TABLE OF CONTENTDEDICATION.................................................................................................iACKNOWLEDGEMENT..................................................................................iiLIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................iiiLIST OF CHARTS.........................................................................................ivTABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................1ABBREVIATION OF KEY TERMS....................................................................3ABSTRACT...................................................................................................4INDEX WORDS.............................................................................................5

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................6

1.1 Background to the Study................................................................7

1.2 Statement of the problem..............................................................8

1.3 Objectives of the Study................................................................10

1.4 Research Questions......................................................................11

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Overview.............................................................................................12

2.1 The Language Situation of Today’s World.....................................13

2.2 English As A Global Language.......................................................27

2.2.1 The World English Language Situation................................27

2.2.2 Foreign Langauge Situation................................................30

2.2.3 The English Language Situation in Uganda.........................32

2.3. Conceptual Framework..................................................................33

2.4. Definition of Key Terms..................................................................34

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction....................................................................................35

3.1 Overview........................................................................................35

3.2 Setting and Participants:................................................................37

3.2.1 Instruments of Research:.....................................................39

3.2.1.1 Tests.........................................................................39

1

3.2.1.2 Interviews................................................................39

3.2.1.3 Questionnaires.........................................................40

3.3 Developing the Questionnaire.........................................................40

3.3.1 Part One of the Questionnaire...............................................40

3.3.1 Part Two of the Questionnaire...............................................40

3.3.1 Part Three of the Questionnaire.............................................41

3.3.1 Part Four of the Questionnaire...............................................43

3.4 Piroting and Variation....................................................................45

3.5 Data Collection..............................................................................49

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS

4.0 Introduction.........................................................................................50

4.1 Results and Analysis.......................................................................50

4.1.1 Results of the First Research Question..................................52

4.1.2 Results of the Second Research Question ............................57

4.1.3 Results of the Third Research Question ...............................82

CHAPTER FIVE:. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDETIONS .

5.0 Introduction.....................................................................................89

5.1 Discussion and Conclusion..............................................................89

5.1.1 First Research Questions.....................................................89

5.1.2 Second Research Questions..................................................95

5.1.3 Third Research Questions .................................................101

5.2 Recommendations for Further Research ......................................102

5.2.1 Direction for Further Research...............................................103

5.3 REFFERENCES.................................................................................105

APPENDICES:

A. Questionnaire Cover Page B. Letters of Permission C. Questionnaire (English Version). D. Questionnaire (Kiswahiri Version) E. Questionnaire (French Version)

2

Abbreviation of Key TermsESL: English as a Second Language

ELP: English Language Program

TOESL: Test of English as a Foreign Language

IELTS: International English Language Testing System

LEP: Limited English Proficiency

TEFL: Teaching English as Foreign Language

L2: Second Language

ESP: English for Specific Purposes

3

Abstract

Language has been rated as the greatest achievement in the history of

mankind. It has been the medium of culture, identification and

innovation. As the world is growing into a global family, the component

of language has been an element of contention and several scholars

have come up with multiple initiations and developments to make the

unification process a reality.

The globalization of the English Language has set a precedent onto

which a worldwide platform for dialogue and innovation is founded.

English is current widespread than any other language in existence.

The status of English as the global language has important

consequences for all other languages and therefore deserves to be

studied carefully. In addition, an analysis of the impact of the English

language to divergent values of the various communities around the

world has resulted in the domestication and manifestation of the

English language into various dialects.

This study explores the English Language in the Uganda context.

English language learning, teaching and communication has been, and

by all indications will continue to be, an important part of Uganda’s

reform and modernisation. Uganda is also an ethnically and

linguistically diverse country with 5 minority nationalities and over 20

native languages. What does the spread of English mean for Uganda’s

language situation?

In order to contribute empirical data to the English Language

importance by International students in Uganda education, this study

investigates the English language communicative needs of a targeted

4

group of International students by investigating their targeted needs in

the courses offered at the University.

The language situation at two Kampala University Ggaba, Main

Campus and Mutundwe Campus which were the centre of this study,

reflects the need for international students whose first or second

languages is not English, to have a high level of proficiency in the

English language since they study in English when they come to

Uganda.

More than 60% of the students in the respective courses have good

command of English[1]. The hope of this study is to provide empirical

information about the uses of English in the academic atmosphere of

Uganda, in return, can be used as an input to feed the larger structure

of the English language communication context in language training.

INDEX WORDS:

Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, Applied Linguistics, TESOL,

English for Specific Purposes, Language Use, Communicative

Competence, Needs Analysis, Needs Assessment, Target Needs

Analysis.

5

[1] Kampala University; In-service Evaluation Report, September 2009CHAPTER I

1.0 Introduction

In 1955, the Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki graduated from Makerere

University with a First Class degree in Economics. He returned home a

hero. He had a successful carrier as the Finance Minister which later

propelled him to take the highest office of the President of Kenya. Four

years after Kibaki, former Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa joined

the same university and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in

English in 1962.

 

Between them, the two men became precursors to hundreds of

thousands of bright students from their two countries seeking what

was then seen as an elite education in Uganda.

Uganda is currently devouring in the massive demand for education

and it’s currently the largest recipient of East African students and this

is not restricted to tertiary level of education. Although Uganda sends

about 100 students to the rest of East Africa, according to a NCHE

2007 report[2] by the Ministry of Education, that same report shows that

the country actually hosts up to 40,000 East African students in several

schools.

The quest for higher education in Uganda has been greatly intensified

by massive applications by International students. Ugandan

Universities have continued to receive foreign students from East

6

Africa and beyond. This move is attributed to several reasons including

low fees, peace and stability, better facilities and studying in English.

A Rwandese parent, Mrs. Marie Chantal Kwizera, who has three

children at Kampala University, says she opted for Ugandan education

after sensing that her children will have better employment

opportunities in the current Anglophone Rwanda.

She adds that she also finds the cost of education in Uganda lower.

“The charges of some of the high quality Universities in Uganda are

just half what good quality Universities like Universite Nationale Du

Rwanda charge for the same quality education,” Mrs. Marie Chantal

Kwizera said.

Uganda currently boasts of having over 30 Universities [3] and among

these, several have the majority of the students originating from the

different neighboring countries. Most of these International students

come from backgrounds where English Language is not a Lingua

Franca or language of Education.

1.1 Background of the Study

The English Language has consistently gained momentum as more

countries continue to acquire and integrate it as either an official

Language or a Language of Business and Education. The current

globalization of the English Language has initiated the English

Language in most, even remote, areas of the world. The rise to

independent thinking, crave for democracy and justice, love for

creativity and innovation and the drive towards stable politics has been

associated with the acquisition of English Language.

7

[2] NCHE, 2007. A summary Report on Higher Education Delivery and Instruction.

In Africa, countries which have prompted their people to have a good

command of English have probably assimilated other aspects of the

western cultures as well. This is because the process of acquiring the

English Language in Africa has tended to be overwhelmingly through a

formal system of western style of education.

African scholars continue to regard the lack of seriousness about

knowledge in African Language as perfectly justifiable. The situation at

the beginning of the new millennium continues to lend credibility to the

claim by Mazrui and Tidy (1984:314) that;

“Recommendation about paying more attention to African

Languages, systematically building up their vocabulary for

certain new areas of national life, and integrating them more

fully into the educational system have often encountered either

silent skepticism among black intellectuals and scholars of

outright derision.”

Further study confirms that intellectual and scientific dependency in

Africa is virtually inseparable from linguistic dependency. And since a

major function of culture lies in providing media of communication, the

choice of English as a medium of instruction in ‘Anglophone’ African

academies has had profound cultural consequences for the societies

which are served by those educational institutions.

The English Language was therefore envisaged to become the Trans –

ethnic’s language of Africa. Neither the Pan- African Movement, nor the

African Union has been conceivable without resort to the English

Language. The pressure to formalize the East African Federation has

resulted into changing the Language policies of countries such as

Rwanda and Burundi from Francophone to Anglophone. This move is

also juxtaposed with fundamental change in the aspects of social

8

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_Uganda

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_Uganda.

development, political stability and a promising environment of

democracy.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Uganda has kept its education standards that were initially introduced

in the 1890s at the advent of colonial rule. The country’s education

system rests on the foundation of the British syllabus. This firm

foundation has prompted the neighbouring countries to marvel at the

consistence and sustainability of this positive colonial trend.

Countries like Kenya and Tanzania, which had similar colonial masters,

had drastic changes during their cessation from colonial rule thus

ushering in other languages such as Kiswahiri. Other sovereigns in the

region, including Rwanda and Burundi, which are in the East African

Federation, tried to keep their colonialist’s languages, such as French,

until recently.

According to the statistical abstract, 2007 (UBOS) many International

students, mainly from neighbouring countries, have joined Uganda’s

Educational Institutions. Though other factors can be sited in the

analysis of this trend, the factor of the English Language as a medium

of communication in Uganda’s Education System intrigues the

researcher and prompts this research.

To date, there has been no empirical investigation of the

communicative needs of International students hailing from countries

where English is not a medium of communication. Therefore, teaching

in English for second and third language learners of the English

language is far from satisfactory in terms of customizing University

courses. When the specific language needs are not defined basing on

language use, learners will end up disappointed with the language

9

proficiency level, regardless of the effort that they put into their

specialized courses. On the other hand, the effort of education

administrators and Ugandan lecturers would lack focus if the English

language needs are not defined in terms of language use.

In order to contribute empirical data to the language learning use and

learning in Uganda education, this study investigates the English

language communicative needs of a targeted group of learners in

higher institution of learning with many International students by

investigating their targeted needs in the learning environment and

future plans.

The language situation in the selected campuses in this study reflects

the need for ESL International students to have a high level of

proficiency in the English language since they deal with a large number

of English speaking lecturers and fellow students at the University.

The hope of this study is to provide empirical information about the

uses of English in the University which, in return, can be used as an

input to feed the larger structure of the ESL International students in

language training and on-study bridge courses to cater for their

language inefficiencies.

1.3 Objectives of Study

The major objective of the study is to investigate the English language

communicative needs for Foreign Students in higher institution of

learning.

Specific objectives of this study include but not exactly limited;

a) To examine the values of using English as a language of instruction

10

b) To evaluate the relevance of the English Language in University

education.

c) To assess the application of English language in the different

University courses; including Business Studies and Information

Technology.

d) To justify the need of studying English while in Uganda for all

International students who have deficiencies in the English Language.

1.4 Research Questions

1- To what extent is the English language used in the courses offered

at Kampala University.

a. What is the perceived percentage of using English at Ggaba

and Mutundwe Campuses?

c. Does communication with other fellow students require the

usage of English?

2- What level of the reading, writing, listening and speaking skills of

the English language are required in the University and for performing

what kind of activities?

a. Which of the skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) is

more emphasized in the University?

b. What kind of activities are these skills used for?

3- Do International students feel that they were prepared in terms of

their English language ability to meet their current communication

needs?

11

a. How do you perceive your English language ability before and

after you joined Kampala University?

b. Do you think it is relevant to take the English language

courses at the University?

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Overview

The most durable and credible institution for the development and

implementation of language is an educational institution. Just as every

individual has the right to be educated, so must it be the general

concern of every democratic community to help develop the

educational potential of every single one of its members (Swain, 1980).

The forms, mechanisms and processes involved are manifold.

Language education is for life. It begins at the latest with the dawning

of consciousness and ends at the earliest with the end of

consciousness.

The reflective and interactive functions of language acquisition and

language education are characterised by longevity. They occur

principally, but not exclusively, in our homes, our institutions, at our

place of work, in privacy and in retirement (Snow, C., 2000).

Language education, whether driven by self or by others, is an

indispensable part of any and all human activity. It enables, facilitates

and promotes all spheres of human endeavour, in particular: creativity;

the invention, reception, absorption, transmission, discussion and

12

development of new concepts; the articulation of ideas, dispositions,

opinions and emotions; expressiveness; social interaction; political

activity; negotiation and transactions; communication (Donato, R.

2000).

It is therefore no mistake that individuals in search of their destiny and

determined to impact their communities, have always sought out

proper instruction in language and communication skills.

Kampala University main campus, Gaba is a cradle of a cosmopolitan

students’ body hence making it a multilingual community. The campus

harbours students of different nationalities including those from Kenya,

Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, DR of Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria and

the native Ugandans. (KU, Management meeting, 2010) Without bias

or favour, all these categories receive the same services and they are

required to fulfill the same obligations depending on their respective

educational levels and course requirements.

Kampala University Mutundwe Campus is well known for Nursing

Training. However it is also a haven to one of the biggest program of

the University which is more known as ‘The Kenyan In-service

Program’. This program accumulates more that 1000 students from

Kenya, (KU. Evaluation Report April 2009), who utilize the holidays to

upgrade their educational status. Most of these students are already

practicing teachers and hope to advance in positions if they upgrade.

Most of the Kenyan Students are more inclined to the Kiswahili

language which is more developed in there country.

The language issue in the University reached its climax when the

University managed to attract a considerable number of students from

13

both Rwanda and Somalia, where the English Language is not a first or

second language.

2.1 The Language situation of Today’s World

Every language, including our own native languages, is the most

important language of the world - to its speakers. Rather than

"important" we shall here, therefore, use the world "influential" in its

stead. Luganda in Uganda is a very influential language to Baganda, no

doubt about it, but is it more so than English? Clearly not. The number

of speakers is relevant but quite insufficient for a meaningful ranking

of languages in order of current world-wide influence, the stress being

on the word "world-wide"(Table 1). There are many other factors to be

taken into account and this is what we shall attempt to do in the

following.

Ranking the world's current top languages is not just an idle past-time.

(Table 2) The world is growing closer and this historical development is

matched by large-scale linguistic adjustments, the most dramatic of

which being the explosive growth of the English language (Table 2.3).

It does matter how major languages stand and evolve in relation to

each other. Like the weather, many developments make sense only if

one looks at the world-wide picture, not just parochial bits of it (George

W., 1995).

What does "influential" mean in this context? Each language carries

considerable cultural, social, historical and psychological baggage.

(Table 2.2) As anyone who has ever had to learn a foreign language

knows, doing so in many ways alters one's attitudes and world view. To

what extent, in what form and how deeply such changes actually

manifest themselves in the individual learner depends on many

factors, the circumstances that have led to the decision to learn the

14

foreign language, the learner's character, intelligence, education and

background.

