72.33 47 15.66

Administrative 18 6.00 228 76.00 54 18.00

Utility level 36 12.00 224 74.66 40 13.33

From the table it is inferred that 10%, 76% and 14% of engineering college

English lecturers have low, medium and high level of attitude in ‘psychological level’

respectively. 12%, 72% and 16% of engineering college English lecturers have low,

medium and high level of attitude in ‘academic level’ respectively. 6%, 76% and 18% of

engineering college English lecturers have low, medium and high level of attitude in

‘administrative level’ respectively. 12%, 75% and 13% of engineering college English

lecturers have low, medium and high level of attitude in ‘utility level’ respectively.

Pie-diagrams showing the percentage level of

lecturers towards Technic

Psychological

High

18%

Administrative

Figure IV.3

showing the percentage level of attitude of engineering c

rs towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory

different dimensions

Low

10%

Moderate

76%

High

14%

Psychological

High

16%

Academic

Low

6%

Moderate

76%

High

18%

Administrative

High

13%

attitude of engineering college English

al English with Communication Skills Laboratory in

Low

12%

Moderate

72%

High

16%

Academic

Low

12%

Moderate

75%

High

13%

Utility

Objective No. 3(a)

Hypothesis: 3(a)

The barriers faced by engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical

English with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum are moderate.

Table No: IV.3. a. showing percentage level of barriers faced by engineering college

English lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills

Laboratory in engineering curriculum

No Barriers

No. of subjects

having the barriers

Percentage

1 Lack of curiosity in learning phonetics and stress pattern.

270 90

2 Lack of preference given to English. 234 78 3 Inability in reading materials on the computer screen. 252 84 4 No periodical internal assessment test. 204 68 5 Lack of special training for English lecturers. 198 66 6 Unawareness of the current trends of ELT 240 80 7 Influence of mother tongue. 186 62

8 Inability of English lecturers to play different roles.(teacher, soft skill trainer)

198 66

9 Lack of previous knowledge about this new technology. 246 82 10 Examination oriented teaching. 276 92 11 Fear in handling computers and technical setting. 204 68

12 Inability of faculty members in conversing about technical topics while testing speaking skill.

222 74

13 Inadequate supply of computers. 240 80 14 Lack of well-equipped lab with listening components. 294 98 15 Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive. 222 74 16 Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet. 282 94 17 Using sub-standard software. 270 90 18 Lack of technical skill among the English teachers. 252 84 19 Insufficient time duration. 198 66 20 Lack of willingness to attend workshops. 168 56 21 Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues. 222 74

22 Language proficiency is not a criterion for selecting students.

270 90

23 Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab. 288 96

Figure IV.4

Bar-graph showing percentage level of barriers faced by engineering college English

lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory

in Engineering Curriculum

(i) It is found from the present study that above 90% of the engineering college

English lecturers faced the following barriers in implementing Technical English

with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum.

• Lack of facilities which are essential for developing communication

skills like T.V, LCD, CDS, DVD, internet and listening components.

• Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab.

• Lack of curiosity in learning phonetics and stress pattern.

• Examination oriented Teaching.

• Using sub-standard software.

• Language proficiency is not a criterion for selecting students.

(ii) 70 to 89% of the engineering college English lecturers faced the following

barriers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills

Laboratory in engineering curriculum.

• Inadequate supply of computers.

• Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive.

• Lack of technical skill among the English teachers.

• Students’ inability in reading materials on the computer screen.

• Lack of previous knowledge about this new technology.

• Unawareness of the current trends of ELT

• Lack of preference given to English.

• Inability of faculty members in conversing about technical topics

while testing speaking skill.

• Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues.

(iii) 50 to 69% of the engineering college English lecturers faced the following

barriers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills


• Lack of special training for English Lecturers

• No periodical internal assessment test.

• Influence of mother tongue.

• Insufficient time duration.

• Fear in handling computers and technical setting.

• Inability of English lecturers to play different roles. (teacher, soft skill

trainer, etc.)

• Lack of willingness to attend workshops.

Objective No. 3 (b)

Hypothesis: 3 (b)

The level of barriers faced by engineering college English lecturers in implementing

Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in Engineering Curriculum is

moderate.

