chapter – iv analyses and interpretation of...
TRANSCRIPT
CHAPTER – IV
ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
IV.1.INTRODUCTION
Data analysis and interpretation is the process of assigning meaning to the
collected information and determining the conclusions, significance and implications of
the findings. It is an important and exciting step in the process of research. In all research
studies, analysis follows data collection.
According to C.R.Kothari (1989), “The term analysis refers to the computation of
measures along with searching for patterns of relationship that exist among data-groups”.
Analysis involves estimating the values of unknown parameters of the population and
testing of hypotheses for drawing inferences.
The aim of present study is to find out the “ Attitude of Engineering College
English Lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in
Engineering Curriculum and the Barriers in Implementation.” The investigator collected
data from 300 English lectures of 57 Engineering Colleges from 4 southern districts. The
collected data are arranged properly, analyzed systematically and interpreted precisely.
IV.2.ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION
Objective No.1
Hypothesis: 1
The level of attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English
with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum is moderate.
Table No: IV.1
Table showing the level of attitude of engineering college English lecturers
towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory
No Variables Category No Low Moderate High
No % No % No %
1. Gender Male 96 12 12.50 76 79.1 8 8.33
Female 204 25 12.25 150 73.5 29 14.21
2. Locale Rural 184 23 12.50 134 72.8 27 14.67
Urban 116 12 10.34 86 74.1 18 15.51
3. Type of College
Government 10 2 20.00 5 50.0 3 30.00
Self financed 290 35 12.06 209 72.0 46 15.86
4. Educational Qualification
Prescribed 239 24 10.00 179 74.8 36 15.00
More than prescribed
61 8 13.11 43 70.4
0
10 16.39
5. Teaching Experience
3 Years 35 2 5.71 25 71.4 8 22.85
Below 3 108 16 14.81 74 68.5 18 16.66
Above 3 157 14 8.91 119 75.7 24 15.28
Total 300 35 11.66 219 73 46 15.33
From the table it is inferred that 11.66%, 73% and 15.33% of engineering college
English lecturers have come under the category of low, moderate and high level of
attitude towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory respectively.
The table also shows the level of attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards
Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory with reference to different
background variables.
Pie-diagram showing the percentage level
English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory
Figure IV.1
diagram showing the percentage level of attitude of engineering c
towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory
in total
Low
12%
Moderate
73%
High
15%
Level of attitude in total
of attitude of engineering college
towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory
Figure IV.2
Bar graph showing level of attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards
Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory with respect to their back
ground variables
Objective No.2
Hypothesis: 2
Level of attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory in psychological, academic, administrative and utility
level is moderate
Table No: IV.2
Table showing level of attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards
Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in different dimensions
Dimensions Low Moderate High
No % No % No %
Psychological 30 10.00 228 76.00 42 14.00
Academic 36 12.00 217 72.33 47 15.66
Administrative 18 6.00 228 76.00 54 18.00
Utility level 36 12.00 224 74.66 40 13.33
From the table it is inferred that 10%, 76% and 14% of engineering college
English lecturers have low, medium and high level of attitude in ‘psychological level’
respectively. 12%, 72% and 16% of engineering college English lecturers have low,
medium and high level of attitude in ‘academic level’ respectively. 6%, 76% and 18% of
engineering college English lecturers have low, medium and high level of attitude in
‘administrative level’ respectively. 12%, 75% and 13% of engineering college English
lecturers have low, medium and high level of attitude in ‘utility level’ respectively.
Pie-diagrams showing the percentage level of
lecturers towards Technic
Psychological
High
18%
Administrative
Figure IV.3
showing the percentage level of attitude of engineering c
rs towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory
different dimensions
Low
10%
Moderate
76%
High
14%
Psychological
High
16%
Academic
Low
6%
Moderate
76%
High
18%
Administrative
High
13%
attitude of engineering college English
al English with Communication Skills Laboratory in
Low
12%
Moderate
72%
High
16%
Academic
Low
12%
Moderate
75%
High
13%
Utility
Objective No. 3(a)
Hypothesis: 3(a)
The barriers faced by engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical
English with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum are moderate.