Table 1. Distribution of languages by area of origin

Area Living

languages Number of speakers

Count Percent Count Percen

t Mean Median

Africa 2,110 30.5 726,453,403 12.2 344,291 25,200Americas 993 14.4 50,496,321 0.8 50,852 2,300Asia 2,322 33.6 3,622,771,264 60.8 1,560,194 11,100Europe 234 3.4 1,553,360,941 26.1 6,638,295 201,500Pacific 1,250 18.1 6,429,788 0.1 5,144 980 Totals 6,909 100.0 5,959,511,717 100.0 862,572 7,560

Table 2. Distribution of languages by number of first-language speakers

Population range Living languages Number of speakersCount

Percent

Cumulative

CountPercen

tCumulat

ive100,000,000 to 999,999,999

8 0.1 0.1%2,308,548,848

38.73721

38.73721%

10,000,000 to 99,999,999

77 1.1 1.2%2,346,900,757

39.38076

78.11797%

1,000,000 to 9,999,999

304 4.4 5.6%951,916,458

15.97306

94.09103%

100,000 to 999,999 895 13.0 18.6%283,116,716

4.7506798.84170%

10,000 to 99,9991,824

26.4 45.0%60,780,797

1.0199099.86160%

1,000 to 9,9992,014

29.2 74.1% 7,773,810 0.1304499.99204%

100 to 9991,038

15.0 89.2% 461,250 0.0077499.99978%

10 to 99 339 4.9 94.1% 12,560 0.0002199.99999%

1 to 9 133 1.9 96.0% 521 0.00001100.00000%

Unknown 277 4.0 100.0%

Totals6,909

100.05,959,511,717

100.00000

15

Table 2.2. Languages with at least 3 million first-language speakers

Rank Language Primary CountryTotal

Countries

Speakers(millions)

1 Chinese [zho] China 31 1,213  Chinese, Gan [gan] China 1 20.6  Chinese, Hakka [hak] China 17 30.0  Chinese, Huizhou [czh] China 1 4.6  Chinese, Jinyu [cjy] China 1 45.0

 Chinese, Mandarin [cmn]

China 20 845

  Chinese, Min Bei [mnp] China 2 10.3

 Chinese, Min Dong [cdo]

China 7 9.1

  Chinese, Min Nan [nan] China 10 47.3

 Chinese, Min Zhong [czo]

China 1 3.1

  Chinese, Wu [wuu] China 2 77.2  Chinese, Xiang [hsn] China 2 36.0  Chinese, Yue [yue] China 20 55.52 Spanish [spa] Spain 44 3293 English [eng] United Kingdom 112 3284 Arabic [ara] Saudi Arabia 57 221

 Arabic, Algerian Spoken [arq]

Algeria 6 22.4

 Arabic, Egyptian Spoken [arz]

Egypt 10 54.0

 Arabic, Gulf Spoken [afb]

Iraq 10 3.6

 Arabic, Hijazi Spoken [acw]

Saudi Arabia 2 6.0

 Arabic, Libyan Spoken [ayl]

Libya 3 4.3

 Arabic, Mesopotamian Spoken [acm]

Iraq 5 15.1

 Arabic, Moroccan Spoken [ary]

Morocco 10 21.0

 Arabic, Najdi Spoken [ars]

Saudi Arabia 7 10.0

  Arabic, North Syria 16 14.4

16

Rank Language Primary CountryTotal

Countries

Speakers(millions)

Levantine Spoken [apc]

 Arabic, North Mesopotamian Spoken [ayp]

Iraq 4 6.3

 Arabic, Sa'idi Spoken [aec]

Egypt 1 19.0

 Arabic, Sanaani Spoken [ayn]

Yemen 1 7.6

 Arabic, South Levantine Spoken [ajp]

Jordan 9 6.2

 Arabic, Sudanese Spoken [apd]

Sudan 6 16.8

 Arabic, Ta'izzi-Adeni Spoken [acq]

Yemen 8 7.1

 Arabic, Tunisian Spoken [aeb]

Tunisia 5 9.4

5 Hindi [hin] India 20 1826 Bengali [ben] Bangladesh 10 1817 Portuguese [por] Portugal 37 1788 Russian [rus] Russian Federation 33 1449 Japanese [jpn] Japan 25 122

10German, Standard [deu]

Germany 43 90.3

11 Javanese [jav] Indonesia 5 84.612 Lahnda [lah] Pakistan 8 78.3  Panjabi, Western [pnb] Pakistan 7 62.6  Seraiki [skr] Pakistan 3 13.813 Telugu [tel] India 10 69.814 Vietnamese [vie] Viet Nam 23 68.615 Marathi [mar] India 5 68.116 French [fra] France 60 67.817 Korean [kor] Korea, South 33 66.318 Tamil [tam] India 17 65.719 Italian [ita] Italy 34 61.720 Urdu [urd] Pakistan 23 60.621 Turkish [tur] Turkey 36 50.822 Gujarati [guj] India 20 46.523 Polish [pol] Poland 23 40.0

17

Rank Language Primary CountryTotal

Countries

Speakers(millions)

24 Malay [msa] Malaysia 14 39.1  Malay [zlm] Malaysia 7 10.325 Bhojpuri [bho] India 3 38.526 Awadhi [awa] India 2 38.327 Ukrainian [ukr] Ukraine 27 37.028 Malayalam [mal] India 11 35.929 Kannada [kan] India 3 35.330 Maithili [mai] India 2 34.731 Sunda [sun] Indonesia 1 34.032 Burmese [mya] Myanmar 5 32.333 Oriya [ori] India 2 31.734 Persian [fas] Iran 29 31.4  Farsi, Eastern [prs] Afghanistan 3 7.6  Farsi, Western [pes] Iran 27 23.935 Marwari [mwr] India 3 31.1  Dhundari [dhd] India 1 9.0  Marwari [rwr] India 3 5.6  Merwari [wry] India 1 3.9  Shekhawati [swv] India 1 3.036 Panjabi, Eastern [pan] India 12 28.237 Filipino [fil] Philippines 1 25.038 Hausa [hau] Nigeria 13 25.039 Tagalog [tgl] Philippines 8 23.940 Romanian [ron] Romania 20 23.441 Indonesian [ind] Indonesia 6 23.242 Dutch [nld] Netherlands 12 21.743 Sindhi [snd] Pakistan 8 21.444 Thai [tha] Thailand 5 20.445 Pushto [pus] Pakistan 9 20.3  Pashto, Central [pst] Pakistan 1 7.9  Pashto, Northern [pbu] Pakistan 7 9.746 Uzbek [uzb] Uzbekistan 14 20.3  Uzbek, Northern [uzn] Uzbekistan 12 18.847 Rajasthani [raj] India 3 20.0  Hadothi [hoj] India 1 4.7  Malvi [mup] India 1 10.448 Yoruba [yor] Nigeria 6 19.449 Azerbaijani [aze] Iran 17 19.1  Azerbaijani, North [azj] Azerbaijan 10 7.5

18

Rank Language Primary CountryTotal

Countries

Speakers(millions)

 Azerbaijani, South [azb]

Iran 8 12.6

50 Igbo [ibo] Nigeria 1 18.051 Amharic [amh] Ethiopia 6 17.552 Chhattisgarhi [hne] India 1 17.553 Oromo [orm] Ethiopia 4 17.3

 Oromo, Borana-Arsi-Guji [gax]

Ethiopia 3 3.8

  Oromo, Eastern [hae] Ethiopia 1 4.5

 Oromo, West Central [gaz]

Ethiopia 2 8.9

54 Assamese [asm] India 4 16.855 Serbo-Croatian [hbs] Serbia 28 16.4  Croatian [hrv] Croatia 14 5.5  Serbian [srp] Serbia 22 7.056 Kurdish [kur] Iraq 32 16.0  Kurdish, Central [ckb] Iraq 2 3.7

 Kurdish, Northern [kmr]

Turkey 32 9.3

 Kurdish, Southern [sdh]

Iran 2 3.0

57 Cebuano [ceb] Philippines 2 15.858 Sinhala [sin] Sri Lanka 8 15.659 Rangpuri [rkt] Bangladesh 2 15.060 Thai, Northeastern [tts] Thailand 1 15.061 Zhuang [zha] China 2 14.962 Malagasy [mlg] Madagascar 4 14.7  Malagasy, Plateau [plt] Madagascar 4 7.563 Nepali [nep] Nepal 5 13.964 Somali [som] Somalia 13 13.965 Khmer, Central [khm] Cambodia 7 13.666 Madura [mad] Indonesia 2 13.667 Bavarian [bar] Austria 4 13.368 Greek [ell] Greece 38 13.169 Chittagonian [ctg] Bangladesh 1 13.070 Haryanvi [bgc] India 1 13.071 Magahi [mag] India 1 13.072 Deccan [dcc] India 1 12.873 Hungarian [hun] Hungary 14 12.5

19

Rank Language Primary CountryTotal

Countries

Speakers(millions)

74 Fulah [ful] Senegal 19 12.3  Pulaar [fuc] Senegal 6 3.7

75Catalan-Valencian-Balear [cat]

Spain 18 11.5

76 Shona [sna] Zimbabwe 5 10.877 Zulu [zul] South Africa 6 10.378 Sylheti [syl] Bangladesh 10 10.379 Quechua [que] Peru 6 10.1

 Quechua, South Bolivian [quh]

Bolivia 2 3.6

80 Kanauji [bjj] India 1 9.581 Czech [ces] Czech Republic 12 9.582 Lombard [lmo] Italy 3 9.183 Bulgarian [bul] Bulgaria 16 9.184 Uyghur [uig] China 15 8.885 Nyanja [nya] Malawi 6 8.786 Belarusan [bel] Belarus 16 8.687 Kazakh [kaz] Kazakhstan 14 8.388 Swedish [swe] Sweden 8 8.389 Akan [aka] Ghana 1 8.390 Xhosa [xho] South Africa 3 7.891 Bagheli [bfy] India 2 7.892 Haitian [hat] Haiti 10 7.793 Konkani [kok] India 4 7.6  Konkani [knn] India 2 4.0  Konkani, Goan [gom] India 3 3.694 Rwanda [kin] Rwanda 4 7.595 Gikuyu [kik] Kenya 1 7.2

96Napoletano-Calabrese [nap]

Italy 1 7.0

97 Baluchi [bal] Pakistan 8 7.0  Balochi, Southern [bcc] Pakistan 4 3.498 Ilocano [ilo] Philippines 2 7.099 Varhadi-Nagpuri [vah] India 1 7.0100 Turkmen [tuk] Turkmenistan 14 6.6101 Tatar [tat] Russian Federation 19 6.5102 German, Swiss [gsw] Switzerland 5 6.5103 Hmong [hmn] China 10 6.5104 Armenian [hye] Armenia 30 6.4

20

Rank Language Primary CountryTotal

Countries

Speakers(millions)

105 Luba-Kasai [lua]Democratic Republic of the Congo

1 6.3

106 Venetian [vec] Italy 4 6.2107 Santali [sat] India 4 6.2108 Vlaams [vls] Belgium 5 6.1109 Sotho, Southern [sot] Lesotho 4 6.0110 Thai, Northern [nod] Thailand 2 6.0111 Lambadi [lmn] India 1 6.0

112 Kongo [kon]Democratic Republic of the Congo

3 6.0

  Koongo [kng]Democratic Republic of the Congo

3 5.0

113 Albanian [sqi] Albania 18 5.8  Albanian, Gheg [aln] Serbia 9 4.2  Albanian, Tosk [als] Albania 10 3.0114 Tigrigna [tir] Ethiopia 6 5.8115 Hiligaynon [hil] Philippines 2 5.8116 Mongolian [mon] Mongolia 6 5.7

 Mongolian, Peripheral [mvf]

China 2 3.4

117 Kashmiri [kas] India 4 5.6118 Danish [dan] Denmark 8 5.6119 Minangkabau [min] Indonesia 1 5.5120 Sukuma [suk] Tanzania 1 5.4121 Hebrew [heb] Israel 8 5.3122 Mòoré [mos] Burkina Faso 7 5.1123 Slovak [slk] Slovakia 12 5.0124 Finnish [fin] Finland 7 5.0125 Mewati [wtm] India 1 5.0126 Afrikaans [afr] South Africa 12 4.9127 Guarani [grn] Paraguay 5 4.9

 Guaraní, Paraguayan [gug]

Paraguay 2 4.8

128 Mainfränkisch [vmf] Germany 1 4.9129 Rundi [run] Burundi 4 4.9130 Bikol [bik] Philippines 1 4.8

21

Rank Language Primary CountryTotal

Countries

Speakers(millions)

131 Sicilian [scn] Italy 1 4.8132 Norwegian [nor] Norway 1 4.6133 Mandingo [man] Guinea 8 4.5134 Tswana [tsn] Botswana 4 4.5135 Thai, Southern [sou] Thailand 1 4.5136 Tajiki [tgk] Tajikistan 8 4.5137 Dholuo [luo] Kenya 2 4.4138 Georgian [kat] Georgia 13 4.3

139 Kituba [ktu]Democratic Republic of the Congo

1 4.2

140 Ganda [lug] Uganda 1 4.1141 Sotho, Northern [nso] South Africa 2 4.1142 Umbundu [umb] Angola 2 4.0143 Wolof [wol] Senegal 6 4.0144 Kamba [kam] Kenya 1 4.0145 Kanuri [kau] Nigeria 6 4.0  Kanuri, Central [knc] Nigeria 6 3.2146 Domari [rmt] Iran 14 4.0147 Musi [mui] Indonesia 1 3.9148 Dogri [doi] India 1 3.8149 Mina [myi] India 1 3.8150 Tsonga [tso] South Africa 4 3.7151 Bemba [bem] Zambia 4 3.6152 Banjar [bjn] Indonesia 2 3.5153 Aceh [ace] Indonesia 1 3.5154 Bugis [bug] Indonesia 2 3.5155 Bali [ban] Indonesia 1 3.3156 Shan [shn] Myanmar 3 3.3157 Gilaki [glk] Iran 1 3.3158 Mazanderani [mzn] Iran 1 3.3

159Jamaican Creole English [jam]

Jamaica 7 3.2

160 Galician [glg] Spain 2 3.2161 Lao [lao] Laos 7 3.2162 Lithuanian [lit] Lithuania 19 3.2

163Tamazight, Central Atlas [tzm]

Morocco 3 3.2

164 Kabyle [kab] Algeria 3 3.1

22

Rank Language Primary CountryTotal

Countries

Speakers(millions)

165 Hassaniyya [mey] Mauritania 8 3.1166 Éwé [ewe] Ghana 2 3.1167 Piemontese [pms] Italy 3 3.1168 Makhuwa [vmw] Mozambique 1 3.1169 Godwari [gdx] India 1 3.0170 Hunsrik [hrx] Brazil 5 3.0171 Kimbundu [kmb] Angola 1 3.0172 Tachelhit [shi] Morocco 3 3.0

Table 2.3. A hierarchy of Lingua Francas.

23

Table 2.4. Rise and fall of major languages: the historical

dimension.

24

2.2 English as a Global Language

25

Generally, English is a global language, but it has no official status, and

it will never have. (Table 2.3) The reasons for the position of English

are the imperialism and economical and political importance of

English-speaking countries. Linguistically, English is extremely

unsuitable for international communication, and the actual wide use of

English tends to polarize the world into Internet users and Internet

illiterates. (Table 2.6)

The position of English can only be altered by major world-scale

political and economical changes, such as increasing importance of the

European Union or a coalition between Japan and China. Such powers

might wish and be able to promote a language other than English,

possibly a constructed language, for international communication.

Alternatively, or in addition to this, the technology of machine

translation may allow people to use their own language in international

communication.

2.2.1 The World English Language situation

Professor Suzanne Kemmer of Rice University accounted for the origin

of English Language, but the most important revelation in her book

was the analysis of the English Language as a language that marks

important invention and development in the whole world (Kemmer,

1997). The most important development that has great concern to the

spread of English through out the world was Christianity. (Brown, Peter,

2003).

English spread through out the world in the light of redemption and

salvation. Although Africa got its share of this development in the 1st

or early 2nd century AD, the impact of English language, as intensified

by Christianity was realized in the 19th Century. (Masuzawa, 2005).

26

Many African nations, south of Sahara, embraced the religion and its

medium. However, there was considerable modification of the English

Language brought by the missionaries. This modification was basically

a result of first language influence and culture.

The English spoken as a foreign language by several African countries,

including Uganda has recognizable differences with what can be called

‘original English’. That is why A. Meghani, one of the renowned Kenyan

critic stated that;

“Strictly speaking, English cannot be called English at all, since it is a

universal language belonging to all. It is difficult to understand why it is

still known under that horrible name, it should have another name.’ [4]

Meghani thus sought legitimacy for particularistic varieties of English –

including black ones – by appealing to its universality.

Alexander Crummel, the pioneer Pan-Africanist, saw that African

languages were lacking clear ideas of justice, law, human rights and

governmental order which are prominent and manifest in civilized

countries’ (crumell,1969:20), he proceeds to outline the many

progressive credentials of English. In his words;

“…the English language is characteristically the language of freedom. I

know that there is a sense in which this love of liberty is brought in the

very fibre and substance of the body and blood of all people, but the

flames burn dimly in some races; it is a fitful fire in some others; and in

many inferior people it is the flickering light of a dying candle. But in

the English races it is an ardent, healthy vital, irrepressible flame, with

all normal and orderly in its development.” (Crumell, 1969:23)

All African countries that managed to maintain English in there

respective systems, either by making English an official or national

27

[4] The East African Standard. (Nairobi) Febuary15, 1965).

Language, associate it with several virtues. Crumell therefore stated

that;

“Once more I remark that the English language is the enshrinement of

those great charters of liberty which are essential elements of free

government and the main guarantees of personality liberty. I refer now

to the right of trial by jury, the peoples’ right to participation in

government, freedom of speech and the press, the right of petition,

freedom of religion and these are special characteristics of the English

language.” (Crumell 1969:25)

Uganda takes pride from its consistence in the use of English as both

an official and national language. This precedent projects Uganda as a

fully Anglophone country in the region. The consistence of the English

Language in Uganda is attributed to the fact that English is the

language of instruction at all levels of education. (MoE&S, 2007). The

outstanding achievements realized in Uganda and the region, over a

period of time, including; the emergency of Africa’s outstanding

political activists such as Milton Obote, Benjamin Mkapa and currently

Yoweri Museveni; in addition to renowned academicians like, Prof.

Mahmood Mamdan, Prof. Ali Mazrui, Okot bitet and Thoban Lo Liyongo

has raised the status of the country’s education system.

Chart I.

28

2.2.2Foreign Languages in Education

The growing internationalisation of human relationships makes the

teaching of foreign languages more and more necessary. But at the

same time it reveals, sometimes in a particularly glaring manner, its

inadequacies.