Table No: IV. 3. b. Table showing level of barriers faced by engineering college English lecturers

in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in

engineering curriculum

No Variables Category No Low Moderate High

No % No % N %

1 Gender Male 96 19 19.79 46 47.91 31 32.29

Female 204 37 18.13 119 58.33 48 23.52

2 Locale Rural 184 39 21.19 102 55.43 43 23.36

Urban 116 17 14.65 69 59.48 30 25.86

3 Type of

Colleges

Government 10 02 20.00 06 60.00 02 20.00

Self 290 55 18.96 159 54.82 76 26.20

4 Educational Qualification

Prescribed 239 59 24.68 136 56.90 44 18.41

More than 61 08 13.11 31 50.81 22 36.06

5 Teaching

Experience

3 Years 35 07 20.00 15 42.85 13 37.14

Below 3 108 21 19.44 61 56.48 26 24.07

Above 3 157 33 21.01 89 56.68 35 22.29

Total 300 56 18.66 165 55.00 79 26.33

From the table it is inferred that 18.66%, 55.00% and 26.33% of engineering

college English lecturers have come under the category of low, moderate and high level

of barriers respectively faced by them in implementing

Communication Skills Laboratory

The table also shows the level of barriers faced by engineering c

lecturers in implementing

engineering curriculum with reference to different background

Pie-diagram

lecturers in implementing Technical English with

barriers respectively faced by them in implementing Technical English with

kills Laboratory respectively.

The table also shows the level of barriers faced by engineering c


engineering curriculum with reference to different background variables

Figure IV.5

showing level of barriers faced by engineering c

lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory

in engineering curriculum in total

Low

19%

Moderate

55%

High

26%

Level of Barriers in Total

Technical English with

The table also shows the level of barriers faced by engineering college English

Communication Skills Laboratory in

variables

level of barriers faced by engineering college English


Figure IV.6

Bar-graph showing level of barriers faced by engineering college English lecturers


engineering curriculum with respect to their back ground variables

Objective No. 4 (a)

Hypothesis: 4 (a)

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between male and female

engineering college English lecturers in their attitude towards Technical English with

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

psychological, academic, administrative and utility level.

Table No: IV. 4. a.

t-test showing the mean difference in the attitude of engineering college English

lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory, in total

and in different dimensions with respect to the variable ‘gender’

No Dimensions Category No Mean SD CR Value

Table Value Remarks

1 Total Attitude

Male 96 184.63 16.084 0.718 1.96

Not Significant

even at 0.05 level

Female 204 185.98 13.203

2 Psychological Male 96 53.44 4.443

1.058 1.96

Not Significant

even at 0.05 level

Female 204 54.02 4.319

3 Academic Male 96 54.32 5.652

0.267 1.96

Not Significant

even at 0.05 level

Female 204 54.14 5.033

4 Administrative Male 96 54.32 5.652

0.267 1.96

Not Significant

even at 0.05 level

Female 204 54.14 5.033

5 Utility Level Male 96 53.40 6.739

0.852 1.96

Not Significant

even at 0.05 level

Female 204 54.06 5.364

It is found that the calculated values 0.718

than table value (1.96) in total and in the dimensions such as psychological, academic,

administrative and utility level respectively with respect to gender. Hence null hypoth

is accepted. So, it is inferred that there is no significant difference in the attitude of

engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with

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

administrative and utility level with respect to gender.

Bar-graph showing

English lecturers towards Technical English with

Laboratory, in total and

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200 184

.63

18

5.9

8

Me

an

s found that the calculated values 0.718, 1.058, 0.267, 0.267 and 0.852 are less


administrative and utility level respectively with respect to gender. Hence null hypoth

So, it is inferred that there is no significant difference in the attitude of

ollege English lecturers towards Technical English with

, in total and in different dimensions such as psychological

administrative and utility level with respect to gender.

Figure IV.7 (a)

graph showing the mean difference in the attitude of engineering c

English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills

total and in different dimensions with respect to the variable

‘gender’

53.

44

54

.32

54

.32

18

5.9

8

54

.02

54

.14

54

.14

Dimensions

1.058, 0.267, 0.267 and 0.852 are less


administrative and utility level respectively with respect to gender. Hence null hypothesis

So, it is inferred that there is no significant difference in the attitude of

ollege English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication

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

ce in the attitude of engineering college

Communication Skills

in different dimensions with respect to the variable

53.4

54

.06

Male Female

Objective No. 4 (b)

Hypothesis: 4 (b)

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the attitude of rural and

urban engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with



Table No: IV. 4. b. t-test showing the mean difference in the attitude of engineering

college English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills

Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions with respect to the variable ‘locale’

No Dimensions Category No Mean SD CR

Value

Table

Value Remarks

1 Total Attitude Rural 184 186.0 14.65

0.670 1.96

Not Significant

even at 0.05 level Urban 116 184.9 13.42

2 Psychological

Rural 184 54.07 4.426

1.193 1.96

Not Significant


3 Academic Rural 184 54.26 5.399

0.235 1.96

Not Significant


4 Administrative Rural 184 23.71 2.155

0.557 1.96

Not Significant


5 Utility Level

Rural 184 53.95 5.889

0.359 1.96

Not Significant


It is found that the calculated values 0.670, 1.193, 0.235, 0.557 and 0.359 are less

than table Value (1.96) in total and in the dimensions such as psychological, academic,

administrative and utility level respectively with respect to locale. Hence null hypothesis

is accepted. So, it is inferred that there is no significant difference in the attitude of

engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication

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

administrative and utility level with respect to locale.