Table No: IV.3. a. showing percentage level of barriers faced by engineering college
English lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills
Laboratory in engineering curriculum
No Barriers
No. of subjects
having the barriers
Percentage
1 Lack of curiosity in learning phonetics and stress pattern.
270 90
2 Lack of preference given to English. 234 78 3 Inability in reading materials on the computer screen. 252 84 4 No periodical internal assessment test. 204 68 5 Lack of special training for English lecturers. 198 66 6 Unawareness of the current trends of ELT 240 80 7 Influence of mother tongue. 186 62
8 Inability of English lecturers to play different roles.(teacher, soft skill trainer)
198 66
9 Lack of previous knowledge about this new technology. 246 82 10 Examination oriented teaching. 276 92 11 Fear in handling computers and technical setting. 204 68
12 Inability of faculty members in conversing about technical topics while testing speaking skill.
222 74
13 Inadequate supply of computers. 240 80 14 Lack of well-equipped lab with listening components. 294 98 15 Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive. 222 74 16 Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet. 282 94 17 Using sub-standard software. 270 90 18 Lack of technical skill among the English teachers. 252 84 19 Insufficient time duration. 198 66 20 Lack of willingness to attend workshops. 168 56 21 Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues. 222 74
22 Language proficiency is not a criterion for selecting students.
270 90
23 Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab. 288 96
Figure IV.4
Bar-graph showing percentage level of barriers faced by engineering college English
lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory
in Engineering Curriculum
(i) It is found from the present study that above 90% of the engineering college
English lecturers faced the following barriers in implementing Technical English
with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum.
• Lack of facilities which are essential for developing communication
skills like T.V, LCD, CDS, DVD, internet and listening components.
• Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab.
• Lack of curiosity in learning phonetics and stress pattern.
• Examination oriented Teaching.
• Using sub-standard software.
• Language proficiency is not a criterion for selecting students.
(ii) 70 to 89% of the engineering college English lecturers faced the following
barriers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills
Laboratory in engineering curriculum.
• Inadequate supply of computers.
• Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive.
• Lack of technical skill among the English teachers.
• Students’ inability in reading materials on the computer screen.
• Lack of previous knowledge about this new technology.
• Unawareness of the current trends of ELT
• Lack of preference given to English.
• Inability of faculty members in conversing about technical topics
while testing speaking skill.
• Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues.
(iii) 50 to 69% of the engineering college English lecturers faced the following
barriers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills
Laboratory in engineering curriculum.
• Lack of special training for English Lecturers
• No periodical internal assessment test.
• Influence of mother tongue.
• Insufficient time duration.
• Fear in handling computers and technical setting.
• Inability of English lecturers to play different roles. (teacher, soft skill
trainer, etc.)
• Lack of willingness to attend workshops.
Objective No. 3 (b)
Hypothesis: 3 (b)
The level of barriers faced by engineering college English lecturers in implementing
Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in Engineering Curriculum is
moderate.
Table No: IV. 3. b. Table showing level of barriers faced by engineering college English lecturers
in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in
engineering curriculum
No Variables Category No Low Moderate High
No % No % N %
1 Gender Male 96 19 19.79 46 47.91 31 32.29
Female 204 37 18.13 119 58.33 48 23.52
2 Locale Rural 184 39 21.19 102 55.43 43 23.36
Urban 116 17 14.65 69 59.48 30 25.86
3 Type of
Colleges
Government 10 02 20.00 06 60.00 02 20.00
Self 290 55 18.96 159 54.82 76 26.20
4 Educational Qualification
Prescribed 239 59 24.68 136 56.90 44 18.41
More than 61 08 13.11 31 50.81 22 36.06
5 Teaching
Experience
3 Years 35 07 20.00 15 42.85 13 37.14
Below 3 108 21 19.44 61 56.48 26 24.07
Above 3 157 33 21.01 89 56.68 35 22.29
Total 300 56 18.66 165 55.00 79 26.33
From the table it is inferred that 18.66%, 55.00% and 26.33% of engineering
college English lecturers have come under the category of low, moderate and high level
of barriers respectively faced by them in implementing
Communication Skills Laboratory
The table also shows the level of barriers faced by engineering c
lecturers in implementing
engineering curriculum with reference to different background
Pie-diagram
lecturers in implementing Technical English with
barriers respectively faced by them in implementing Technical English with
kills Laboratory respectively.