In order to remedy these, quantitative measures to extend existing

possibilities are essential in many countries. In a general way, the

number of individuals benefiting from foreign language instruction

should be increased. This demand concerns countries in the course of

development where this instruction is not always part of the curriculum

teaching and where a considerable quantitative effort must still be

made. (Joachim (2005)

29

In almost all countries an extension of the hours and the length of the

courses is also desirable, as well as the reduction of the number of

students per class, a simple common sense measure for the teaching

of a subject, one of the principle aims of which is communication.

Table 2.5

Table 2.6.

30

2.2.3English Language communication in Uganda

The English Language in Uganda is organized both as the language of

education as well as the officially recognized National Language. The

language acquired the symbolic function of representing the unity of

the state in addition to its function of ensuring a mutual and common

communication network within the state.

Unlike in other neighbouring countries, like Tanzania, Uganda’s

language policy does not prohibit the use of non-official languages

from public spheres. Native languages are also encouraged as subject

areas in the curriculum of Uganda’s Education at all levels.

The Uganda Cultural Policy clearly stipulates that the different native

ethnicities in Uganda have the freedom to promote their respective

values and cultures. Since language is the vehicle for cultures through

sensitization and practice, several native languages have managed to

develop and sustain despite of their unofficial state.

The Ministry of education and Sports in the Uganda government

recently approved and called for immediate implementation of the

“Thematic curriculum” in all Primary Schools. The thematic curriculum

prescribes the studying of elementary courses in Primary Schools in

native languages. Despite the past stronghold of the English Language

in Uganda’s education sector since colonial time, this practice has

been welcomed, though with mixed feeling from the stakeholders

(teachers, learners and parents).

However, the bottom line significant factor for its implementation and

that is, to ensure that learners study in their first languages for

effective learning could not be challenged by any of the stakeholder.

31

2.3 Conceptual Frame work.

From The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, by David Crystal

The English Language used in communication can best be described by

the geographical orientation of the speakers. The picture above

confirms the magnitude on the spread of English across the world. But

despite the different diversions, all Englishes stem from one source

and that is why it can be studied in schools. English Language learning

encompasses the critical study of the World Standard English in

comparison with the geographical English in our respective areas of

origin.

32

2.4 Definition of Key Terms.

International/ Foreign Students

These are students in the Uganda Education system but not

necessarily natives of Uganda. In others words, they are students

taking their education in Uganda yet their nationalities are not Uganda.

Education

Education in the broadest sense is any act or experience that has a

formative effect on the mind, character or physical ability of an

individual.

Global Language

A world language is a language spoken internationally, which is

learned by many people as a second or third language.

English as a Second Language

This refers to the use or study of English by speakers with a different

native language.

Lingua Franca.

A lingua franca is a language systematically used to communicate

between persons not sharing a mother tongue, distinct from both

people’s mother tongues.

33

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

This chapter presents details about the methodology adopted and

elaborates the chosen research philosophy, approach and strategy

used and the reasons for their selection. Further, this chapter describes

the sample population and how the primary data was collected and

processed. It also describes the secondary data collection for the

literature review. This chapter further explains the data collection tool

and highlights validity, authenticity and reliability of the data collected.

This chapter is divided into five parts. The first part gives an overview

about different methods in conducting needs analysis. The second part

describes the tools, setting and participants of the study. The third part

describes the process of developing the questionnaire. The fourth part

discusses the piloting and validation process. The last part describes

the data collection process.

3.1 Overview

Robinson (1991) lists a number of different methods for conducting

needs analysis. These include questionnaires, interviews, case studies,

tests, and authentic data collection (e.g. analyzing actual manuals and

written assignments). Jordan (1997) adds to these methods advanced

documentation (e.g. requesting extra information that includes

educational background, previously attended courses, and other

relevant aspects), language tests at home, self-assessment, class

progress tests, direct monitoring, structured interviews, learner diaries,

previous research comparisons, and follow up investigations.

34

In all, the methods that can be used in needs analysis are highly

varied. However, the most widely used methods are case studies,

interviews and questionnaires (West, 1994).

A case study is a thorough method to investigate a learner’s

communication needs. It provides a close examination of what the

learner needs to learn based on his/her personal language ability.

However, the drawback of this approach is that it is not cost effective.

It requires a long period of time and it is not able to produce statistical

and generalizable data.

Interviews are another method to utilize in a language needs

investigation. Interview protocols usually contain open-ended

questions aimed at guiding the subjects’ responses. These give the

researcher a wide variety of different responses that give a sense of

the perceived language needs. However, the disadvantage of this

approach is that the interpretation of the open-ended questions might

not represent the intention of the subject. The subject also might be

influenced in a face to face interview to give answers that satisfy the

researcher. Moreover, in order to achieve a statistical generalization,

the researcher needs to interview a large number of subjects which

can be costly and time consuming.

For these reasons, the majority of studies in needs analysis use

questionnaires as the primary method of data collection. Jordan (1997)

indicates that the use of questionnaires is most convenient when

dealing with large scale of data collection. Questionnaires enable the

researcher to collect data from a large number of subjects in a short

period of time. However, their main drawback is that the subjects

might misinterpret the questions. Thus, it is crucial to pretest

questionnaires before the distribution process. Another drawback is

35

that the response rate can be low, especially when the questionnaire is

mailed to the subjects rather than distributed and collected in person.

In all, Jordan (1997) indicates that there is no single approach to

conduct needs analysis.

Every researcher has different circumstances that influence the choice

of method in conducting his/her investigation. It falls to the researcher

to choose the method that best serves his/her goals and

circumstances.

Questionnaires were determined to be the best means of investigation

in this study. They were selected as the source of data collection for

the following reasons.

1- The number of participants was expected to be fairly large.

2- They require minimal time from participants and provide a flexible

and convenient way to participate in the study.

3- Participants could be assured of a certain degree of anonymity in

their responses and could respond candidly.

3.2 Setting and Participants

As stated earlier, Kampala University admits a good number of

multinational and multilingual students'. According to the Academic

Registrar’s report, Uganda students represent only 38% of students

and 62% for International at Ggaba and Mutundwe. When looking at

the sites where the data was collected, of the 2191 students only 787

(38.7%) were Ugandans. All lecturers and support staff are either

trained in English or hired in part because they are proficient in

English. As a result English comes as a natural choice in

communication. This represents a unique situation where English is

used as a lingua franca.

36

Since the goal of this study is to provide empirical data for the English

language communicative needs of foreign students in Institutions of

Higher Learning in Uganda, the sample population focused on

International students in the Kampala University who were admitted on

different courses including education, Business studies, Informational

Technology, as well as those on Language studies. The sample

population was selected from two campuses in Kampala University in

order to cover a good percentage of International students.

The literature on conducting questionnaires in second language

research indicates that there is no rule in setting the optimal sample

size. However, Dornyei (2003) indicates three major guidelines to

determine an appropriate sample size:

1- Having 1% to 10% of the targeted population is adequate to

represent an accurate sample of the population.

2- The return rate with voluntary questionnaires is between 20% to

50%.

3- L2 studies based on questionnaires need a minimum of 100

respondents to reach statistical significance.

The researcher first obtained data on the number of International

students admitted in Kampala University in order to have an idea

about the complexity of the English Language situation in the

University. The figures indicate that the two campuses collectively

admit approximately 900 students per year.

A letter was sent to the Deputy Academic Registrars offices at these

campuses asking about the number of International students admitted.

The letter also asked about the number of international employees and

the Language that the campuses uses as the tool of communication

when conducting educational activities.

37

The responses indicated that these campuses admit a total of 920

International Students. This figure gave the researcher an indication

that the number of International Students would be adequate to carry

out a reliable study.

To sum up, the sample for this investigation consisted of International

Students registered for different courses (Education, Business Studies

and Information Technology) but also including Language Studies.

Participants were International students from Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia,

Tanzania, Sudan and Burundi at Ggaba and Mutundwe Campuses.

3.2.1: Research Tools

3.2.1.1: Testing

Kampala University made it mandatory for all International Students,

who come from countries where English is not a Lingua Franca, to

undertake a test as one requirement of entry into the University. With

the help of the administration, the researcher formulated and

administered two Aptitude Tests to these special International students

during the August 2009 and February 2010 intakes.

The tests included five sections, four of them examined the four basic

English Language skills of writing, reading, speaking and listening. The

fifth section examined basic grammar. The exercise included reading

extracts, listening to recorded speeches and writing original

compositions among others.

3.2.1.2: Interviews

The researcher selected a sample of compliant International students

whom he used to carry out his extensive interviews. Among these

where the International Students Leaders and students course

38

coordinators. The sample was used to monitor and ascertain oral skills

competence and other general information that would be necessary in

the research. Students’ leaders were very open and cooperative with

hope that they comrades will benefit from this research.

3.2.1.3. Questionnaires

The biggest percentage of the data collected in this research was

collected through questionnaires. The following section gives the

description of the nature of questionnaire employed in this research

3.3 Developing the Questionnaire

Questionnaire design for this study followed common principles of

designing questionnaires in second Language research (e.g. Dornyei,

2003; Jordan, 1997; Brown 1995; Oppenheim, 1992). Previous

literature in needs analysis that has similar goals and purposes was

also consulted (e.g. Al-Gorashi, 1988; Zainol Abidin, 1992; Al-Bazzaz,

1994; and Almulhim, 2001). The questionnaire was designed in four

parts (see Appendix C).

3.3.1Part one

The first part consisted of participant biographical data. It was

necessary for the purposes of this research to obtain biographical

information about the respondents for two reasons. First, providing

information about course and specialty ensured that participants were

indeed serving within the education community. Any questionnaire

filled out by anyone from outside the domain of the intended

population was disregarded. Second, information about the year of

admission helped to confirm the information.

3.3.2 Part two

39

The second part of the questionnaire was designed to provide data to

answer the first research question:

What percentage of your course is conducted in English?

In order to answer this question, four sub-questions were designed.

The first sub-question sought information about the overall perceived

percentage of using English during the course study. Item 7 of the

questionnaire represented this question.

The second sub-question sought information about the usage of

English at campus. Items 8 and 9 of the questionnaire represented this

question. Item 8 required a yes/no answer and item 9 asked the

respondents to circle the language used.

The third sub-question sought information about usage of English with

other students at campus. Items number 10 and 11 of the

questionnaire represented this sub question. Item number 10 used a

yes/no answer and item number 11 used a Likert-type scale providing

four choices (e.g. “a lot,” “somewhat,” “a little” and “never”).

The last sub-question in this part sought information about the

perceived importance of using English as a tool of communication to

conduct the course. The purpose of this question was to analyze the

relation between participants’ extent of usage and perceived

importance of usage.

Item number 12 of the questionnaire represented this sub-question

which used Likert-type scale providing four choices (e.g. “very

important,” “somewhat important,” “little importance” and “not

important”).

3.3.3Part three

40

This part of the questionnaire was designed to provide data to answer

the second research question: What level of the reading, writing,

listening and speaking skills of the English language are required in the

University and for performing what kind of activities?

Two sub-questions were designed. The first sub-question sought

information about which of the four English Language skills are

emphasized at the University. Information about the four skills was

important to compare and contrast their usage in the respective

course studies.. Items number 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 presented this

sub-question. The first four items used a Likert-type scale providing

four choices (e.g. “excellent level,” “good level,” “satisfactory level”

and “N/A”). Item 17 of the questionnaire asked the respondents to rank

the importance of the four skills that they evaluated in the previous

questions. This item gives an overall estimate of the emphasized skill

at the University and it is also used as a cross-check question since the

answer to this question should be presumably consistent with the

answers to the previous four questions.

Dornyei (2003) indicates that a good questionnaire uses a cross-check

question to inform the researcher about the reliability of his

respondents. If the answer to this question were not consistent with

the previous four questions, the inconsistency would hint that the

respondents were not paying attention to the questions and they were

answering carelessly.

The second sub-question sought information about the degree of the

perceived importance of each of the four skills (listening, speaking,

reading, and writing) in various course related activities. Choosing

these activities was not an easy task. It was infeasible to ask the

respondents to have or generate a list of their own activities due to

41

time limitations and possible problems with reliability. Since no

previous investigation of educational English needs had been done in

any University, the researcher generated a list of possible activities.

The list was then presented to the two campuses for feedback. All

activities were perceived as relevant to the educational field and one

new activity was added to the list. To account for any other

unanticipated activities, the researcher left a blank at the end of the

activities and asked respondents to write down any additional activity

that they thought was relevant. Item 18 of the questionnaire

represented these activities. To rank the importance of the language

skills in each activity, a scale from 1 to 5 was used, with 1 representing

most important and 5 represented least important. It would have been

more logical for 5 to represent the most important value, but since all

the Likert-type scales used throughout the questionnaire started with

the highest value, reversing the order might have confused the

respondents.

3.3.4Part four

The last part of the questionnaire was designed to provide data to

answer the third research question:

Do International students feel that they were prepared in terms of their

English language ability to meet their current communication needs?

This research question had two sub-questions. The first one sought

information about perceived English language ability before and after

University. Items 19 and 22 represented this sub-question. Both items

used a Likert-type scale providing four choices; “very good,”

“satisfactory,” “poor” and “very poor.” Choosing the values for the

Likert-type scale presented a concern. The original idea was to use

“excellent” as the highest value.

42

However, previous studies in Uganda indicate that most students

graduate from high school with a poor knowledge of English (Ministry

of Education and Sports, 1994). Therefore, “very good” was assigned

as the highest value to maximize the scale of responses.

The last sub-question sought information about the relevance of the

University English language courses taken by ESL Foreign students.

This sub-question is represented by item number 21 which also used a

Likert-type scale providing four choices; “a lot,” “somewhat,” “a little”

and “not relevant at all.”

Table 3.1 summarizes the research questions with their sub-questions

and their related Questionnaire items.

Table 3.1Chart of research questions, sub-questions, and questionnaire items

Research questions Sub-questions with questionnaire items

1- To what extent is English language used in the course offered at Kampala University?

1- What is the perceived percentage of using English in your course? (item 7 in the questionnaire)

2- Does your stay at campus require the usage of English? (item 8 and 9 in the questionnaire)

3- Does communication with other students require the usage of English? (items 10 and 11 in the questionnaire)

4- Does your course perceive English as an important tool of communication?

(item 12 in the questionnaire)

1- Which of the skills (reading,

43

2- What level of the reading, writing, listening and speaking skills of the English Language are required and for performing what kind of activities?

writing, listening and speaking) is more emphasized in your course?(items 13,14, 15, 16, 17 in the questionnaire)

2- What kind of activities are the four skills used for? (item 18 in the questionnaire)

3- Do International students feel that they were prepared in terms of their English language ability to meet their current communication needs?

1- How do you perceive your English language ability before and after you joined Kampala University?

a. Do you think it is relevant to take the English language courses at the University?

(item 21 in the questionnaire)

3.4 Piloting and Validation

The questionnaire was designed in English and translated into French

and Kiswahiri before piloting. The participants answered the Kiswahiri

and French version of the questionnaire only. The questionnaire

consisted of four pages and was designed to be answered within

twenty minutes. Dornyei (2003) indicates that the optimal length of a

questionnaire in second language research is three to four pages. It

should not exceed a 30-minute completion limit.

While designing the questionnaire, the researcher paid special

attention to the layout of the questionnaire in terms of fonts, spacing,

and paper quality. Oppenheim (1992) argues that the professional

quality of the layout can give a good impression about the

questionnaire, which in turn affects the quality of the responses.

Dornyei (2003) indicates that respondents can be reluctant to give

honest answers about opinions and perceptions. However, respondent

44

confidentiality can encourage honesty and willingness to disclose.

Therefore, the questionnaire was designed to avoid individually

identifiable information. The respondents were not required to write

their names. Moreover, the cover page (see Appendix A) told

participants that the data was to be used for research and academic

publication purposes only and that all responses would be held

confidential. The cover page also included the researcher’s email in

case respondents wished to provide additional feedback.

The cover page of the questionnaire was used as an implied consent

form. The researcher requested the Academic Registrar’s Office at

Kampala University to waive the requirement of having the

respondents sign their names. This request was for the following

reasons:

1- The cover page of the questionnaire clearly stated “Please note that

by completing this questionnaire you agree that the researcher is

allowed and permitted to use the information that you provide for

research and publication purposes only.”

2- The study was designed to be anonymous. Respondents’ signed

names would have eliminated the anonymity of the questionnaire.