Figure IV.7 (b)

Bar graph showing the mean difference in the attitude of engineering college

English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills

Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions with respect to the variable ‘locale’

Objective No. 4 (c)

Hypothesis: 4 (c)

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the attitude of government

and self financed engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with



Table No: IV. 4. c.



and in different dimensions with respect to the variable ‘type of college’


Table Value Remarks

1 Total Attitude Govt 10 185.1 10.73

0.143 1.96

Not Significant

even at 0.05 level

S.F 290 185.6 14.29

2 Psychological Govt 10 54 3.8

0.135 1.96

Not Significant

even at 0.05 level

S.F 290 53 4.383

3 Academic Govt 10 54.8 5.287

0.365 1.96

Not Significant

even at 0.05 level

S.F 290 54.18 5.237

4 Administrative Govt 10 23.5 1.354

0.371 1.96

Not Significant

even at 0.05 level

S.F 290 23.67 2.1

5 Utility Level Govt 10 52.8 4.211

0.79 1.96

Not Significant

even at 0.05 level

S.F 290 53.89 5.886

Govt : Government , S.F : Self-financed.

It is found that the calculated values 0.143, 0.135, 0.365, 0.371 and 0.790 are less

than Table Value (1.96) in total and in the dimensions such as psychological, academic,

administrative and utility level respectively with respect to type of the college. Hence null

hypothesis is accepted. So, it is inferred that there is no significant difference in the

attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with


psychological, academic, administrative and utility level with respect to type of the

college.

Figure IV.7 (c) Bar-graph showing the mean difference in the attitude of Engineering College

English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions with respect to the variable ‘type of

college’

Objective No. 4 (d)

Hypothesis: 4 (d)

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the attitude of engineering

college English lecturers with prescribed and more than prescribed educational

qualification towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory, in total

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

level.

Table No: IV. 4. d.



and in different dimensions with respect to the variable ‘educational qualification’


Table Value Remarks

1

Total Attitude

Prescribed 239 185.3 14.39 0.147

1.96

Not Significant

even at 0.05 level

More than prescribed 61 185.6 14.28

2

Psychological

Prescribed 239 53.76 4.373 0.620

1.96

Not Significant

even at 0.05 level


61 54.14 4.331

3 Academic Prescribed 239 54.1 5.344

0.726 1.96

Not Significant

even at 0.05 level


61 54.61 4.779

4 Administrative Prescribed 239 23.63 2.05

0.512 1.96

Not Significant

even at 0.05 level


61 23.79 2.199

5 Utility Level Prescribed 239 53.84 5.832

0.052 1.96

Not Significant

even at 0.05 level


61 53.89 5.902

It is found that the calculated values 0.1470, 0.620, 0.726, 0.512 and 0.052 are

less than table value (1.96) in total and in the dimensions such as psychological,

academic, administrative and utility level respectively with respect to educational

qualification. Hence null hypothesis is accepted. So, it is inferred that there is no

significant difference in the attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards

Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory, in total and in different

dimensions such as psychological, academic, administrative and utility level with respect

to educational qualification.

Figure IV.7 (d) Bar graph showing the mean difference in the attitude of engineering college

English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions with respect to ‘educational

qualification’

Objective No. 4 (e)

Hypothesis: 4 (e)

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the attitude of engineering

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

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

different dimensions such as psychological, academic, administrative and utility level.

Table No: IV. 4. e.

F-test showing the mean difference in the attitude of engineering college English


and in different dimensions with respect to the variable ‘teaching experience’

No Dimensions Source of Variance

Sum of Square df Mean

Square F-

Value Table Value Remarks

1 Total Attitude

Between Samples

747.19 2 373.6 1.87 2.99

Not Significant even at 0.05 level

Within Samples

59339.0 297 199.79

2 Psychological

Between Samples

76.08 2 38.04 2.015 2.99


Within Samples

5608.23 297 18.84

3 Academic

Between Samples

32.52 2 16.26 0.593 2.99


Within Samples

8147.48 297 27.43

4 Administrative

Between Samples

1.017 2 0.508 0.117 2.99


Within Samples

1290.3 297 4.344

5 Utility Level

Between Samples

189.33 2 94.66 2.813 2.99


Within Samples

9994.91 297 33.65

It is inferred from the table that there is no significant difference in the attitude of


Skills Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions such as psychological, acade

administrative and utility level with respect to the variable teaching experience.