The table also shows the level of barriers faced by engineering c
in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in
engineering curriculum with reference to different background variables
Figure IV.5
showing level of barriers faced by engineering c
lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory
in engineering curriculum in total
Low
19%
Moderate
55%
High
26%
Level of Barriers in Total
Technical English with
The table also shows the level of barriers faced by engineering college English
Communication Skills Laboratory in
variables
level of barriers faced by engineering college English
Communication Skills Laboratory
Figure IV.6
Bar-graph showing level of barriers faced by engineering college English lecturers
in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in
engineering curriculum with respect to their back ground variables
Objective No. 4 (a)
Hypothesis: 4 (a)
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between male and female
engineering college English lecturers in their attitude towards Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions such as
psychological, academic, administrative and utility level.
Table No: IV. 4. a.
t-test showing the mean difference in the attitude of engineering college English
lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory, in total
and in different dimensions with respect to the variable ‘gender’
No Dimensions Category No Mean SD CR Value
Table Value Remarks
1 Total Attitude
Male 96 184.63 16.084 0.718 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level
Female 204 185.98 13.203
2 Psychological Male 96 53.44 4.443
1.058 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level
Female 204 54.02 4.319
3 Academic Male 96 54.32 5.652
0.267 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level
Female 204 54.14 5.033
4 Administrative Male 96 54.32 5.652
0.267 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level
Female 204 54.14 5.033
5 Utility Level Male 96 53.40 6.739
0.852 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level
Female 204 54.06 5.364
It is found that the calculated values 0.718
than table value (1.96) in total and in the dimensions such as psychological, academic,
administrative and utility level respectively with respect to gender. Hence null hypoth
is accepted. So, it is inferred that there is no significant difference in the attitude of
engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with
Skills Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions such as psychological
administrative and utility level with respect to gender.
Bar-graph showing
English lecturers towards Technical English with
Laboratory, in total and
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200 184
.63
18
5.9
8
Me
an
s found that the calculated values 0.718, 1.058, 0.267, 0.267 and 0.852 are less
than table value (1.96) in total and in the dimensions such as psychological, academic,
administrative and utility level respectively with respect to gender. Hence null hypoth
So, it is inferred that there is no significant difference in the attitude of
ollege English lecturers towards Technical English with
, in total and in different dimensions such as psychological
administrative and utility level with respect to gender.
Figure IV.7 (a)
graph showing the mean difference in the attitude of engineering c
English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills
total and in different dimensions with respect to the variable
‘gender’
53.
44
54
.32
54
.32
18
5.9
8
54
.02
54
.14
54
.14
Dimensions
1.058, 0.267, 0.267 and 0.852 are less
than table value (1.96) in total and in the dimensions such as psychological, academic,
administrative and utility level respectively with respect to gender. Hence null hypothesis
So, it is inferred that there is no significant difference in the attitude of
ollege English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication
, in total and in different dimensions such as psychological, academic,
ce in the attitude of engineering college
Communication Skills
in different dimensions with respect to the variable
53.4
54
.06
Male Female
Objective No. 4 (b)
Hypothesis: 4 (b)
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the attitude of rural and
urban engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions such as
psychological, academic, administrative and utility level.
Table No: IV. 4. b. t-test showing the mean difference in the attitude of engineering
college English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills
Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions with respect to the variable ‘locale’
No Dimensions Category No Mean SD CR
Value
Table
Value Remarks
1 Total Attitude Rural 184 186.0 14.65
0.670 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level Urban 116 184.9 13.42
2 Psychological
Rural 184 54.07 4.426
1.193 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level Urban 116 53.46 4.245
3 Academic Rural 184 54.26 5.399
0.235 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level Urban 116 54.11 4.973
4 Administrative Rural 184 23.71 2.155
0.557 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level Urban 116 23.58 1.957
5 Utility Level
Rural 184 53.95 5.889
0.359 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level Urban 116 53.70 5.774
It is found that the calculated values 0.670, 1.193, 0.235, 0.557 and 0.359 are less
than table Value (1.96) in total and in the dimensions such as psychological, academic,
administrative and utility level respectively with respect to locale. Hence null hypothesis
is accepted. So, it is inferred that there is no significant difference in the attitude of
engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication
Skills Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions such as psychological, academic,
administrative and utility level with respect to locale.
Figure IV.7 (b)
Bar graph showing the mean difference in the attitude of engineering college
English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills
Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions with respect to the variable ‘locale’
Objective No. 4 (c)
Hypothesis: 4 (c)
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the attitude of government
and self financed engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions such as
psychological, academic, administrative and utility level.