3- All the respondents were adults and participation was voluntary. The

questionnaire did not ask about sensitive data. Therefore, the

information elicited from the data reflected minimal risk on the

respondents.

4- Data collection was conducted in Kampala University, Uganda. From

a cultural point of view, participants might have been reluctant to

respond if they had been asked to sign their names.

After translating the first draft of the questionnaire, it was sent to three

Kishwahiri and French linguists (Institute of Language, Makerere

45

University). They looked at the Kiswahiri, French and English versions

of the questionnaire and provided feedback in terms of clarity and

translation.

Next the questionnaire was piloted to check its validity, reliability, and

applicability.

Piloting ensured that:

1- The questions were related to the respondents’ field of study.

2- The activities were related to their course activities.

3- The questions were clear and easy to read.

4- The time taken to answer the questionnaire was reasonable.

5- All items were easy to understand.

6- The researcher also elicited other comments from pilot respondents

on the general design of the questionnaire.

The researcher designed a page of evaluative questions for pilot

respondents based on the above criteria. The Kiswahiri and French

version of the questionnaire along with the evaluation page was sent

to five different Linguists in the education field. These professionals

were asked to respond to the questionnaire and then complete the

evaluation page (Table 3.1).

Responses to the evaluative questions went as follows:

1- All respondents indicated that the questions were related to their

field of study.

2- One respondent added additional activities to the comment section.

3- All respondents indicated that the questions were clear and easy to

read.

4- Four respondents answered the questionnaire within 20 minutes and

only one respondent answered the questionnaire in 26 minutes.

Dornyei (2003) and Oppenheim (1992) indicate that 20 minutes is a

46

suitable time for a successful questionnaire. Since the average time

taken to answer the questionnaire among all respondents was within a

time frame of twenty minutes, the length of the questionnaire was

deemed acceptable.

5- All respondents indicated that they understood all items.

6- In the comment section of the evaluation, no one respondent

commented on the questionnaire.

After the completion of the pilot study, all necessary modifications

were made in order to meet the requirements of a reasonable and

sound design.

Table 3.2

Evaluation chart for the pretesting phase of the questionnaire

Respondent #

Respondent # 2

Respondent # 3

Respondent # 4

Respondent # 5

Do you think all the questions are relevant to your field of study?

Yes Yes Yes Yes (very much)

yes

Do you think the activities in part 3 are related to your course activities?

Yes Yes Yes Yes and I added other ones

yes

Are the questions clear and easy to read?

Yes Yes Yes yes yes

How long did it take you to finish the questionnaire

8 minutes 15 minutes 15 minutes 26 minutes 17 minutes

Is there any item that you

No No No no no

47

did not understand?Do you have any other observations about the questionnaire?

No I wish you good luck

No No Good luck with your dissertation.

3.5 Data Collection

Data was collected from the following campuses in Kampala University:

Ggaba (Main) Campus and Mutundwe Campus.

In August, 2009, the researcher contacted the selected campuses to

ask their permission to distribute the questionnaire and the protocol to

do so. The officials asked the researcher to write a letter of request

containing the nature and purpose of the study along with a copy of

the questionnaire. After doing so, the campuses sent the researcher

letters of permission to distribute the questionnaires (see Appendix B).

On September 14th, 2009, the researcher made 787 copies visited both

campuses and explained the nature of the study to the acting Deputy

academic Registrars at both campuses. The researcher gave

clarifications that the questionnaires were to be given to the respective

student leaders. They played the role of distributing them among their

peers. The cover page of the questionnaire also contained written

explanation about the nature of the study. (Appendix A)

The researcher made a daily follow up to each campus in order to

ensure the maximum possible response rate. The researcher went to

each campus to collect questionnaires from the campuses at the

beginning of December, 2009. The researcher received the

questionnaires back on December 17, 2009. A total of 787

questionnaires were distributed. Out of these 787 questionnaires, 259

48

came back which represents a response rate of 32.9%. Out of the 259

received questionnaires, 34 were disregarded due to incomplete

answers or non qualified respondents (e.g. respondents who were

lecturers or support staff). This brought the total number of usable

forms to 225 questionnaires or 28.5% of ESL international Students at

the study sites.

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to present and analyze the collected

data from the sample population. The chapter is divided into four

parts. The first part introduces the method used in data analysis. It

also gives an idea about each group of respondents in terms of the

countries they come from and the educational fields that they belong

to. The second part of this chapter presents the results of the first

research question, the third part presents the results of the second

research question, and the last part presents the results of the third

research question. For each research question, the frequencies and

percentages of the responses are tabulated at the end of each related

part.

4.1 Results

The questionnaire used in collecting data in this study contained 22

items. Some of the items were subdivided into different attributes. In

analyzing the data, first the responses for each questionnaire item

were manually coded in a Microsoft Excel document. Then, a statistical

package (SPSS) was used to generate the frequencies and percentages

for each coded item.

Frequencies and percentages were calculated for each group of

respondents (Kenyans and Rwandans) and for the entire sample

population.

49

The usable questionnaires were filled out by 225 respondents. 202

respondents were from Kenya, 7 respondents were from Tanzania, 14

respondents were from Rwanda, and 2 respondents who did not

indicate any country. The vast majority of the respondents were from

Kenya 89.7 % of the sample population. This result was expected since

the study coincided with the Kenyan In-service program at Mutundwe.

In regard to the education fields of the respondents, 131 respondents

were doing education, 44 respondents were taking Business studies,

36 Information Technology, 12 respondents were doing Language

education, and 2 respondents did not indicate their specialty.

Education courses (apart from Language education) represented more

than half of the sample population (58.2 %) followed by Business

Studies (19.5 %), Information Technology (16 %), and Language

Education (5.3 %).

Chart 2.1 represents the percentages of each profession in the sample

population.

Given the proportion of these fields in retrospect to the number of

students from Kampala University in the school academic of 2006-

2007, it appears that education students were somewhat under-

represented. Business studies and Information Technology were

somewhat over-represented and the proportion of Language students’

was relatively similar to their proportion among recent admissions of

the University. Chart 2.2 represents these numbers and percentages.

Chart 2.1

Distribution of professions in the sample population

50

Chart 2.1 Admission Kampala University’ two Campuses

4.1.1Results of the First Research Question

The results of the data from item 7 to item 12 of the questionnaire

provide answers to the first research question:

To what extent is the English language used in the courses offered at

Kampala University?

51

Table 4.1 represents an overview of the first research question along

with its sub questions and questionnaire items.

In regard to item 7 of the questionnaire, the respondents were asked

to provide a percentage of using English at the University. The

participants’ perceptions were varied. Their perceived percentage of

English use was as low as 20% (perceived by one respondent

representing less than 1 % of the sample population) and as much as

100% (perceived by 10 respondents representing 4.5 % of the sample

population). The perceived percentage of the majority of respondents

was in the range of 50% to 95% (perceived by 190 respondent

representing 70.3 % of the sample population). Table 4.2 represents

these percentages.

However, the mean value of using English at the University among all

participants was 77.3%. When looking at the average percentage for

each profession separately, Education students’ average perception

was 87.8 % (from 131 respondents), Business students average

perception was 70.2 % (from 36 respondents), IT students average

perception was 67.09 % (from 44 participants), and Language students

average perception was 84.8 % (from 12 participants). These results

show that while the perceived perception of English use varies

somewhat by profession, there is an agreement among all respondents

that the English language is used extensively in the University and

plays an important role in all of the respondents’ area of specialization.

The data indicate that University students in all fields use the English

language extensively and therefore they need a high command of the

English language to perform their course.

In item 8 of the questionnaire (Table 4.3), the respondents were asked

to indicate the Language used in University training. Out of the 47

respondents, indicated that the Language used is English. Only five

respondents indicated that the Kiswahiri language is used and four

52

respondents indicated that French language is used. This shows that

the majority (80.4%) of these respondents use the English language as

the tool of communication when taking University training.

The next two items of the questionnaire were related. Item 10 sought

information to point out a certain group of respondents in order to

elicit certain information through item 11 regarding the nature of their

course. The purpose of these two questions was to compare their

results with the previous results to determine the use of the English

Language in the campuses.

Accordingly, Item 10 of the questionnaire (Table 4.4) asked about

whether the respondents have coursements who communicate only in

the English Language. 161 respondents (71.6%) reported that their

campuses include coursements who only communicate in English.

Based on that, Item 11 of the questionnaire (Table 4.5) asked how

often the nature of the course requires the respondent to communicate

with coursements who only communicate in English.

This question implemented a Likert scale with the following values: “a

lot,” “somewhat,” “a little” and “never.” In their response to this

question, 99 (61.9%) of the 161 respondents who indicated that their

campuses includes coursements who only communicate in English,

reported that they communicate “a lot” with these coursements. 52

respondents (32.5 %) reported that they communicate “somewhat”

with their English-only coursements. 8 respondents (5.0 %) reported

that they communicate a little and only one respondent (0.6 %)

reported that he/she never communicate with coursement who speak

English only. This shows that the majority of the respondents

communicate heavily with coursements using the English language.

53

Item 12 of the questionnaire (Table 4.6) asked how important is it to

have a high level of English proficiency to perform the course. In their

response to this question, 164 (72.9 %) reported that English is “very

important” to perform the course effectively. 51 respondents (22.7%)

reported that English is “somewhat important” and nine respondents

(4.0%) reported that English is “of little importance”. Only one

respondent (0.4%) reported that English is “not important” to perform

the course effectively.

In conclusion, when comparing the previous results, it is obvious that

the English Language is not only used extensively at the campus, but

also plays an important role in the professional study life of the

respondents.

Table 4.1

First research question and its sub-questions

Research question Sub questions with questionnaire items

To what extent is the English Language used in the course you were offered at Kampala University?

1- What is the perceived percentage of using English in your course? (item 7 in the questionnaire)

2- Do you use English at the University? (item 8 and 9 in the questionnaire)

3- Do your coursements include students who communicate in English only? (items 10 and 11 in the questionnaire)

4- Do course requirements perceive English as an important tool of communication?

(item 12 in the questionnaire)

54

Table 4.2Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the perceived

percentage of using English on the course.

Perceived percentage

frequency

%

20%25%30%40%45%50%55%60%65%70%73%75%77%78%80%81%85%87%88%89%90%93%94%95%97%98%99%99.99%100%

1248110293251191137131121321112124110

0.40.91.83.60.44.50.94.01.311.20.48.50.40.416.50.413.80.40.90.414.30.40.45.40.40.91.80.44.5

Mean = 77.35Total responses = 224

Missing = 1

55

Table 4.3Distribution of frequencies and percentages languages used at the University by ESL students.

Language Frequencies %Kiswahiri 5 10.86English 37 80.43both 4 8.69

Total responses = 46Missing = 1

Table 4.4Distribution of frequencies and percentages of having people on the

course who communicate in English only

responses frequency %yes 161 71.6no 64 28.4

Total responses = 225Missing = 0

Table 4.5Distribution of frequencies and percentages of communicating with

people on the course who communicate in English only

responses frequency %A lot 99 61.9Some what 52 32.5A little 8 5.0Never 1 0.6

Total responses = 160Missing = 1

Table 4.6Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the importance of having a high a level of English proficiency to perform the course

effectively

Responses frequency %Very important 164 72.9Somewhat important

51 22.7

56

Little importance 9 4.0Not important 1 0.4

Total responses = 225Missing = 0

4.1.2Results of the Second Research Question

The results of the data from item 13 to item 18 of the questionnaire

provide answers to the second research question (Table 4.7):

What level of English Language reading, writing, listening and speaking

skills of the English language are required in the course, and for

performing what kind of activities?

Items 13,14,15,16 and 17 of the questionnaire sought information

about which of the Language skills (reading, writing, listening, and

speaking) is more emphasized in the course.

Item 18 of the questionnaire sought information about the kind of

activities that the four skills are used for.

Items 13 to 16 are concerned with the listening skills, speaking skills,

reading skills, and writing skills respectively. The respondents were

asked about the level of proficiency of each skill that would enable

them to perform their course effectively. These four questions about

the language skills implemented a Likert scale with the following

values “excellent level,” “good level,” “satisfactory level”, and “N/A.”

In item 13 concerned with listening skills (Table 4.8), 141 (62.7 %) of

the respondents indicated that they need an “excellent level” of

listening skills to perform their courses effectively.

Many others reported that they need a “good level” of listening skills

(68 respondents, 30.2 %).

57

The rest of the respondents (15 participants, 6.7 %) indicated that a

“satisfactory level” is required. Only one respondent reported that

listening skills in English were not required at all.

These results for listening skills were also broken down by profession.

For Language students (Table 4.9), 61 % indicated that they need an

“excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course effectively.

33.5 % indicated that they need a “good level” and 4.5 % indicated

that they need a “satisfactory level.” Only one indicated that listening

skills were not required at all.

For Education students (Table 4.10), 80 % indicated that they need an

“excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course effectively

and 25 % indicated that they need a “good level.”

For Business (Table 4.11), 58.3 % indicated that they need an

“excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course effectively.

33.3 % indicated that they need a “good level” and 8.3 % indicated

that they need a “satisfactory level.”

For IT Students (Table 4.12), 68.1% indicated that they need an

“excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course effectively.

18.1 % indicated that they need a “good level” and 13.6 % indicated

that they need a “satisfactory level.”

In item 14 concerned with speaking skills (Table 4.13), 132 (58.7%)

indicated that they need an “excellent level” of speaking skills to

perform their course effectively (58.7%). 68 respondents (30.3%)

indicated that a “good level” is needed. The rest of the respondents

indicated that a “satisfactory level” is required (23 participants, 10.2

58

%) and only two respondents reported that English speaking skills are

not required (less than 1.0 %).

These results for speaking skills were also broken down by profession.

For education Students (Table 4.15), 52.6 % indicated that they need

an “excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course

effectively. 35.1 % indicated that they need a “good level” and 11.4 %

indicated that they need a “satisfactory level.” Only one respondent

indicated that listening skills were not required at all.

For Business studies (Table 4.16), 50 % indicated that they need an

“excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course effectively

and 50 % indicated that they need a “good level.”

For Information Technology (Table 4.17), 77.7 % indicated that they

need an “excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course

effectively. 19.4 % indicated that they need a “good level” and only

one respondent indicated that a “satisfactory level” is needed.

For Language students (Table 4.18), 63.6 % indicated that they need

an “excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course

effectively. 18.1 % indicated that they need a “good level” and 15.9 %

indicated that they need a “satisfactory level.” Only one respondent

indicated that reading skills were not required at all.

In item 15 concerned with reading skills (Table 4.19), 156 (69.3%)

indicated that they need an “excellent level” of reading skills to

perform their course effectively. 50 respondents (22.2%) indicated that

a “good level” is needed. The rest of the respondents indicated that a

“satisfactory level” is required (16 participants, 7.1 %) and three

respondents reported that this skill is not required (1.3 %).

59

These results for reading skills were also broken down by profession.

For Education students (Table 4.20), 72.5 % indicated that they need

an “excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course

effectively. 21.3 % indicated that they need a “good level” and 5.3 %

indicated that they need a “satisfactory level.” Only one respondent

indicated that listening skills were not required at all.

For Business students (Table 4.21), 75 % indicated that they need an

“excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course effectively

and 25 % indicated that they need a “good level.”

For IT students (Table 4.22), 63.8 % indicated that they need an

“excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course effectively.

27.7 % indicated that they need a “good level” and 8.3 % indicated

that they need a “satisfactory level.”

For Language students (Table 4.23), 63.6 % indicated that they need

an “excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course

effectively. 18.1 % indicated that they need a “good level” and 13.6 %

indicated that they need a “satisfactory level.” Only two respondents

indicated that reading skills were not required at all.

In item 16 concerned with writing skills (Table 4.24), 131 (58.2%) of

the respondents indicated that they need an “excellent level” of

writing skills to perform their course effectively. 72 respondents

(32.0%) indicated that a “good level” is needed. The rest of the

respondents indicated that a “satisfactory level” is required (18

participants, 8.0%) and four respondents reported that this skill is not

required (1.8%).

60

These results for writing skills were also broken down by profession.

For Education students (Table 4.25), 51.9% indicated that they need an

“excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course effectively.

38.9 % indicated that they need a “good level” and 8.3% indicated that

they need a “satisfactory level.” Only one respondent indicated that

listening skills were not required at all.

For Business students (Table 4.26), 50% indicated that they need an

“excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course effectively

and 50 % indicated that they need a “good level.”

For IT students (Table 4.27), 80.5% indicated that they need an

“excellent level” of listening skills to perform their job effectively. 16.6

% indicated that they need a “good level” and only one respondent

indicated that a “satisfactory level” is needed.