It is found that the F

table value (2.995) in total and in the dimensions such as psychological, academic,

administrative and utility level respectively with respect to teaching experience. Hence

null hypothesis is accepted.

Bar graph showingEnglish lecturers towards Technical English witLaboratory , in

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Total

18

6.4

2

187

.04

Mea

n



, in total and in different dimensions such as psychological, acade


It is found that the F- values 1.870, 2.015, 0.593, 0.117and 2.813 are less than


ministrative and utility level respectively with respect to teaching experience. Hence

null hypothesis is accepted.

Figure IV.7 (e) Bar graph showing the mean difference in the attitude of engineering c

English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills , in total and in different dimensions with respect to

experience’

Psychological Academic Administrative

53.7

1

53

.97

23

.71

54.

5

54.6

4

23.6

1

18

4.0

7

53

.41

53

.95

23.

63

Dimensions3 Years



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


2.015, 0.593, 0.117and 2.813 are less than


ministrative and utility level respectively with respect to teaching experience. Hence

difference in the attitude of engineering college Communication Skills ith respect to ‘teaching

Administrative Utitility

55

54

.56

23.

63

53

.1

Below 3Years

Objective No. 5 (a)

Hypothesis: 5 (a)

Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference between male and female engineering college English

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

Communication Skills Laboratory.

Table No: IV. 5. a. i

Table showing the difference between the barriers faced by the male and female

engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with


S No Barriers

Percentage of barriers found

The category having more

barriers Male Female


78.1 73.0 Male

2 Lack of preference given to English. 92.7 96.6 Female

3 Inability in reading materials on the computer screen.

66.7 66.2 Male

4 No periodical internal assessment test. 66.7 70.6 Female

5 Lack of special training for English lecturers.

75.0 72.5 Male

6 Unawareness of the current trends of ELT 68.8 75.5 Female

7 Influence of mother tongue. 72.9 71.1 Male


55.2 57.4

Female

9 Lack of previous knowledge about this new technology.

67.2 64.7 Male

10 Examination oriented Teaching. 75.0 85.3 Female

11 Fear in handling computers and technical setting.

69.8 59.3 Male


60.4 61.8 Female

13 Inadequate supply of computers. 69.8 64.7 Male

14 Lack of well-equipped lab with listening components.

83.3 84.8 Female

15 Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive. 72.9 77.9 Female 16 Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet. 78.1 73.5 Male 17 Using sub-standard software. 84.4 77.5 Male

18 Lack of technical skill among the English teachers.

67.7 75.5 Female

19 Insufficient time duration. 74.00 65.7 Male 20 Lack of willingness to attend workshops. 51.00 51.9 Female

21 Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues.

58.3 59.3 Female


78.1 81.9 Female

23 Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab.

84.4 84.8 Female

From the above table it is inferred that the male engineering college English

lecturers are having the following barriers more than their counterpart in implementing

Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum.


• Inability in reading materials on the computer screen.






• Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet


• Insufficient time duration

The female engineering college English lecturers are having the following barriers more

than their counterpart in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills





• Inability of English lecturers to play different roles.(teacher, soft skill trainer)

• Examination oriented teaching.

• Inability of faculty members in conversing about technical topics while testing

speaking skill.

• Lack of well-equipped lab with listening components.



• Lack of willingness to attend workshops




Figure IV. 8. (a)

Bar graph showing the difference between the barriers faced by the male and

female engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with


Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference between the barriers faced by the male and female



Table No: IV. 5. a. ii

t-test showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the male and



Variable Category No Mean SD ‘t’-

value

Table

Value Remarks

Gender

Male 96 16.60 4.273

2.115 1.96 Significant at

0.01 level Female 204 15.50 4.133

Since ‘t’ value in the above table (2.115) is more than table value (1.96) the null

hypothesis is rejected and it is found that significant difference exists between male and

female lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills

Laboratory. The mean scores show that the male English lecturers are facing more

barriers than female lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication

Skills Laboratory

Bar graph showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the male and


Objective No. 5 (b)

Hypothesis: 5 (b)

Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference between

lecturers in the barriers faced by them in implementing


14.5

15

15.5

16

16.5

17

Me

an

Figure IV. 8. (b)

showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the male and



significant difference between rural and urban engineering college English

in the barriers faced by them in implementing Technical English with


Male Female

16.6

15.5

showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the male and


urban engineering college English

Technical English with

Table No: IV. 5. b. i Table showing the difference between the barriers faced by the rural and urban

engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory.