Table No: IV. 4. c.
t-test showing the mean difference in the attitude of engineering college English
lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory, in total
and in different dimensions with respect to the variable ‘type of college’
No Dimensions Category No Mean SD CR Value
Table Value Remarks
1 Total Attitude Govt 10 185.1 10.73
0.143 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level
S.F 290 185.6 14.29
2 Psychological Govt 10 54 3.8
0.135 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level
S.F 290 53 4.383
3 Academic Govt 10 54.8 5.287
0.365 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level
S.F 290 54.18 5.237
4 Administrative Govt 10 23.5 1.354
0.371 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level
S.F 290 23.67 2.1
5 Utility Level Govt 10 52.8 4.211
0.79 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level
S.F 290 53.89 5.886
Govt : Government , S.F : Self-financed.
It is found that the calculated values 0.143, 0.135, 0.365, 0.371 and 0.790 are less
than Table Value (1.96) in total and in the dimensions such as psychological, academic,
administrative and utility level respectively with respect to type of the college. Hence null
hypothesis is accepted. So, it is inferred that there is no significant difference in the
attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions such as
psychological, academic, administrative and utility level with respect to type of the
college.
Figure IV.7 (c) Bar-graph showing the mean difference in the attitude of Engineering College
English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions with respect to the variable ‘type of
college’
Objective No. 4 (d)
Hypothesis: 4 (d)
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the attitude of engineering
college English lecturers with prescribed and more than prescribed educational
qualification towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory, in total
and in different dimensions such as psychological, academic, administrative and utility
level.
Table No: IV. 4. d.
t-test showing the mean difference in the attitude of engineering college English
lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory, in total
and in different dimensions with respect to the variable ‘educational qualification’
No Dimensions Category No Mean SD CR Value
Table Value Remarks
1
Total Attitude
Prescribed 239 185.3 14.39 0.147
1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level
More than prescribed 61 185.6 14.28
2
Psychological
Prescribed 239 53.76 4.373 0.620
1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level
More than prescribed
61 54.14 4.331
3 Academic Prescribed 239 54.1 5.344
0.726 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level
More than prescribed
61 54.61 4.779
4 Administrative Prescribed 239 23.63 2.05
0.512 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level
More than prescribed
61 23.79 2.199
5 Utility Level Prescribed 239 53.84 5.832
0.052 1.96
Not Significant
even at 0.05 level
More than prescribed
61 53.89 5.902
It is found that the calculated values 0.1470, 0.620, 0.726, 0.512 and 0.052 are
less than table value (1.96) in total and in the dimensions such as psychological,
academic, administrative and utility level respectively with respect to educational
qualification. Hence null hypothesis is accepted. So, it is inferred that there is no
significant difference in the attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards
Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory, in total and in different
dimensions such as psychological, academic, administrative and utility level with respect
to educational qualification.
Figure IV.7 (d) Bar graph showing the mean difference in the attitude of engineering college
English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions with respect to ‘educational
qualification’
Objective No. 4 (e)
Hypothesis: 4 (e)
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the attitude of engineering
college English lecturers having teaching experience of 3years, below 3years and above
3years towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory, in total and in
different dimensions such as psychological, academic, administrative and utility level.
Table No: IV. 4. e.
F-test showing the mean difference in the attitude of engineering college English
lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory, in total
and in different dimensions with respect to the variable ‘teaching experience’
No Dimensions Source of Variance
Sum of Square df Mean
Square F-
Value Table Value Remarks
1 Total Attitude
Between Samples
747.19 2 373.6 1.87 2.99
Not Significant even at 0.05 level
Within Samples
59339.0 297 199.79
2 Psychological
Between Samples
76.08 2 38.04 2.015 2.99
Not Significant even at 0.05 level
Within Samples
5608.23 297 18.84
3 Academic
Between Samples
32.52 2 16.26 0.593 2.99
Not Significant even at 0.05 level
Within Samples
8147.48 297 27.43
4 Administrative
Between Samples
1.017 2 0.508 0.117 2.99
Not Significant even at 0.05 level
Within Samples
1290.3 297 4.344
5 Utility Level
Between Samples
189.33 2 94.66 2.813 2.99
Not Significant even at 0.05 level
Within Samples
9994.91 297 33.65
It is inferred from the table that there is no significant difference in the attitude of
engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with
Skills Laboratory, in total and in different dimensions such as psychological, acade
administrative and utility level with respect to the variable teaching experience.
It is found that the F
table value (2.995) in total and in the dimensions such as psychological, academic,
administrative and utility level respectively with respect to teaching experience. Hence
null hypothesis is accepted.