For Language students (Table 4.28), 61.3 % indicated that they need

an “excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course

effectively. 18.1 % indicated that they need a “good level” and 13.6 %

indicated that they need a “satisfactory level.” Only three respondents

indicated that reading skills were not required at all.

Overall, the data show that the majority of participants believe that an

“excellent level” of all four skills is required to perform the course.

Reading skills were most frequently ranked as the skill that requires an

excellent level to perform the job (69.3 %). Listening skills were very

close with 62.7 %. Speaking skills and writing skills had a marginal

difference, with speaking skill receiving 58.7 % and writing 58.2 %.

These results show that a high command of English is needed in all

four skill areas. When breaking down the results by profession, the

61

results reflected the over all view in which a high command of all skills

is required.

Item 17 of the questionnaire (Table 4.29) was designed to cross check

the previous four items. In this item, the respondents were asked to

rank the four language skills in terms of their importance to conduct

their courses. 65 respondents (29.3 %) ranked listening skills as the

most important, 77 respondents (34.7 %) ranked it as the second most

important, 57 respondents (25.7%) ranked it third and 23 respondents

(10.4 %) ranked it fourth. 42 respondents (19.4 %) ranked speaking

skills as the most important, 65 respondents (30.1 %) ranked it as the

second most important, 58 respondents (26.9 %) ranked it third and 51

respondents (23.6 %) ranked it fourth.

In regard to reading skills, 110 respondents (49.5 %) ranked it as the

most important, 53 respondents (23.9 %) ranked it as the second most

important, 35 respondents (15.8 %) ranked it third and 24 respondents

(10.8 %) ranked it fourth. The final skill in this item was writing skills.

Nine respondents (4.2 %) ranked it as the most important, 31

respondents (14.5 %) ranked it as the second most important, 63

respondents (29.4 %) ranked it third and 111 respondents (51.9 %)

ranked it fourth. The results here showed that reading skills were

ranked first followed by listening skills. Speaking skills were ranked

third and writing skills were ranked fourth. These results are consistent

with the results of the previous question.

These results from item 17 of the questionnaire were also broken down

by profession.

For Language students (Table 4.30), 39 respondents (30 %) ranked

listening skills as the most important, 47 respondents (36.1 %) ranked

62

it as the second most important, 35 respondents (26.9 %) ranked it

third and nine respondents (6.9 %) ranked it fourth. 51 respondents

(39.2 %) ranked speaking skills as the most important, 33 respondents

(25.3 %) rank it as the second most important, 26 respondents (20 %)

ranked it third and 20 respondents (15.3 %) ranked it fourth.

In regard to the reading skill, 35 respondents (27.1 %) ranked it as the

most important, 36 respondents (27.9 %) ranked it as the second most

important, 32 respondents (24.8 %) ranked it third and 26 respondents

(20.1 %) ranked it fourth. The final skill in this item was writing skills.

46 respondents (36.2 %) ranked it as the most important, 17

respondents (13.3 %) ranked it as the second most important, 35

respondents (27.5 %) ranked it third and 29 respondents (22.8 %)

ranked it fourth.

For Education students (Table 4.31), six respondents (54.5 %) ranked

listening skills as the most important, two respondents (18.1 %) ranked

it as the second most important and three respondents (27.3 %)

ranked it fourth. five respondents (45.4 %) ranked speaking skills as

the most important, four respondents (36.3 %) rank it as the second

most important, one respondent (9 %) ranked it third and one

respondent (9 %) ranked it fourth. In regard to the reading skill, two

respondents (33.3 %) ranked it as the second most important, two

respondents (33.3 %) ranked it third and two respondents (33.3 %)

ranked it fourth. The final skill in this item was writing skills. One

respondent (16.6 %) ranked it as the second most important, three

respondents (50 %) ranked it third and two respondents (33.3 %)

ranked it fourth.

For Business Students (Table 4.32), ten respondents (27.7 %) ranked

listening skills as the most important, 12 respondents (33.3 %) ranked

63

it as the second most important, 12 respondents (33.3 %) ranked it

third and two respondents (5.5 %) ranked it fourth. 20 respondents

(55.5 %) ranked speaking skills as the most important, eight

respondents (22.2 %) rank it as the second most important, six

respondents (16.6 %) ranked it third and two respondents (5.5 %)

ranked it fourth.

In regard to the reading skill, six respondents (16.6 %) ranked it as the

most important, eight respondents (22.2 %) ranked it as the second

most important, eight respondents (22.2 %) ranked it third and 14

respondents (38.8 %) ranked it fourth. The final skill in this item was

writing skills. Eleven respondents (30.5 %) ranked it as the second

most important, nine respondents (25%) ranked it third and 16

respondents (44.4 %) ranked it fourth.

For IT students (Table 4.33), nine respondents (20.9 %) ranked

listening skills as the most important, 15 respondents (34.8 %) ranked

it as the second most important, ten respondents (23.2 %) ranked it

third and nine respondents (20.9 %) ranked it fourth. 32 respondents

(74.4 %) ranked speaking skills as the most important, eight

respondents (18.6 %) rank it as the second most important, two

respondents (4.6 %) ranked it third and one respondent (2.3 %) ranked

it fourth. In regard to the reading skill, one respondent (2.3 %) ranked

it as the most important, 19 respondents (44.1 %) ranked it as the

second most important, 14 respondents (32.5 %) ranked it third and

nine respondents (20.9 %) ranked it fourth. The final skill in this item

was writing skills. Two respondents (4.6 %) ranked it as the most

important, two respondents (4.6 %) ranked it as the second most

important, 16 respondents (37.2 %) ranked it third and 23 respondents

(53.4 %) ranked it fourth.

64

Question 18 of the questionnaire sought information about the

importance of English proficiency when performing some selected

activities. The participants were given thirteen activities, and they

were asked to rank the importance of having a high level of English

proficiency when using the language skills involved in each activity.

The activities were presented in a table format with Likert scales for

each relevant skill.

Item A (Table 4.34) of question 18 asked about the importance of

having a high level of proficiency in listening and speaking skills when

“dealing with lecturers.” In regard to listening skills, 30 respondents

(13.4 %) ranked it as the most (extremely) important, 17 respondents

(7.6 %) ranked it as the second most important, 26 respondents (11.6

%) ranked it third, 68 respondents (30.4 %) ranked it fourth and 83

respondents (37.1 %) ranked it fifth. For speaking skills, 24

respondents (10.8 %) ranked it as the most important, 16 respondents

(7.2 %) ranked it as the second most important, 27 respondents (12.1

%) ranked it third, 53 respondents (23.8 %) ranked it fourth and 103

respondents (46.2 %) ranked it fifth.

Item B (Table 4.35) of question 18 asked about the importance of

having a high level of proficiency in listening and speaking skills when

“dealing with coursements.” In regard to listening skills, 41

respondents (18.3 %) ranked it as the most important, 68 respondents

(30.4 %) ranked it as the second most important, 80 respondents (35.7

%) ranked it third, 28 respondents (12.5 %) ranked it fourth and 7

respondents (3.1 %) ranked it fifth. For speaking skills, 52 respondents

(23.4 %) ranked it as the most important, 53 respondents (23.9 %)

ranked it as the second most important, 81 respondents (36.5 %)

ranked it third, 27 respondents (12.2 %) ranked it fourth and 9

respondents (4.1 %) ranked it fifth.

65

(Table 4.36) of question 18 asked about the importance of having a

high level of proficiency in listening and speaking skills when having a

“phone conversation.” In regard to listening skill, 44 respondents (19.8

%) ranked it as the most important, 62 respondents (27.9 %) ranked it

as the second most important, 60 respondents (27.0 %) ranked it third,

44 respondents (19.8 %) ranked it fourth and 12 respondents (5.4 %)

ranked it fifth. For speaking skills, 47 respondents (21.4 %) ranked it as

the most important, 56 respondents (25.5 %) ranked it as the second

most important, 64 respondents (29.1 %) ranked it third, 44

respondents (20.0 %) ranked it fourth and 9 respondents (4.1 %)

ranked it fifth.

Item C (Table 4.37) of question 18 asked about the importance of

having a high level of proficiency in reading and writing skills when

dealing with “letters.” In regard to reading skills, 66 respondents (29.5

%) ranked it as the most important, 96 respondents (42.9 %) ranked it

as the second most important, 37 respondents (16.5 %) ranked it third,

17 respondents (7.6 %) ranked it fourth and 8 respondents (3.6 %)

ranked it fifth. For writing skills, 60 respondents (26.8%) ranked it as

the most important, 85 respondents (37.9 %) ranked it as the second

most important, 45 respondents (20.1 %) ranked it third, 23

respondents (10.3 %) ranked it fourth and 11 respondents (4.9 %)

ranked it fifth.

Item D (Table 4.38) of question 18 asked about the importance of

having a high level of proficiency in reading and writing skills when

dealing with “emails and faxes.” In regard to reading skills, 65

respondents (29.1 %) ranked it as the most important, 83 respondents

(37.2 %) ranked it as the second most important, 50 respondents (22.4

%) ranked it third, 13 respondents (5.8 %) ranked it fourth and 12

66

respondents (5.4 %) ranked it fifth. For writing skills, 63 respondents

(28.4 %) ranked it as the most important, 76 respondents (34.2 %)

ranked it as the second most important, 51 respondents (23.0 %)

ranked it third, 18 respondents (8.1 %) ranked it fourth and 14

respondents (6.3 %) ranked it fifth.

Item E (Table 4.39) of question 18 asked about the importance of

having a high level of proficiency in reading and writing skills when

dealing with “research.” In regard to reading skills, 116 respondents

(51.6 %) ranked it as the most important, 58 respondents (25.8 %)

ranked it as the second most important, 32 respondents (14.2 %)

ranked it third, 10 respondents (4.4 %) ranked it fourth and 9

respondents (4.0 %) ranked it fifth. For writing skills, 101 respondents

(45.5 %) ranked it as the most important, 65 respondents (29.3 %)

ranked it as the second most important, 36 respondents (16.2 %)

ranked it third, 10 respondents (4.5 %) ranked it fourth and 10

respondents (4.5 %) ranked it fifth.

(Table 4.40) of question 18 asked about the importance of having a

high level of proficiency in reading and writing skills when dealing with

“forms and applications.” In regard to reading skills, 74 respondents

(33.0 %) ranked it as the most important, 82 respondents (36.6 %)

ranked it as the second most important, 48 respondents (21.4 %)

ranked it third, 12 respondents (5.4 %) ranked it fourth and 8

respondents (3.6 %) ranked it fifth. For writing skills, 74 respondents

(33.0 %) ranked it as the most important, 81 respondents (36.2 %)

ranked it as the second most important, 49 respondents (21.9 %)

ranked it third, 10 respondents (4.5 %) ranked it fourth and 10

respondents (4.5 %) ranked it fifth.

67

Item F (Table 4.41) of question 18 asked about the importance of

having a high level of proficiency in reading and writing skills when

“using computers.” In regard to reading skills, 66 respondents (29.5 %)

ranked it as the most important, 86 respondents (38.4 %) ranked it as

the second most important, 48 respondents (21.4 %) ranked it third,

16 respondents (7.1 %) ranked it fourth and 8 respondents (3.6 %)

ranked it fifth. For writing skills, 70 respondents (31.4 %) ranked it as

the most important, 71 respondents (31.8 %) ranked it as the second

most important, 54 respondents (24.2 %) ranked it third, 21

respondents (9.4 %) ranked it fourth and 7 respondents (3.1 %) ranked

it fifth.

(Table 4.42) of question 18 asked about the importance of having a

high level of proficiency in the four language skills when dealing with

“instructions and explanations.” In regard to listening skills, 83

respondents (38.4 %) ranked it as the most important, 77 respondents

(35.6 %) ranked it as the second most important, 31 respondents (14.4

%) ranked it third, 21 respondents (9.7 %) ranked it fourth and 4

respondents (1.9 %) ranked it fifth. For speaking skills, 80 respondents

(37.2 %) ranked it as the most important, 69 respondents (32.1 %)

ranked it as the second most important, 43 respondents (20.0 %)

ranked it third, 19 respondents (8.8 %) ranked it fourth and 4

respondents (1.9 %) ranked it fifth. In regard to reading skills, 77

respondents (34.7 %) ranked it as the most important, 75 respondents

(33.8 %) ranked it as the second most important, 37 respondents (16.7

%) ranked it third, 26 respondents (11.7 %) ranked it fourth and 7

respondents (3.2 %) ranked it fifth. For writing skills, 66 respondents

(29.7 %) ranked it as the most important, 78 respondents (35.1 %)

ranked it as the second most important, 39 respondents (17.6 %)

ranked it third, 25 respondents (11.3 %) ranked it fourth and 14

respondents (6.3 %) ranked it fifth.

68

(Table 4.43) of question 18 asked about the importance of having a

high level of proficiency in the four language skills when participating

in “presentations.” In regard to listening skills, 101 respondents (46.5

%) ranked it as the most important, 69 respondents (31.8 %) ranked it

as the second most important, 21 respondents (9.7 %) ranked it third,

17 respondents (7.8 %) ranked it fourth and 9 respondents (4.1 %)

ranked it fifth. For speaking skills, 84 respondents (39.1 %) ranked it as

the most important, 75 respondents (34.9 %) ranked it as the second

most important, 33 respondents (15.3 %) ranked it third, 15

respondents (7.0 %) ranked it fourth and 8 respondents (3.7 %) ranked

it fifth. In regard to reading skills, 87 respondents (39.2 %) ranked it as

the most important, 71 respondents (32.0 %) ranked it as the second

most important, 34 respondents (15.3 %) ranked it third, 19

respondents (8.6 %) ranked it fourth and 11 respondents (5.0 %)

ranked it fifth. For writing skills, 75 respondents (33.8 %) ranked it as

the most important, 83 respondents (37.4 %) ranked it as the second

most important, 26 respondents (11.7 %) ranked it third, 26

respondents (11.7 %) ranked it fourth and 12 respondents (5.4 %)

ranked it fifth.

Item G of question 18 asked the respondents to write down any other

activity that they thought was important to conduct their course and to

evaluate the Language skills involved in that activity in terms of the

importance of having a high level of language proficiency. Only four

participants responded to this question. Two of the four mentioned that

they participate in “tests.” One of them ranked writing first, reading

second, speaking third, and listening fourth.

The other one ranked listening first, reading second, speaking third

and writing fourth. The third participant mentioned that he/she

69

participates in “continuous Language education.” This participant

indicated that he/she needs a high level of proficiency in the four skills.

The fourth participant mentioned that he/she participates in “advanced

studies.” This participant also indicated that he/she needs a high level

of proficiency in the four skills. However, since the number of

respondents who participated in this item of the questionnaire was

very limited, no generalizations can be made regarding the activities

that they mentioned.

It was expected that a limited number will answer item G of the

questionnaire since it requires the participants to put extra time and

effort to think of an activity that they conduct. As mentioned

previously, Dornyei (2003) and Oppenheim (1992) indicate that

participants in questionnaires tend to ignore questions that require

them to generate ideas especially when exceeding a 30-minute

completion limit.

Table 4.8Second research question and its sub-questions

Research question Sub question with questionnaire items

What level of the reading, writing, listening and speaking skills of the English language are required in the workplace and performing what kind of activities?

1- Which of the skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking) is more emphasized in your course? (items 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 in the questionnaire)

2- What kind of activities are the four skills used for?

(item 18 in the questionnaire)

70

Table 4.9Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the required level of proficiency in listening skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by all respondents

frequency %Excellent level 141 62.7Good level 68 30.2Satisfactory level 15 6.7N/A 1 0.4

Total responses = 225Missing = 0

Table 4.10Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the required level of proficiency in listening skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by Language students

Frequency %Excellent level 80 61.0Good level 44 33.5Satisfactory level 6 4.5N/A 1 0.7

Total responses = 131Missing = 0

Table 4.11Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the required level of proficiency in listening skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by Education Students.