No Barriers


The category having more

barriers Rural Urban


71.7 79.3 urban

2 Lack of preference given to English. 94.6 96.6 urban


65.2 68.1 urban

4 No periodical internal assessment test. 67.4 72.4 rural

5 Lack of special training for English lecturers. 72.3 75.0 urban

6 Unawareness of the current trends of ELT 70.1 78.4 urban

7 Influence of mother tongue. 73.4 69.0 rural


53.8 61.2 urban


65.2 66.4 urban

10 Examination oriented teaching. 81.5 82.8 urban

11 Fear in handling computers and technical setting. 59.2 68.1 urban


59.8 63.8 urban

13 Inadequate supply of computers. 65.2 68.1 urban


84.8 83.6 rural

15 Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive. 72.8 81.9 urban 16 Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet. 72.3 79.3 urban 17 Using sub-standard software. 74.5 87.9 urban 18 Lack of technical skill among the English teachers. 73.9 71.6 rural 19 Insufficient time duration. 69.0 67.2 rural 20 Lack of willingness to attend workshops. 47.3 56.9 urban

21 Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues. 57.6 61.2 urban


82.6 77.6 rural


84.2 85.3 urban

From the above table it is inferred that the rural engineering college English lecturers are

having the following barriers more than their counterpart in implementing Technical

English with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum.








The urban engineering college English lecturers are having the following barriers more

than their counterpart in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills












speaking skill.



• Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet.




• Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab

Figure IV. 9. (a)

Bar graph showing the difference between the barriers faced by the rural and urban



Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference between the barriers faced by the rural and urban



Table No: IV. 5. b. ii

t-test showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the rural and

urban engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with


Variable Category No Mean SD ‘t’- value Table Value Remarks

Locale

Rural 184 16.15 4.177

2.291 1.96 Significant

at 0.01 level Urban 116 17.25 4.128

Since ‘t’-value in the above table (2.291) is more than table value (1.96) the null

hypothesis is rejected and it is found that significant difference exists between rural and



The mean scores show that the urban engineering college English lecturers are facing

more barriers than rural engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical

English with Communication Skills Laboratory

Figure IV. 9. (b)

Bar graph showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the rural and



Objective No. 5 (c)

Hypothesis: 5 (c )

Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference between government and self financed engineering

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

with Communication Skills Laboratory.

Table No: IV. 5. c. i. showing the difference between the barriers faced by the

government and self financed engineering college English lecturers in implementing

Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory.

No Barriers Percentage of barriers found

The category having more barriers Govt S.F


60 75.2 Self financed

2 Lack of preference given to English. 100 95.2 Government


70 66.2 Government

4 No periodical internal assessment test. 90 68.6 Government

5 Lack of special training for English lecturers. 60 73.8 Self financed

6 Unawareness of the current trends of ELT 80 73.1 Government

7 Influence of mother tongue. 70 71.7 Self financed


70 56.2 Government


90 64.8 Government

10 Examination oriented teaching. 90 81.7 Government

11 Fear in handling computers and technical setting. 50 63.1 Self financed


80 60.7 Government

13 Inadequate supply of computers. 60 66.6 Self financed


90 84.1 Government

15 Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive. 90 75.9 Government

16 Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet. 80 74.8 Government 17 Using sub-standard software. 80 79.7 Government

18 Lack of technical skill among the English teachers.

90 72.4 Government

19 Insufficient time duration. 50 69 Self financed

20 Lack of willingness to attend workshops. 50 51 Self financed

21 Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues. 40 59.7 Self financed


80 80.7 Self financed


90 84.5 Government

From the above table it is inferred that the government engineering college English

lecturers are having the following barriers more than their counterpart in implementing

Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum.




• Unawareness of the current trends of ELT.





speaking skill.




• Using sub-standard software



The self financed engineering college English lecturers are having the following barriers

more than their counterpart in implementing Technical English with Communication

Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum.


• Lack of special training for English Lecturers.








Figure IV. 10. (a)

Bar graph showing the difference between the barriers faced by the government and

self financed engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical

English with Communication Skills Laboratory.

Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference between the barriers faced by the government and self

financed engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with


Table No: IV. 5. c. ii

t-test showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the government

and self financed engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical

English with Communication Skills Laboratory.


value

Table

Value Remarks

Type of

college

Government 10 17.80 3.458

2.155 1.96

Significant

at 0.05

level Self-

financed 290 15.39 4.192


hypothesis is rejected and it is found that significant difference exists between the



The mean scores show that government engineering college English lecturers are facing

more barriers than self-financed engineering college English lecturers in implementing


Figure IV. 10. (b)

Bar graph showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the


Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory

Objective No. 5 (d)

Hypothesis: 5 (d )

Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference between the barriers faced by the engineering college

English lecturers with prescribed and more than prescribed educational qualification in

implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory.

Table No: IV. 5. d. i. showing the difference between the barriers faced by the

engineering college English lecturers with prescribed and more than

prescribed educational qualification in implementing Technical English with

Communication lab

No Barriers


The

cat

egor

y ha

ving

mor

e ba

rrie

rs

pres

crib

ed

Mor

e th

an

pres

crib

ed

1 Lack of curiosity in learning phonetics and stress pattern. 73.2 80.3


2 Lack of preference given to English. 95 96.7 More than prescribed

3 Inability in reading materials on the computer screen. 64 75.4 More than prescribed

4 No periodical internal assessment test. 69.9 67.2 prescribed

5 Lack of special training for English lecturers. 73.6 72.1 prescribed

6 Unawareness of the current trends of ELT 71.15 80.3 More than prescribed

7 Influence of mother tongue. 68.2 85.2 More than prescribed

8 Inability of English lecturers to play different roles.(teacher, soft skill trainer) 51.9 75.4


9 Lack of previous knowledge about this new technology. 62.8 77 More than prescribed

10 Examination oriented teaching. 81.2 85.2 More than prescribed

11 Fear in handling computers and technical setting. 62.8 62.3 prescribed

12 Inability of faculty members in conversing about technical topics while testing speaking skill. 60.7 63.9


13 Inadequate supply of computers. 62.8 80.3 More than prescribed

14 Lack of well-equipped lab with listening components. 84.1 85.2 More than prescribed

15 Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive. 76.6 75.4 prescribed

16 Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet. 71.1 90.2 More than prescribed

17 Using sub-standard software. 76.6 91.8 More than prescribed

18 Lack of technical skill among the English teachers. 71.1 80.3 More than prescribed

19 Insufficient time duration. 69.5 63.9 prescribed

20 Lack of willingness to attend workshops. 48.5 60.7 More than prescribed

21 Lack of supportive Head as well as colleagues. 56.9 67.2 More than prescribed


80.3 82 More than prescribed

23 Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab. 83.7 88.5 More than prescribed

From the above table it is inferred that the engineering college English lecturers with

prescribed educational qualification are having the following barriers more than their

counterpart in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in

engineering curriculum.


• Lack of special training for English lecturers.




Engineering college English lecturers with more than prescribed educational qualification

are having the following barriers more than their counterpart in implementing Technical

English with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum.










speaking skill.










Figure IV.11 (a)

Bar graph showing the difference between the barriers faced by the engineering

college English lecturers with prescribed and more than prescribed educational

qualification in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills

Laboratory.

Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference between the barriers faced by the engineering college

English lecturers with prescribed and more than prescribed educational qualification in

implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory.

Table No: IV. 5. d. ii

t-test showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the engineering

college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication

Skills Laboratory with reference to the variable ‘Educational Qualification’


value

Table

Value Remarks

Educational

qualification

Prescribed 239 16.32 4.238

2.262 1.96

Significant

at 0.01

level More than

prescribed 61 17.58 3.817


hypothesis is rejected and it is found that the significant difference exists between the

barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers with prescribed and more than



The mean score shows that the engineering college English lecturers with more than

prescribed educational qualification are facing more barriers than English lecturers with



Figure IV.11 (b)

Bar graph showing barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers with

prescribed and more than prescribed educational qualification in implementing


Objective No. 5 (e)

Hypothesis: 5 (e)

Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference among the engineering college English lecturers having

teaching experience of 3years, below 3 years and above 3 years in the barriers faced by

them in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory.

Table No: IV. 5. e. i. Showing the difference among the barriers faced by the engineering college English

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

implementing Technical English with Communication

Laboratory

No Barriers

3 ye

ars

Bel

ow 3

ye

ars

Abo

ve 3

ye

ars

Cat

egor

y ha

ving

m

ore

barr

iers


77.1 65.7 80.3 Above 3 years

2 Lack of preference given to English. 100 95.4 94.3 3 years 3 Inability in reading materials on the computer screen. 65.7 63 68.8 Above 3 years 4 No periodical internal assessment test. 74.3 72.2 66.2 3 years 5 Lack of special training for English lecturers. 74.3 76.9 70.7 Below 3 years 6 Unawareness of the current trends of ELT 77.1 75 71.3 3 years 7 Influence of mother tongue. 68.6 71.3 72.6 Above 3 years


57.1 53.7 58.6 Above 3 years


60 70.4 63.7 Below 3 years

10 Examination oriented teaching. 91.4 83.3 79 3 years 11 Fear in handling computers and technical setting. 60 66.7 60.5 Below 3 years