Frequency %Excellent level 9 75Good level 3 25Satisfactory level 0 0N/A 0 0

Total responses = 12Missing = 0

Table 4.12Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the required level of proficiency in listening skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by Business Students

Frequency %Excellent level 21 58.3

71

Good level 12 33.3Satisfactory level 3 8.3N/A 0 0

Total responses = 36Missing = 0

Table 4.13Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the required level of proficiency in listening skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by IT Students

frequency %Excellent level 30 68.1Good level 8 18.1Satisfactory level 6 13.6N/A 0 0

Total responses = 44Missing = 0

Table 4.14Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the required level of proficiency in speaking skills to perform effectively as perceived by all respondents

frequency %Excellent level 132 58.7Good level 68 30.2Satisfactory level 23 10.2N/A 2 0.9

Total responses = 225Missing = 0

Table 4.15Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the required level of proficiency in speaking skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by Language Students

Frequency %Excellent level 69 52.6Good level 46 35.1Satisfactory level 15 11.4N/A 1 0.7

Total responses = 131Missing = 0

72

Table 4.16Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the required level of proficiency in speaking skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by Education Students

Frequency %Excellent level 6 50Good level 6 50Satisfactory level 0 0N/A 0 0

Total responses = 12Missing = 0

Table 4.17Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the required level of proficiency in speaking skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by Business Students

Frequency %Excellent level 28 77.7Good level 7 19.4Satisfactory level 1 2.7N/A 0 0

Total responses = 36Missing = 0

Table 4.18Distribution of frequencies percentages of the required level of proficiency in speaking skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by IT students

Frequency %Excellent level 28 63.6Good level 8 18.1Satisfactory level 7 15.9N/A 1 2.2

Total responses = 44Missing = 0

Table 4.19Distribution of frequencies percentages of the required level of proficiency in reading skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by all respondents.

frequency %

73

Excellent level 156 69.3Good level 50 22.2Satisfactory level 16 7.1N/A 3 1.3

Total responses = 225Missing = 0

Table 4.20Distribution of frequencies percentages of the required level of proficiency in reading skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by Language Students

frequency %Excellent level 95 72.5Good level 28 21.3Satisfactory level 7 5.3N/A 1 0.7

Total responses = 131Missing = 0

Table 4.21Distribution of frequencies percentages of the required level of proficiency in reading skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by Education Students

frequency %Excellent level 9 75Good level 3 25Satisfactory level 0 0N/A 0 0

Total responses = 12Missing = 0

Table 4.22Distribution of frequencies percentages of the required level of proficiency in reading skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by Education Students

frequency %Excellent level 9 75Good level 3 25Satisfactory level 0 0N/A 0 0

74

Tatol responses = 36Missing = 0

Table 4.23Distribution of frequencies percentages of the required level of proficiency in reading skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by all respondents.

frequency %Excellent level 28 63.6Good level 8 18.1Satisfactory level 6 13.6N/A 2 4.5

Total responses = 44Missing = 0

Table 4.24Distribution of frequencies percentages of the required level of proficiency in writing skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by all respondents

frequency %Excellent level 131 58.2Good level 72 32.0Satisfactory level 18 8.0N/A 4 1.8

Total responses = 225Missing = 0

Table 4.25Distribution of frequencies percentages of the required level of proficiency in writing skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by Language Students.

frequency %Excellent level 68 51.9Good level 51 38.9Satisfactory level 11 8.3N/A 1 0.7

Total responses = 131Missing = 0

Table 4.26

75

Distribution of frequencies percentages of the required level of proficiency in writing skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by Education Students

frequency %Excellent level 6 50Good level 6 50Satisfactory level 0 0N/A 0 0

Total responses = 12Missing = 0

Table 4.27Distribution of frequencies percentages of the required level of proficiency in writing skills to perform the course effectively as perceived by Business Students

frequency %Excellent level 29 80.5Good level 6 16.6Satisfactory level 1 2.7N/A 0 0

Total responses = 36Missing = 0

Table 4.28Distribution of frequencies percentages of the required level of proficiency in writing skills to perform the courses effectively as perceived by IT students.

frequency %Excellent level 27 61.3Good level 8 18.1Satisfactory level 6 13.6N/A 3 6.8

Total responses = 44Missing = 0

Table 4.29Distribution of frequencies percentages of ranking the importance of the four Language skills as perceived by all respondents

Listening skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %

76

65 29.3 77 34.7 57 25.7 23 10.4 Total responses = 225 Missing = 3

Speaking skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %42 19.4 65 30.1 58 26.9 51 23.6 Total responses = 225 Missing = 9

Reading skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %110 49.5 53 23.9 35 15.8 24 10.8 Total responses = 225 Missing = 3

Writing skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %9 4.2 31 14.5 63 29.4 111 51.9 Total responses = 225 Missing =11

Table 4.30Distribution of frequencies and percentages of ranking the importance of the four Language skills as perceived by Language Students

Listening skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %39 30 47 36.1 35 26.9 9 6.9 Total responses =131 Missing = 1

Speaking skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %51 39.2 33 25.3 26 20 20 15.3 Total responses = 131 Missing = 1

Reading skill

77

1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %35 27.1 36 27.9 32 24.8 26 20.1 Total responses = 131 Missing = 2

Writing skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %46 36.2 17 13.3 35 27.5 29 22.8 Total responses =131 Missing =4

Table 4.31Distribution of frequencies and percentages of ranking the importance of the four language skills as perceived by Education Students

Listening skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %6 54.5 2 18.1 0 0 3 27.2 Total responses = 12 Missing = 1

Speaking skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %5 45.4 4 36.3 1 9 1 9 Total responses = 12 Missing = 1

Reading skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %0 0 2 33.3 2 33.3 2 33.3 Total responses = 12 Missing = 6

Writing skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %9 4.2 31 14.5 63 29.4 111 51.9 Total responses = 12 Missing =6

78

Table 4.32Distribution of frequencies and percentages of ranking the importance of the four language skills as perceived by Business Students.

Listening skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %10 27.2 12 33.3 12 33.3 2 5.5 Total responses = 36 Missing = 0

Speaking skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %20 55.5 8 22.2 6 16.6 2 5.5 Total responses = 36 Missing = 0

Reading skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %6 16.6 8 22.2 8 22.2 14 38.8 Total responses = 36 Missing = 0

Writing skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %0 0 11 30.5 9 25 16 44.4 Total responses = 36 Missing =0

Table 4.33Distribution of frequencies and percentages of ranking the importance of the four language skills as perceived by IT students

Listening skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %9 20.9 15 34.8 10 23.2 9 20.9 Total responses = 44 Missing = 1

Speaking skill

79

1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %32 74.4 8 18.6 2 4.6 1 2.3 Total responses = 44 Missing = 1

Reading skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %1 2.3 19 44.1 14 32.5 9 20.9 Total responses = 44 Missing = 1

Writing skill1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rankfreq % freq % freq % freq %2 4.6 2 4.6 16 37.2 23 53.4 Total responses =44 Missing =1

Table 4.34Dealing with lecturers

listening speakingfrequency

% frequency %

Most important 30 13.4 24 10.8Second most 17 7.6 16 7.2Third 26 11.6 27 12.1Fourth 68 3.4 53 23.8Least important 83 37.1 103 46.2

Table 4.35Dealing with course ments

listening speakingfrequency

% frequency %

Most important 41 18.3 52 23.4Second most 68 30.4 53 23.9Third 80 35.7 81 36.5Fourth 28 12.5 27 12.2Least important 7 3.1 9 4.1

Table 4.36Phone conversation

listening speaking

80

frequency

% frequency %

Most important 44 19.8 47 21.4Second most 62 27.9 56 25.5Third 60 29.0 64 29.1Fourth 44 19.8 44 20.0Least important 12 5.4 9 4.1

Table 4.37Letters

Reading writingfrequency

% frequency %

Most important 66 29.5 60 26.8Second most 96 42.9 85 37.9third 37 16.5 45 20.1Fourth 17 7.6 23 10.3Least important 8 3.6 11 4.9

Table 4.38Emails and faxes

Reading writingfrequency

% frequency %

Most important 65 29.1 63 28.4Second most 83 37.2 76 34.2third 50 22.4 51 23.0Fourth 13 5.8 18 8.1Least important 12 5.3 14 6.3

Table 4.39Dealing with Research.

reading writingfrequency

% frequency %

Most important 116 51.6 101 45.5Second most 58 25.8 65 29.3third 32 14.2 36 16.2Fourth 10 4.4 10 4.5Least important 9 4.0 10 4.5

Table 4.40Forms and applications

Reading Writing frequenc % frequency %

81

yMost important 74 33.0 74 33.0Second most 82 36.6 81 36.2third 48 21.4 49 21.9Fourth 12 5.4 10 4.5Least important 8 3.6 10 4.5

Table 4.41Using computer

Reading Writing frequency

% frequency %

Most important 66 29.5 70 31.4Second most 86 38.4 71 31.8third 48 21.4 54 24.2Fourth 16 7.1 21 9.4Least important 8 3.6 7 3.1

Table 4.42Instructions and explanations

listening speaking reading writingfreq % freq % freq % freq %

Most important

83 38.4 80 37.2 77 34.7

66 29.7

Second most

77 35.6 69 32.1 75 33.8

78 35.2

third 31 14.4 43 20.0 37 16.7

39 17.6

fourth 21 9.7 19 8.8 26 11.7

25 11.3

Least important

4 1.9 4 1.9 7 3.2 14 6.3

Table 4.43Presentations

listening speaking reading Writingfreq % freq % freq % freq %

Most important

101 46.5 84 39.1 87 39.2

75 33.8

Second most

69 31.8 75 34.9 71 32.0

83 37.4

third 21 9.7 33 15.3 34 15.3

26 11.7

fourth 17 7.8 15 7.0 19 8.6 26 11.7

82

Least important

9 4.1 8 3.7 11 5.0 12 5.4

4.1.3Results of the Third Research Question

The results of the data from item 19 to item 22 of the questionnaire

provide answers to the third research question:

Do International students feel that they were prepared in terms of their

English Language ability to meet their current communication needs?

The questions in this part asked about participants’ language

experiences with the English language before they joined the course.

Table 4.44 represents an overview of the first research question along

with its sub-questions and questionnaire items.

Item 19 (Table 4.45) of the questionnaire asked the respondents to

rate their knowledge of the English language before they started

University. This question used a Likert scale with the following values:

“very good,” “satisfactory,” “poor”, and “very poor.” In their response

to this question, 42 respondents (18.7 %) reported that their

knowledge of English before they began University was “very good,”

131 respondents (58.2%) reported that their knowledge of English was

“satisfactory.” 42 respondents (18.7%) reported that their knowledge

of English was “poor” and 10 respondents (4.4 %) reported that their

knowledge of English was “very poor.”

Item 20 of the questionnaire asked the respondents how the English

language courses that they take in the University helped them in

different tasks. They were asked to rate six different tasks on a Likert

scale with the following values: “a lot,” “somewhat,” “a little”, and “did

not help at all.”

83

In regard to the first task (Table 4.45), 61 respondents (27.4 %)

reported that the English courses helped them “a lot” to “speak about

course related topics in English.” 113 respondents (50.7 %) reported

that the English courses helped them “somewhat.” 43 respondents

(19.3 %) reported that the English courses helped them “a little” and 6

respondents (2.7 %) reported that the English courses “did not help at

all.”

For the second task (Table 4.46), 50 respondents (22.3 %) reported

that the English courses helped them “a lot” to “write about their

course related topics in English.” 88 respondents (39.3 %) reported

that the courses helped them “somewhat.” 74 respondents (33.0 %)

reported that the courses helped them “a little” and 12 respondents

(5.4 %) reported that the courses “did not help at all.”

In the third task (Table 4.47), 53 respondents (23.8 %) reported that

the English courses helped them “a lot” to “read course related books,

articles, and magazines.” 91 respondents (40.8 %) reported that the

courses helped them “somewhat.” 65 respondents (29.1 %) reported

that the courses helped them “a little” and 14 respondents (6.3 %)

reported that the courses “did not help at all.”

In the fourth task (Table 4.48), 53 respondents (23.8 %) reported that

the English courses helped them “a lot” to “understand course related

instructions, lectures, and homework”. 100 respondents (44.8 %)

reported that the courses helped them “somewhat.” 61 respondents

(27.4 %) reported that the courses helped them “a little” and 9

respondents (4.0 %) reported that the courses “did not help at all.”

In the fifth task (Table 4.49), 34 respondents (15.3 %) reported that

the English courses helped them “a lot” to “translate course related

84

materials.” 84 respondents (37.8 %) reported that the courses helped

them “somewhat.” 83 respondents (37.4 %) reported that the courses

helped them “a little” and 21 respondents (9.5 %) reported that the

courses “did not help at all.”

In the last task (Table 4.50), 34 respondents (15.3 %) reported that the

English courses helped them “a lot” to “pass English language

examination.” 93 respondents (41.9 %) reported that the courses

helped them “somewhat.” 78 respondents (35.1 %) reported that the

courses helped them “a little” and 17 respondents (7.7 %) reported

that the courses “did not help at all.”

Item 21 of the questionnaire (Table 4.51) asked the respondents how

relevant the English Language courses that they took in University

were to their course needs. This question implemented a Likert scale

with the following values: “a lot,” “somewhat,” “a little,” and “not

relevant at all.” In their response to this question, 52 respondents

representing 23.9 % of the sample population reported that the

courses that they took at University were relevant “a lot” to their

course needs. 116 respondents (53.2%) reported that the courses were

“somewhat” relevant. 40 respondents (18.3%) reported that the

courses were “a little” relevant and only 10 respondents (4.6 %)

reported that the courses were “not relevant at all.”

Item 22 of the questionnaire (Table 4.52) asked the respondents to

rate their knowledge of the English language before they joined the

University. This question implemented a Likertscale with the following

values: “very good,” “satisfactory,” “poor,” and “very poor.” In their

response to this question, 104 respondent representing 47.5 % of the

sample population reported that their knowledge of English before they

joined University was “very good.” 108 respondents (49.3 %) reported

85

that their knowledge of English was “satisfactory.” 6 respondents (2.7

%) reported that their knowledge of English was “poor” and only 1

respondent (0.5 %) reported that his/her knowledge of English was

“very poor.”

In conclusion, the results for this part of the questionnaire revealed the

respondents’ perception of their English language experience before

they joined University and during their University study. The aim was

to get their overall perception of their experience with the English

language before joining the University. All these results along with the

other results from the previous research questions will be discussed in

the following chapter.

Table 4.44Third research question and its sub-questionsResearch question Sub question with

questionnaire items

Do Foreign students feel that they were prepared in terms of their English language ability to meet their current communication needs?

1. How do you perceive their English language ability before and while at University? (items 19 and 22 in the questionnaire)

2. Are the English language courses at the University relevant to the activities performed in the workplace? (Item 20 in the questionnaire)

Table 4.45 Distribution of frequencies and percentages of rating the knowledge of English before starting University.

Frequency %Very good 42 18.7Satisfactory 131 58.2Poor 42 18.7Very poor 10 4.4

86

Total responses = 225Missing = 0

Table 4.46Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the help gained from English Language courses at the University to “speak about course related topics in English”

Frequency %A lot 61 27.4Some what 113 50.7A little 43 19.3Did not help at all 6 2.7Total responses = 225Missing = 2

Table 4.47Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the help gained from English language courses at the University to “write about course related topics in English”

Frequency %A lot 50 22.3Some what 88 39.3A little 74 33.0Did not help at all 12 5.4

Total responses = 225Missing =1

Table 4.48Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the help gained from English Language courses at the University to “read course related books, articles, and magazines”

Frequency %A lot 53 23.8Some what 91 40.8A little 65 29.1Did not help at all 14 6.3

Total responses = 225Missing = 2

Table 4.49Distribution of Frequencies and Percentages of the Help Gained from English Language Courses at the University to “understand course related instructions, lectures, and homework”

87

Frequency %A lot 53 23.8Some what 100 44.8A little 61 27.4Did not help at all 9 4.0

Total responses = 225Missing = 2

Table 4.50Distribution of Frequencies and Percentages of the Help Gained from English Language Courses at the University to “translate course related materials”

Frequency %A lot 34 15.3Some what 84 37.8A little 83 37.4Did not help at all 21 9.5

Total responses = 225Missing = 3

Table 4.51Distribution of Frequencies and Percentages of the Help Gained from English Language Courses at the University to “pass English Language examination”

Frequency %A lot 34 15.3Some what 93 41.9A little 78 35.1Did not help at all 17 7.7

Total responses = 225Missing = 3

Table 4.52Distribution of Frequencies and Percentages of the Relevancy between the English Language Courses at the University and Course Needs

Frequency %A lot 52 23.9Some what 116 53.2A little 40 18.3

88

Did not help at all 10 4.6

Total responses = 225Missing = 3

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Introduction

This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part discusses the

findings of the research questions and draws implications. The second

part presents recommendations based on the results and provides

suggestions for future research.

5.1 Discussion and conclusions

5.1.1First Research Question;

To what extent is the English language used in the course offered at

Kampala University?