62.9 60.2 61.8 3 years

13 Inadequate supply of computers. 71.4 68.5 63.7 3 years 14 Lack of well-equipped lab with listening components. 82.9 84.3 84.7 Above 3 years 15 Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive. 68.6 71.3 81.5 Above 3 years 16 Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet. 74.3 75 75.2 Above 3 years 17 Using sub-standard software. 74.3 75.9 83.4 Above 3 years 18 Lack of technical skill among the English teachers. 65.7 77.8 71.3 Below 3 years 19 Insufficient time duration. 68.6 69.4 67.5 Below 3 years 20 Lack of willingness to attend workshops. 48.6 56.5 47.8 Below 3 years 21 Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues. 74.3 54.6 58.6 3years


88.6 82.4 77.7 3years

23 Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab. 82.9 82.4 86.6 Above 3 years

From the above table it is inferred that the engineering college English lecturers with 3

years teaching experience are having the following barriers more than their counterpart in

implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering

curriculum.



• Unawareness of the current trends of ELT.



speaking skill.




Engineering college English lecturers with below 3 years teaching experience are having

the following barriers more than their counterpart in implementing Technical English


• Lack of special training for English lecturers.






Engineering college English lecturers with above 3 years teaching experience are having

the following barriers more than their counterpart in implementing Technical English











Figure IV. 12. (a)

Bar graph showing the difference among the barriers faced by the engineering

college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication

Skills Laboratory with reference to the variable ‘teaching experience’

Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference


them in implementing

‘F’- test showing the barriers faced by the engineering collimplementing Technical English with

reference to the variable ‘Teaching Experience”

Source of Variance

Sum of Squares

Between samples

Within Samples 5199.648

Since ‘F’-value in the above table (

hypothesis is accepted

between the barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers

below 3 years and above 3 years of teaching experience

English with Communication Skills Laboratory

Bar graph showing the barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with


39.6

39.8

40

40.2

40.4

40.6

40.8

41

Me

an

significant difference among the engineering college English lecturers


them in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory.

Table No: IV. 5. e. ii

test showing the barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory


Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F-Value

Table Value

2.949 2 1.475 0.084 2.99

5199.648 297 17.507

value in the above table (0.084) is less than the table value

accepted and it is found that the significant difference

between the barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers

below 3 years and above 3 years of teaching experience in implementing Technical


Figure IV. 12. (b)

the barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory


39.6

39.8

40

40.2

40.4

40.6

40.8

41

3 years Below 3 years Above 3 years

40.81

40.02

40.81

English lecturers having



ege English lecturers in Communication Skills Laboratory with


Table Value Remarks

2.99 Not Significant even at0.05 level

table value (2.99) the null

significant difference does not exist

between the barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers having 3years,

in implementing Technical

the barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers in Communication Skills Laboratory with


Objective No. 6

Hypothesis: 6

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant positive correlation between the attitude of


Skills Laboratory and barriers in implementation.

Table No: IV. 6.

Correlation between the attitude of Engineering College English lecturers towards

Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory and barriers in

implementation

S.no variables

Number

‘r’ value Remarks

Calculated value

Table value

1

Attitude towards

Communication Skills

Laboratory and Barriers

300 0.0559 0.195 NS

even at 0.05 level

2 Gender Male 96 0.0243 0.205 NS

Female 204 0.1029 0.195 NS

3 Locale Rural 184 0.0198 0.195 NS

Urban 116 0.1097 0.195 NS

4 Type of

College

government 10 0.3796 0.623 NS

Self-financed 290 0.0494 0.195 NS

5 Educational

Qualification

Prescribed 239 0.0661 0.195 NS


61 0.0279 0.250 NS

6 Teaching

Experience

3 years 35 0.0383 0.349 NS

Below 3 years 108 0.0159 0.195 NS

Above 3 years 157 0.0856 0.195 NS

The above table shows the ‘r’ value (correlation co-efficient) between attitude of

engineering college English lecturers towards technical English with Communication

Skills Laboratory and barriers in implementing it. From the table it is inferred that the

calculated “r” value is (0.0559) less than the table value (0.195). Hence the null

hypothesis is accepted.

There is no significant positive correlation between the attitude of engineering

college English lecturers towards technical English with Communication Skills

Laboratory and barriers. The table also shows the ‘r’ value (correlation co-efficient)

between attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards technical English with

Communication Skills Laboratory and barriers in implementing it with reference to

different background variables.

Objective No. 7

.Hypothesis No. 7

Null Hypothesis: There are no significant positive correlations, between the different

dimensions of attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English

with Communication Skills Laboratory and barriers in implementation.

Table No: IV. 7.

Correlations, between the different dimensions of attitude of engineering college

English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory

and barriers in implementation.

No Dimensions of

attitude Number ‘r’ value

Remarks Calculated value

Table value

1 Psychological 300 0.16275 0.195 NS

2 Academic 300 0.10198 0.195 NS

3 Administrative 300 0.0233 0.195 NS

4 Utility 300 0.04368 0.195 NS

The above table shows that the ‘r’ values (correlation co-efficient) between the

different dimensions of attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards

technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory and barriers in implementation.

From the table it is inferred that the calculated “r” values (0.16275, 0.10198, 0.0233, and

0.04368) are less than the table value (0.195). Hence the null hypothesis is accepted.

There is no significant positive correlation between the different dimensions of

attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with

Communication Skills Laboratory and barriers in implementation.

Objective No.8

Hypothesis No.8

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant factor with positive loading of the variables

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

English with Communication Skills Laboratory and barriers in implementation.

Table No: IV. 8.

Factors loading of attitude towards Technical English with Communication Skills

Laboratory and barriers in implementation.

No Factors Factor Loading

Nature of presence of the variables in the

factor 1 Psychological 0.785 Very high presence

2 Academic 0.858 Very high presence

3 Administrative 0.608 Considerable

4 Utility 0.851 Very high presence

5 Attitude towards communication skills lab

0.998 Extremely high presence

6 Barriers 0.978 Extremely high presence

The factor analysis of the correlation matrix yields a single factor with extremely

high factor loading as given in the above table. The factor for the sample has been

identified as Psycho-academic Admin Attitude. Hence there is a significant factor with

positive loading of the variables namely Psychological, Academic, Administrative,

Utility and Attitude towards communication skills lab and Barriers.

The following figure explains the graphical representation of factor loading of the

variables namely Psychological, Academic, Administrative, Utility and Attitude towards

communication skills lab and Barriers.

Figure No: IV. 8.

Graph showing the factors loading of attitude towards Technical English with

Communication Skills Laboratory and barriers in implementation.

Objective No.9

IV.3. Analyses of Respondents’ Opinions about “Technical English with English

Language Communication Skills Laboratory”

Very few out of 300 respondents (Engineering college English lecturers), had

shared their views on “comments if any” column of the tool, “English lecturers attitude

0.7850.858

0.608

0.851

0.998 0.978

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Psy

cho

log

ica

l

Aca

de

mic

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

Uti

lity

Att

itu

de

Ba

rrie

rs

FA

CT

OR

S

VARIABLES

Factor Loading

towards Technical English with English Language Communication Skills Laboratory”.

The opinions given by the respondents were analysed and compiled here:

The components of the course, “Technical English with English Language

Communication Skills Laboratory” is relevant to acquire competency both in

spoken and written English.

Students learn English easily by using English language lab. So this course,

“Technical English with English Language Communication Skills Laboratory”

suits the needs of today’s engineers.

The scope of the, “Technical English with English Language Communication

Skills Laboratory” is marvelous.

English language lab serves as an excellent resource for developing

communication skills. If the lab is used properly, it will be a blessing channel for

developing communication skills, not only for students but also for teachers.

Campus placement proves to be a bugbear to many students, not because of

technical skill but due to inadequate communication skills in English. English

communication language lab in engineering English provides opportunities for

practicing the skills of communication. Hence efforts should be sincerely made in

utilizing the lab.

Majority of the English students and lecturers found the course; “Technical

English with English Language Communication Skills Laboratory” very

meaningful and enjoyable.

Even though this course has some demerits, it has created a positive impact on

students’communication skills.

“Technical English with English Language Communication Skills Laboratory” is

a relevant subject for engineering students.

The learners find this course, “Technical English with English Language

Communication Skills Laboratory” interesting and useful.

“Technical English with English Language Communication Skills Laboratory” is

a successful tool for engineering students to attain fluency in English.

“Technical English with English Language Communication Skills Laboratory” in

engineering curriculum is an apt course which motivates and trains the learner to

meet the challenges of employability. Really, it is a guiding star for engineering

students.

The students will be more benefited if the managements provide proper

infrastructure and trained human resources for English communication lab.

English lecturers working in engineering colleges have to motivate the students

and kindle their interest to make use of the course, “Technical English with

English Language Communication Skills Laboratory”.

The course, “Technical English with English Language Communication Skills

Laboratory” encourages engineering students to participate in the classroom

actively with their peer group and helps to develop communication skills.

IV.4.CONCLUSION

The statistical analysis and its interpretation are discussed in this chapter. The

summary of the findings, their educational implications and suggestion for further

research are discussed in the next chapter.

Date post:	28-Oct-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	11 times
Download:	0 times

CHAPTER – IV ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION OF...

Documents