The respondents were asked about their perceived percentage of using

English in the University and about their perceived importance of

having a high level of English proficiency to perform their courses

Most respondents reported that they used English a high percentage of

the time to communicate in the course. The average estimate was

77.3%. It is obvious that the English Language plays an important role

in their education life. An important question in this regard is whether

English use varies in the different fields of the participants. The data

indicate that Language students’ average estimate was 87.8 %,

Education students’ estimate was 70.2 %, Business students’ estimate

89

was 67.09 %, and IT students’ estimate was 84.8 % (chart 3.1). In

other words, Language students and Education students believe they

use English more often than Business students and IT students.

Therefore, this difference in the amount of English used by students

should be reflected in Language courses at the University level.

The extent of English Language use is also reflected in the

respondents’ specialized courses (chart 3.2). In this highly specialized

situation, 80.4% of the respondents indicated as they study their

specialized courses, English is the only Language used. This indicates

that English is not only extensively used while they are communicating

with fellow students on campus, but is also crucial to the continuing

development of their education skills.

When respondents were asked whether they have coursements who

communicate in English only, 71.6% said “yes” which is a good

indication that English is used extensively. When these respondents

were asked how often the nature of the course requires them to

communicate with English speaking coursements, the majority of

respondents chose the highest available choice in the questionnaire “a

lot” representing 94.4 % (chart 3.3). This shows that the majority of

the respondents communicate heavily with coursements using the

English Language.

From this conclusion, the researcher can safely predict that

International students in Higher Institutions of Learning in Uganda find

themselves studying in a multilingual environment where English is

used extensively. This will require them to use the English Language as

their tool of communication in order to conduct their courses. Thus,

these data suggest that University English Language courses for

International students need to focus more on fluency and

90

understanding rather than accuracy and structure. Since this

environment also represents many multicultural as well as multilingual

situations with coursements from all around the world, cultural

interaction ought to be considered when designing a curriculum.

Finally, when respondents were asked about the importance of having

a high level of English proficiency to perform the courses (chart 5.4),

the majority of the respondents asserted that it is very important to

have a high level of English proficiency to perform the course. Only one

respondent indicated that English is not important at all. This

respondent was an IT student. While the respondent did not indicate

his/her exact specialty, one way of explaining his/her response is that

he/she might be performing a mechanical course that requires little

verbal communication.

When looking at responses in terms of professions, the majority of

respondents in all professions indicted that English is very important.

Nevertheless, 88.8% of Language students (chart 3.5) perceived

English as very important, 83.3% of Education students (chart 3.6)

perceived English as very important, 67.9% of Business students (chart

3.7) perceived English as very important, and 75.0% of IT students

(chart 3.8) perceived English as very important. This confirms the

previous discussion that Language students and Education students

use English more than in other courses at the University.

In conclusion, the results were consistent in pointing out heavy usage

of the English language in Ugandan University Education. This implies

that effective English language instruction is greatly needed to perform

the course effectively.

The following charts show these percentages.

91

Chart 3.1The perceived percentage of using English in the specialized courses

Chart 3.3 Communicating with other students in English

92

Chart 3.4The importance of English Language as perceived by all participants

93

Chart 3.5 The importance of the English Language as perceived by Language Students

Chart 3.6The importance of the English Language as perceived by Education Students

Chart 3.7

94

The importance of the English Language as perceived by Business Students

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

very important (67.9%)

somewhat important(29.7%)

little importance (2.2%)

Chart 3.8The importance of the English Language as perceived by IT Students

5.1.2Second Research Question:

95

What level of the reading, writing, listening and speaking skills of the

English Language are required in the course and for performing what

kind of activities?

The data show that there is considerable agreement among the

respondents about the relative importance of proficiency in English

reading, writing, speaking, and listening. For each of the four skills, an

“excellent level” received the majority of responses. This indicates that

a high command is needed in all skills. However, reading skills were

most often viewed as requiring an excellent level to perform the

course (69.3 %). Listening skills were very close at 62.7 %. Speaking

and writing skills were marginal lower (58.7 % and 58.2 %

respectively). Thus, receptive skills were perceived as a bit more

important than the productive skills to perform the course effectively.

Chart 3.9 illustrates these percentages of the perceived perception

towards the importance of the four skills.

The cross check question (item 17 of the questionnaire) where the

respondents were asked to rank the four skills in terms of their

importance, received similar responses. Reading was ranked as the

most important skill by 49.5 % of respondents followed by listening at

29.3 % and speaking at 19.4 %. Writing received 4.2 % as the least

important skill. Chart 3.10 represents these percentages of the cross

check question.

Since reading and listening are ranked more highly across items, it can

be concluded that proficiency in English receptive skills (reading and

listening) are perceived as more important than productive skills

(speaking and writing).

96

The study also looked at the English skill level needed to perform

specific course activities. These can be divided into three groups. The

first group is associated with the listening and speaking skills, the

second with reading and writing skills, and the third is associated with

all four language skills.

In regard to listening and speaking skills, three activities were

examined. The first was “dealing with lecturers.” Approximately two

thirds of the respondents placed a low value of importance in using the

listening and speaking skills to conduct this activity (67.5%

representing the lowest two degrees of the scale). In other words, the

respondents did not consider having a high level of English knowledge

to be important when dealing with lecturers. Some lecturers are

Kenyans who sometimes use Kiswahiri.

The second and third activities dealt with “dealing with colleagues”

and “phone conversations.” In these two activities, most of the

respondents placed a high degree of importance on listening (48.2 %)

and speaking (47.1 %) when dealing with colleagues or when having

phone conversations.

Chart 3.11 represents these percentages of the perceived perception

of these two activities. This implies that these two activities frequently

involve other speakers so require a high level of proficiency in English

listening and speaking. Thus, it suggests the potential importance of a

listening and speaking course at the University that contains dialogues

representing interaction with colleagues. Such dialogue should also

cover the particular demands of phone conversations when there are

no visual clues to aid comprehension instead of traditional courses in

listening and speaking that focus on pronouncing individual words.

97

In the group of activities associated with reading and writing skills, six

activities were examined. They were concerned with “letters,”

“memos,” “email and faxes,” “research,” “forms and applications” and

“using computers.” The vast majority of the respondents felt it was

important to have a high level of proficiency in reading and writing

skills to conduct these activities. This suggests that students at

University need to acquire a high level of the reading and writing skills

to be prepared for their professional lives. A point of consideration

when discussing these activities is the degree of importance that the

respondents placed on the reading and the writing skills of these

activities. Except for the activity of “dealing with forms and

applications”, the respondents always placed a higher level of

importance on reading skill.

This point is better illustrated when calculating the highest two values

in these seven activities where reading was perceived more important

and received 71.1 % of the respondents’ perception, while writing

received 67.6 %. Chart 3.12 represents these percentages after

calculating the highest two values of the respondents’ perception

towards reading and writing skills.

The data suggest that the respondents consider reading skills to be

more important than writing skills. This is consistent with the earlier

discussion of placing a higher value on receptive skills than productive

skills. Though this would suggest that English programs designed to

prepare University students need to intensify the focus on receptive

skills, the differences in percentages between receptive and productive

skills are so close that it is hard to make a strong judgment in this

regard.

The last group of activities is associated with all four English language

skills. The activities in this group were concerned with “instructions

98

and explanations,” and “presentations.” Results for this group of

activities were less clear cut. The vast majority of respondents highly

ranked the importance of having a high level of proficiency in the four

skills to conduct these activities. However, in these activities

comparing receptive skills with productive skills was not entirely

consistent. Listening skills received the highest ranking among the four

English language skills in all three activities. The other three skills were

highly rated but had no considerable difference in importance when

compared to each other.

Chart 3.13 represents the percentages of the three activities after

calculating the two highest values chosen by the respondents.

In conclusion, respondents considered all English language skills to be

important to conduct their course effectively. Though receptive skills

were viewed as more important than productive skills, the percentages

were so close that it is hard to prioritize any skill area over others. Not

all activities require a high knowledge of the English language,

however. Therefore, activities in an English program should reflect

situations similar to what the University students will encounter in their

courses.

Chart 3.9

Percentages of the perceived perception towards the importance of the

four skills.

99

Chart 3.10 Percentages of the cross check questions

Chart 3.11

Percentages of the perceived perception of the two activities

100

Chart 3.12

Percentages after calculating the highest two values of the

respondents perception towards reading and writing skills.

Chart 3.13

101

Percentages of the three activities after calculating the highest two

values chosen by the respondents

5.1.3 Third Research Question:

Do ESL students feel that they were prepared in terms of their English

Language ability to meet their current communication needs?

In discussing the results of this research question, the focus will be on

three points:

(1) The respondents’ experience with the English Language before

they began University and

(2) The respondents’ experience with the English language during their

University studies.

The data reveal that most respondents felt that their English Language

proficiency before they began University was average but not

outstanding. It is worth mentioning here that the Kenyan respondents

studied English for three years at the intermediate level and another

four years at the secondary level of public education. Yet 18.7% of the

102

respondents felt that their English was “very good.” Most of the

respondents (58.2 %) felt it was “satisfactory.”

Respondents of the Rwandan origin had average scores due to the fact

that their country has recently introduced the English Language as one

of the official language. In such a trilingual country, that is,

Kinyarwanda, French and English, most students had encountered only

Kinyarwanda and French in their education experience.

In conclusion, the participants appreciated the English Language

courses offered at Kampala University; including the Pre- University’s

English Language and Communication skills (ELS 1101); and the

Language Skills Development program which offers short courses in

English Language Communication (ELC) to students whose first/and

second languages is not English. The majority reported that they

began the University with an average level of English proficiency but

has realized remarkable improvement from the course mentioned

above.

5.2 Recommendations for Further Research

The following suggestions and recommendations can be incorporated

in any English as a Foreign Language course for educational purposes.

1- This study suggests that English Language is used extensively in the

University studies in EFL and lingua franca contexts. It plays a crucial

role as the main tool of communication to conduct a variety of different

activities. Therefore, the criteria to define English Language courses for

course purposes should be based on the target communicative

situations representing the communicative use of language rather than

formal linguistic categories representing the grammatical rules of

language.

103

2- The relative emphasis of the four English Language skills in the

introductory courses should be based on activities driven by the actual

communicative situations demanded by the course.

3- Though this study suggests that receptive skills are perceived as

more important than productive skills in a wide range of activities in

the University, it is hard to recommend that English courses for

University studies purposes should emphasize reading and listening

skills over writing and speaking skills because the differences in

percentages between receptive and productive skills are very close.

Further research in this regard is needed to support such claim.

4- The findings of the first research question suggest that English

Language students and Education students use English more than

Business students and IT students. Therefore, it is not enough to

design only one generic curriculum for English Language students.

English Language courses for students in other professions should be

designed to cater for ESL International students.

5- Complementary courses in English should be available on an

ongoing basis in the University and ESL International students who feel

that their English Language communication was not adequate.

5.2.1: Directions for Further Research

Finally, this study has provided empirical data on International

students who have no or less English Language use before they joined

Kampala University. Most of them come from countries where English

is rarely used as a Lingua Franca. Though the aim is to have a clear

picture of their English Language needs to enhance the English

Language courses at the University, the picture does not yet cover the

entire wide spectrum of learning English as a Foreign Language.

1- This study identified the English Language communicative needs as

perceived by ESL International students at the Kampala University.

104

However, it is important to investigate the same needs as perceived by

native students to see how these perceptions reconcile with the

findings of this study.

2- A related research project in this regard is to investigate the

required English Language skills of lecturers who handle this category

of International students to determine the needed level of English

Language competence in terms of how much specialized knowledge

the lecturers need and how they get it.

4- Further research is needed in regard to the importance of receptive

skills versus productive skills in the University education.

5- This study provided information regarding the specific language

situation at Kampala University. Since this environment presents a

lingua franca, it would be interesting to investigate how interaction

unfolds at the micro level. The following are few examples:

a) Looking at how ESL students communicate with Ugandan

Lecturers.

b) Examining how communicative strategies are used when ESL

students and natives communicate on campus.

c) Researching potential communicative differences in day-to-day

activities between Language, Education, Business, and IT

students.

105

5.3 REFERENCES

UBOS, (2009). Statistical Abstract. Uganda Bureau of Statistics,

Kampala, 2009.

NCHE, (2007). The State of Higher Education and Training in Uganda,

2007.A Summary Report on Higher Education Delivery and Institutions.

National Council forHigher Education.

Aguti J., (2008). Education for National Development: The Makerere

University Dual Mode Experience. Department of Distance Education,

Makerere University

Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and

resource book for teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Baker, C., & Jones, S. P. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and

bilingual education.Clevedon ; Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.

Masuzawa Tomoko, 2005; The Invention of World Religions Or, How

European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism.

University of Chicago Press, London

Oppenheim, A. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude

measurement. Guildford, UK: Printer.

Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic

approach to program development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge,

U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press. 157

106

Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development.

Clevedon, UK ; Buffalo N.Y.: Multilingual Matters.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge,

UK; New York, N.Y.:Cambridge University Press.

Dean, R. A. (1989). English language needs and preparation for non-

native English speaking Army personnel (No. ED304943).

Dèornyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research:

Construction, administration, and processing. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Dovring, K. (1997). English as lingua franca: Double talk in global

persuasion. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M.-J. (1998). Developments in ESP: A

multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge, U.K.: New York.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford ; New York:

Oxford University Press.

Graddol, D., Leith, D., & Swann, J. (1996). English : History, diversity,

and change. Milton Keynes England, London ; New York: Open

University; Routledge.

Hall, J. K. (2001). Methods for teaching foreign languages: Creating a

community of learners in the classroom. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:

Merrill Prentice Hall.

107

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1992). English for specific purposes : A

learning centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johns, A. M. (1981). Necessary English: a faculty Survey. TESOL

Quarterly, 15(1), 51-57.

Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and

resource book for teachers. Cambridge England; New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the

foreign and second language classroom. In J. Lantolf (Ed.),

Socioculturaltheory and second language learning. Oxford, England:

OxfordUniversity Press.

Ngugi wa, Thiongo. o. (1986). Decolonising the mind : The politics of

language in African literature. London Portsmouth, N.H.: J. Currey ;

Heinemann.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity

and educational change. Harlow, England: New York.

Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum : A study in second

language teaching. Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing, and

attitude measurement (New ed.). London ; New York New York: Pinter

Publishers ; Distributed exclusively in the USA and Canada by St.

Martin's Press.

108

Ostler, S. E. (1980). A survey of academic needs for advanced ESL.

TESOL Quarterly, 14(4), 489-502.

Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning.

TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9-31.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching.

Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richerich, R. (1973). A model for the definitions of adult language

needs. In J. Trim, R. Ritcherich, J. Van Ek & D. Wilkins (Eds.), Systems

development in adult language learning (pp. 31-62). Strasbourg:

Council of Europe.

Richterich, R., & Chancerel, J.-L. (1978). Identifying the needs of adults

learning a foreign language. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Richterich, R., & Council of Europe. (1983). Case studies in identifying

language needs (1st ed.). Oxford; New York: Published for and on behalf

of the Council by Pergamon Press.

Seferoglu, G. (2001). English skills needed for graduate study in the

US: multiple perspectives. iral, 39(2), 161-170.

Mazrui, A. A. and M. Tidy, (1984); Nationalism and New States in Africa.

Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers Ltd.

109

Kemmer, S (1997) Chronology of the events in the History of English,

Words in English public website Ling/Engl 215 course information; Rice

University.

Smith, L. E., & East-West Center. (1987). Discourse across culture:

Strategies in world Englishes. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Smith, L. E., Forman, M. L., & International Association for World

Englishes. International Conference. (1997). World Englishes 2000.

Honolulu: College of Languages Linguistics and Literature University of

Hawai°i and the East-West Center.

Soriano, F. I., & University of Michigan. School of Social Work. (1995).

Conducting needs assessments: A multidisciplinary approach.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Wahle, Kathleen O'Mara. (1968): "Alexander Crummell: Black

Evangelist and Pan-Negro Nationalist." Phylon.

Bean, R. M. (2004). Promoting effective literacy instruction: The

challenge for literacy coaches. The California Reader, 37, 58–63.

Dembele, M., & Mairo, B., II. (2003, December 3-6). Pedagogical

Renewal and Teacher Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Thematic

Synthesis. Proceedings of the Association for the Development of

Education in Africa Biennial Meeting, Grand Baie, Mauritius, 32-36.

Weddel, K. S., & Van, D. C. (1997). Needs assessment for adult ESL

learners. ERIC Digest (No. ED407882).

110

West, R. (1994). Needs analysis in language teaching. Language

teaching, 27(1), 1-19.

West, R. (1997). Needs analysis: state of the art. In R. Howard & G.

Brown (Eds.), Teacher education for language for specific purposes (pp.

68-79). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD.

Zoltan Dörnyei (2003) Questionnaires in Second Language Research:

Construction, Administration, and Processing. Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs

assessments : A practical guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Feldman, J. (2001-2007). Language Experience Approach Charts. In

Literacy Connections: Promoting Literacy and a Love of Reading.

Retrieved January4, 2006,

from http://literacyconnections.com/DrJeanLECharts. html

Gordon, R. G., Jr. (Ed.). (2005). Ethnologue: Languages of the world,

(15th edition). Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Retrieved October 11,

2005,

from http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Uganda.

MoES Education Planning Department, June 2004; Education Sector

Strategic Plan 2004-2015. Ministry of Education and Sports, National

Curriculum Development Centre.

Josephine Maseruka, “Uganda to earn $60m from foreign students

annually” The New Vision, Monday, 27th September, 2010.

111

State Of Uganda Population Report 2007“Planned Urbanization for

Uganda’s Growing Population. Uganda Bureau of Statistics.

THE UGANDA NATIONAL CULTURE POLICY, 2006; A Culturally vibrant,

cohesive and Progressive Nation. Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social

Development

112

Language Skills Development ProgramKampala UniversityNeeds Identification QuestionnaireDesigned by: Wasajja JamesSupervised by Dr. Ayoub Ssekitto

18th August 2009 Questionnaire Consent FormThe attached questionnaire was developed as part of my Masters Dissertation. It intends to analyse the English Language communicative needs for International Students in Kampala University. Your contribution will help in enhancing Language programs and courses in Kampala University, designed to teach English to International students whose first and second language is not English.

You have been selected as the best source of information to contribute to this study by responding to the attached questionnaire.

The questionnaire is divided into four parts and consists of four pages. It is designed to be answered within twenty minutes. Please answer all questions as accurately as you can. Instructions are provided for each question.

Please note that you do not have to write your name. The information that you provide will be used for research and publication purposes only.That by completing this questionnaire you agree that the researcher is allowed and permitted to use the information you provided for research and publication purposes only.

Your participation in this research study is completely voluntary and you may skip any questions that you feel uncomfortable answering.

The researcher will answer any further questions about the research, now or during the course of the project, and can be reached by telephone at: 0772695995 or email at: nzewasajja@gmail.com.

I am grateful for your time and effort in completing the questionnaire.

Thank you

Wasajja JamesAdditional questions or problems regarding your rights as a research participant should be addressed to Haroon Ganatusanga, Ph.D., Director, Kampala University

113

APPENDIX A

13 SEP 2010

Graduate Studies Center, Mutundwe; Telephone (256) 791388578; E-Mail Address kugraduateschool@gmail.com

13th September 2009

To: Heads of Departments and Lecturers

This is to inform you that the researcher Mr. Wasajja James from the

English Department at Kampala University is permitted to distribute his

questionnaires in our Campus (Gaba) in regard to his Master’s

Research concerning the English Language Communicative Needs for

International Students.

Any help rendered to him will be appreciated.

Yours Sincerely,

Ms. Kateregga Rashidah

Deputy Academic Registrar

114

APPENDIX B

24 AUG 2010

24th, August 2010

To: Heads of Departments and Lecturers.

This is to inform you that the researcher Mr. Wasajja James from the

English Department at Kampala University is permitted to distribute his

questionnaires in our Campus (Mutundwe) in regard to his Master’s

Research concerning the English Language Communicative Needs for

International Students.

Any help rendered to him will be appreciated.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr. Jacob Onyango

Coordinator, Kenyan In-service Program.

115

SURVEY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING NEEDS BY

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT KAMPALA UNIVERSITY

PART ONE.

1. Which country do you come from?

……………………………………………………..................................................

2. Which language did you study in before you joined Kampala

University?

……………………………………………………..................................................

3. What is your first language?

……………………………………………………..................................................

4. Name of college/high school you came from:

…………………………………………………….................................................

5. Year you finished college/high school:

……………………………………………………................................................

6. Name of course you were admitted for in Kampala University:

……………………………………………………................................................

PART TWO

7. What percentage of your course is conducted in English? Please

write down a percentage in the space below.

……………………………………………………………………………………………...

8. Do you use English at campus? Please circle one answer.

Yes No

9. If you answered No, which language do you use at campus? Please

circle one answer.

Arabic English Kinyarwanda French Others

116

APPENDIX C

10. Do your coursements include students who communicate in English

only? Please circle one answer.

Yes No

11. If you answered yes, how often does your course require you to

communicate with them? Please circle one answer.

A lot Somewhat A little Never

12. How important is it to have a high level of English proficiency to

perform your course effectively? Please circle one answer.

Very important Somewhat important Little importance Not

important

PART THREE

13. Which level of the listening English language skill enables you to

perform your course effectively? Please circle one answer.

Excellent level Good level Satisfactory level N/A

14. Which level of the speaking English language skill enables you to

perform your course effectively? Please circle one answer.

Excellent level Good level Satisfactory level N/A

15. Which level of the reading English language skill enables you to

perform your course effectively? Please circle one answer.

Excellent level Good level Satisfactory level N/A

16. Which level of the writing English language skill enables you to

perform your course course effectively? Please circle one answer.

Excellent level Good level Satisfactory level N/A

117

17. Rank the following English language skills in terms of importance in

conducting your course? Please rank using numbers from 1 to 4, with 1

being most important and 4 being least important.

Listening ……….. Speaking………… Reading…………. Writing…………..

18. How important is it to have a high level of English proficiency when

performing the following activities? Please circle one number with 1

being most important and 5 being least important.

Listening Speaking Reading

Writing

A Understanding the

Lectures

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

B Communicating

with coursements

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

C Application Letters 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

D Emails/ Chat 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

E Research 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

F Using Computers 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

G Others,

please specify

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

PART FOUR

19. How would you rate your knowledge of English before you began

Kampala University? Please circle one answer.

Very good Satisfactory Poor Very poor

118

20. How did the intensive English language courses that you studied at

Kampala University help you in the following tasks? Please look at the

scale below and circle the appropriate number accordingly.

1 = alot 2 = somewhat 3 = a little 4 =did not help

all

Speak about your course in English

Write about your course in English

Read your course related books,

articles, and magazines

Understand your course related

instructions, lectures and coursework

Pass the English aptitude test

21. How are the English Language courses you studied at Kampala

University relevant to your educational needs? Please circle one

answer.

A lot somewhat A little Not relevant at all

22. How would you rate your knowledge of English since you joined

Kampala University? Please circle one answer.

Very good Satisfactory Poor Very poor

119

Thank you for your participation

UCHUNGUZI WA UMUHIMU WA KIJIFUNYA LUGHA YA

KIINGEREZA KWA WANAFUNZI WAKIMATAIFA KATIKA CHUO

KIKUU CHA KAMPALA

SEHEMU YA KWANZA.

1. Unatoka nchi gani?

…………………………………………………..................................................

2. Ni lugha gani ulizojifunza kabla ya kujiuga na chuo kikuu cha

Kampala?

……………………………………………………..................................................

3. Lugha yako ya kwanza ni hipi?

……………………………………………………..................................................

4. Jina la chuo au shule ya upili uliyotoka:

…………………………………………………….................................................

5. Mwaka uliomaliza chuo au shule ya upili:

……………………………………………………................................................

6. Jina la kitivo ulichojiunga nacho katika chuo kikuu cha kampala :

……………………………………………………................................................

SEHEMU YA PILI.

7. Ni asilimia gani ya masomo katika kitivo jako yanayofanywa katika

kingereza andika asilimia kwa nafasi iliyoachwa.

……………………………………………………………………………………………...

8. Je, mnatumia kingereza chuoni? Tia sufuri kwa ndio au la.

Yes No

9. Kama umejibu la mnatumia lugha gani chuoni?: tafadhali itaje.

Kiarabu Kingereza Kirwanda Kifaranza Zingine

120

APPENDIX D

10. Je kosi yenu inajumuisha wanafunzi wanoongea kingereza pekee

yake? Tafadhali jibu.

La au ndio

11. Kama umejibu ndio ni muda gani kosi yenu inawabidi kuongea

nao? Tafadhali tia jibu moja tu.

Sana Si Sana Kidoga Hapana

12. Ni umihimu gani uliopo kuwa na ujuzi wa kiwango cha juu katika

kingereza hili muweze kufanya vizuri katika kosi yenu bila tabu?

Tafadhali jibu.

Kuna umuhimu Sana kunaumuhimu umuhimu kidogo

hakuna umuhimu

SEHEMU YA TATU

13. Ni kiwango kipi cha kusikiza kingereza kinachowawezesha kufanya

vizuri katika kosi yenu bila tabu.

Kizuri kabisa kizuri cha kutoshelesha hakuna N/A

14. Ni kiwango kipi cha kuongea kingereza kinachowawezesha kufanya

vizuri katika kosi yenu bila tabu.

Kizuri kabisa kizuri cha kutoshelesha hakuna N/A

15. Ni kiwango kipi cha kusoma kingereza kinachowawezesha kufanya

vizuri katika kosi yenu bila tabu.

Kizuri kabisa kizuri cha kutoshelesha hakuna N/A

16. Ni kiwango kipi cha kuandika kingereza kinachowawezesha

kufanya vizuri katika kosi yenu bila tabu.

Kizuri kabisa kizuri cha kutoshelesha hakuna N/A

121

17. Orodhesha mbinu za kingereza zilizopo hapo chini kulingana na

jinsi ziliniyo muhimu katika kufanya kosi yako? Orodhesha nambari

moja hadi nne. Nambari moja kuwa muhimu na nambari ya nne kuwa

ya mwisho kwa umuhimu.

Kusikiza ……….. Kuongea………… Kusoma…………. Kuandika…………..

18. Ni umuhimo gain uliopo kuwa na kiwango cha juu cha kingereza

wakati unapofanya mambo yafuatayo? Tafadhali jibu nambari moja

kuwa muhimu na nambari tano ya mwisho kwa umuhimu.

Kusikiza Kuongea Kusoma

Kuandika

A Kuelewa vipindi 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

B Kujadili na

wenzako

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

C Application Letters 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

D Emails/ Chat 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

E Ujunguzi 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

F Using Computers 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

G Zingine,

tafadhali zitaye

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

SEHEMU YA INNE

19. Je ungeupimaje ufahamu wako wa kingereza kabla ya kujiunga na

chuo kikuu cha Kampala. Tafadhali weka sufuri Kwa jibu moja tu.

Vizuri Sana vizuri vibaya vibaya Sana

122

20. Je lugha ya kingereza uliyosoma Kwa undani katika chuo kikuu cha

Kampala inakusaidiaje katika majukumu yafuatayo?

Tafadhali angalia vipimo vifuatavyo na uweke alama ya sufuri kwa jibu

sahili

1 = zaidi 2 = kiasi 3 = kidogo 4 =haijanisaidia

Zungumzia juu ya kosi yako kwa

kingereza

Andika kuhusu kosi yako kwa

kingereza

Soma vitabu, magazeti

yanayohusiana na kosi yako

Elewa maelezo, mafunzo na kazi zote

zinazohusiana na kosi yako

Faulu mtihani wa ujuzi wa kingereza

21. Je mafunzo ya lugha ya kingereza unayosoma katika chuo kikuu

cha Kampala yanaumuhimu gain katika mahitaji yako ya kielimu?

Tafadhali piga mzunguko jibu moja.

Sana kiasi kidogo simuhimu

22. Wawezaje kupima ufahamu wako wa kingereza tangu ulipojiunga

na chuo kikuu cha Kampala. Tafadhali weka alama ya mzunguko Kwa

jibu moja tu.

Vizuri Sana kiasi/kidogo vibaya vibaya zaidi

123

Asante Kwa shughulika kwako

ENQUÊTE DE LANGUE ANGLAISE BESOINS D'APPRENTISSAGE PAR

ÉTUDIANTS ÉTRANGERS À L'UNIVERSITÉ KAMPALA

PREMIÈRE PARTIE1. Quel pays venez-vous...........................................................................................................2. Quelle langue avez-vous étudié en avant de rejoindre l'université

de Kampala.?...........................................................................................................3. Quelle est votre langue maternelle?...........................................................................................................4. Nom du collège venez-vous?........................................................................................................... 5. Année où vous avez fini le collège ou à l'école hjgh............................................................................................................

6. Le nom du cours vous avez été admis à l'unjversity Kampala?...........................................................................................................

DEUXIÈME PARTIE.7. Quel pourcentage de votre cours est donné en anglais? s'il vous

plaît écrire un i en pourcentage l'espace ci-dessous............................................................................................................8. Attendez-vous à utiliser l'anglais après le campus? s'il vous plaît

cercle d'une réponse.              oui non

9. Si vous avez répondu oui, quelle langue est utilisée à votre futur emploi? s'il vous plaît cercle d'une réponse.

Arabic English Kinyarwanda French others

10. Voulez-vous que votre coursements pour inclure les élèves qui communiquent en anglais seulement? S'il vous plaît cercle d'une réponse.

oui non 11. Si vous avez répondu oui, combien de fois votre cours vous

obliger à communiquer avec eux? s'il vous plaît cercle d'une réponse.

Beaucoup assez alittle jamais12. Comment est-il important d'avoir un haut niveau de

compétence en anglais pour effectuer vos cours de manière efficace? s'il vous plaît cercle d'une réponse.

124

APPENDIX E

très importante des ce important peu important pas important.

TROISIÈME PARTIE.13. Quel niveau de l'écoute des compétences linguistiques en

anglais vous permet d'effectuer efficacement vos cours? s'il vous plaît cercle d'une réponse. Eexcellent niveau Bon niveau Niveau satisfaisant N/A

14. Quel niveau de la lecture en anglais compétences linguistiques vous permet d'effectuer efficacement vos cours? s'il vous plaît cercle d'une réponse.

Excellent niveau Bon niveau Niveau satisfaisant N/A

15. Quel niveau de l'écriture de l'anglais la langue de compétences vous permet d'effectuer efficacement vos cours?

Excellent niveau Bon niveau Niveau satisfaisant N/A

16. Quel niveau de la compétence linguistique en anglais écrit vous permet d'effectuer votre travail efficacement? s'il vous plaît cercle d'une réponse.

Excellent niveau Bon niveau Niveau satisfaisant N/A

17. Classer les suivants Anglais compétences linguistiques en termes d'importance dans la conduite de votre cours? s'il vous plaît rang des nombres en utilisant 1 à 4, 1 étant le plus important et le moins d'être important.

Musique........ Parler......... Lecture........... D'écriture

18. Comment est-il important d'avoir un niveau élevé de maîtrise de

l'anglais lors de la réalisation des activités suivantes? S'il vous

plaît encercler un chiffre 1 étant le plus important et 5 étant les

moins importants.

125

Écoute Parler Lecture Rédaction

A Comprendre les

conférences

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

B Communiquer

avec coursements

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

C La lettre de

candidature

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

D Emails / Chat 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

E Recherche 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

F Utilisation des

ordinateurs

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

G D'autres,

s'il vous plaît

spécifier

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

QUATRIÈME PARTIE19. Comment évalueriez-vous votre connaissance de l'anglais

avant de commencer à Kampala Université? S'il vous plaît cercle

d'une réponse.

Trans’ eleve

20. Comment les cours intensifs de langue anglaise que vous

avez étudié à l'Université de Kampala vous aider dans les tâches

suivantes? S'il vous plaît regardez à l'échelle ci-dessous et

encercler le numéro approprié en conséquence.

1 = beaucoup 2 = peu 3 = a little 4 =n'a pas aidé

126

tous les

Parlez de vos cours en anglais

Donnez de votre cours en anglais

Lisez vos livres de cours, les objets,

et les magazines

Comprendre les instructions de votre

cours connexe, des conférences et

des cours

Passez le test d'aptitude en anglais

21. Comment sont les cours d'anglais langue vous avez étudié à

l'Université de Kampala à vos besoins d'enseignement? S'il vous plaît

cercle d'une réponse.

Un grand nombre peu Un peu Non pertinent à tous les

22. Comment évalueriez-vous votre connaissance de l'anglais depuis

que vous avez rejoint l'Université de Kampala? S'il vous plaît cercle

une réponse.

Très bon Satisfaisante Pauvre Très pauvres

127

Je vous remercie pour votre participation

128