Bar graph showingEnglish lecturers towards Technical English witLaboratory , in
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Total
18
6.4
2
187
.04
Mea
n
It is inferred from the table that there is no significant difference in the attitude of
engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with
, in total and in different dimensions such as psychological, acade
administrative and utility level with respect to the variable teaching experience.
It is found that the F- values 1.870, 2.015, 0.593, 0.117and 2.813 are less than
table value (2.995) in total and in the dimensions such as psychological, academic,
ministrative and utility level respectively with respect to teaching experience. Hence
null hypothesis is accepted.
Figure IV.7 (e) Bar graph showing the mean difference in the attitude of engineering c
English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills , in total and in different dimensions with respect to
experience’
Psychological Academic Administrative
53.7
1
53
.97
23
.71
54.
5
54.6
4
23.6
1
18
4.0
7
53
.41
53
.95
23.
63
Dimensions3 Years
It is inferred from the table that there is no significant difference in the attitude of
engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication
, in total and in different dimensions such as psychological, academic,
administrative and utility level with respect to the variable teaching experience.
2.015, 0.593, 0.117and 2.813 are less than
table value (2.995) in total and in the dimensions such as psychological, academic,
ministrative and utility level respectively with respect to teaching experience. Hence
difference in the attitude of engineering college Communication Skills ith respect to ‘teaching
Administrative Utitility
55
54
.56
23.
63
53
.1
Below 3Years
Objective No. 5 (a)
Hypothesis: 5 (a)
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between male and female engineering college English
lecturers in the barriers faced by them in implementing Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory.
Table No: IV. 5. a. i
Table showing the difference between the barriers faced by the male and female
engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory.
S No Barriers
Percentage of barriers found
The category having more
barriers Male Female
1 Lack of curiosity in learning phonetics and stress pattern.
78.1 73.0 Male
2 Lack of preference given to English. 92.7 96.6 Female
3 Inability in reading materials on the computer screen.
66.7 66.2 Male
4 No periodical internal assessment test. 66.7 70.6 Female
5 Lack of special training for English lecturers.
75.0 72.5 Male
6 Unawareness of the current trends of ELT 68.8 75.5 Female
7 Influence of mother tongue. 72.9 71.1 Male
8 Inability of English lecturers to play different roles.(teacher, soft skill trainer)
55.2 57.4
Female
9 Lack of previous knowledge about this new technology.
67.2 64.7 Male
10 Examination oriented Teaching. 75.0 85.3 Female
11 Fear in handling computers and technical setting.
69.8 59.3 Male
12 Inability of faculty members in conversing about technical topics while testing speaking skill.
60.4 61.8 Female
13 Inadequate supply of computers. 69.8 64.7 Male
14 Lack of well-equipped lab with listening components.
83.3 84.8 Female
15 Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive. 72.9 77.9 Female 16 Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet. 78.1 73.5 Male 17 Using sub-standard software. 84.4 77.5 Male
18 Lack of technical skill among the English teachers.
67.7 75.5 Female
19 Insufficient time duration. 74.00 65.7 Male 20 Lack of willingness to attend workshops. 51.00 51.9 Female
21 Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues.
58.3 59.3 Female
22 Language proficiency is not a criterion for selecting students.
78.1 81.9 Female
23 Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab.
84.4 84.8 Female
From the above table it is inferred that the male engineering college English
lecturers are having the following barriers more than their counterpart in implementing
Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum.
• Lack of curiosity in learning phonetics and stress pattern.
• Inability in reading materials on the computer screen.
• Lack of special training for English Lecturers
• Influence of mother tongue.
• Lack of previous knowledge about this new technology.
• Fear in handling computers and technical setting.
• Inadequate supply of computers.
• Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet
• Using sub-standard software.
• Insufficient time duration
The female engineering college English lecturers are having the following barriers more
than their counterpart in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills
Laboratory in engineering curriculum.
• Lack of preference given to English.
• No periodical internal assessment test.
• Unawareness of the current trends of ELT
• Inability of English lecturers to play different roles.(teacher, soft skill trainer)
• Examination oriented teaching.
• Inability of faculty members in conversing about technical topics while testing
speaking skill.
• Lack of well-equipped lab with listening components.
• Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive.
• Lack of technical skill among the English teachers.
• Lack of willingness to attend workshops
• Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues.
• Language proficiency is not a criterion for selecting students.
• Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab.
Figure IV. 8. (a)
Bar graph showing the difference between the barriers faced by the male and
female engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory.
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the barriers faced by the male and female
engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory.
Table No: IV. 5. a. ii
t-test showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the male and
female engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory
Variable Category No Mean SD ‘t’-
value
Table
Value Remarks
Gender
Male 96 16.60 4.273
2.115 1.96 Significant at
0.01 level Female 204 15.50 4.133
Since ‘t’ value in the above table (2.115) is more than table value (1.96) the null
hypothesis is rejected and it is found that significant difference exists between male and
female lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills
Laboratory. The mean scores show that the male English lecturers are facing more
barriers than female lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication
Skills Laboratory
Bar graph showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the male and
female engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with
Objective No. 5 (b)
Hypothesis: 5 (b)
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between
lecturers in the barriers faced by them in implementing
Communication Skills Laboratory.
14.5
15
15.5
16
16.5
17
Me
an
Figure IV. 8. (b)
showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the male and
female engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory
significant difference between rural and urban engineering college English
in the barriers faced by them in implementing Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory.
Male Female
16.6
15.5
showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the male and
female engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with
urban engineering college English
Technical English with
Table No: IV. 5. b. i Table showing the difference between the barriers faced by the rural and urban
engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory.
No Barriers
Percentage of barriers found
The category having more
barriers Rural Urban
1 Lack of curiosity in learning phonetics and stress pattern.
71.7 79.3 urban
2 Lack of preference given to English. 94.6 96.6 urban
3 Inability in reading materials on the computer screen.
65.2 68.1 urban
4 No periodical internal assessment test. 67.4 72.4 rural
5 Lack of special training for English lecturers. 72.3 75.0 urban
6 Unawareness of the current trends of ELT 70.1 78.4 urban
7 Influence of mother tongue. 73.4 69.0 rural
8 Inability of English lecturers to play different roles.(teacher, soft skill trainer)
53.8 61.2 urban
9 Lack of previous knowledge about this new technology.
65.2 66.4 urban
10 Examination oriented teaching. 81.5 82.8 urban
11 Fear in handling computers and technical setting. 59.2 68.1 urban
12 Inability of faculty members in conversing about technical topics while testing speaking skill.
59.8 63.8 urban
13 Inadequate supply of computers. 65.2 68.1 urban
14 Lack of well-equipped lab with listening components.
84.8 83.6 rural
15 Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive. 72.8 81.9 urban 16 Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet. 72.3 79.3 urban 17 Using sub-standard software. 74.5 87.9 urban 18 Lack of technical skill among the English teachers. 73.9 71.6 rural 19 Insufficient time duration. 69.0 67.2 rural 20 Lack of willingness to attend workshops. 47.3 56.9 urban
21 Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues. 57.6 61.2 urban
22 Language proficiency is not a criterion for selecting students.
82.6 77.6 rural
23 Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab.
84.2 85.3 urban
From the above table it is inferred that the rural engineering college English lecturers are
having the following barriers more than their counterpart in implementing Technical
English with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum.
• No periodical internal assessment test.
• Lack of well-equipped lab with listening components.
• Influence of mother tongue.
• Lack of technical skill among the English teachers.
• Lack of technical skill among the English teachers.
• Insufficient time duration.
• Language proficiency is not a criterion for selecting students.
The urban engineering college English lecturers are having the following barriers more
than their counterpart in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills
Laboratory in engineering curriculum.
• Lack of curiosity in learning phonetics and stress pattern.
• Lack of preference given to English.
• Inability in reading materials on the computer screen.
• Lack of special training for English Lecturers
• Unawareness of the current trends of ELT
• Inability of English lecturers to play different roles.(teacher, soft skill trainer)
• Lack of previous knowledge about this new technology.
• Examination oriented teaching.
• Fear in handling computers and technical setting.
• Inability of faculty members in conversing about technical topics while testing
speaking skill.
• Inadequate supply of computers.
• Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive.
• Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet.
• Using sub-standard software.
• Lack of willingness to attend workshops.
• Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues.
• Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab
Figure IV. 9. (a)
Bar graph showing the difference between the barriers faced by the rural and urban
engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory.
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the barriers faced by the rural and urban
engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory.
Table No: IV. 5. b. ii
t-test showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the rural and
urban engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory.
Variable Category No Mean SD ‘t’- value Table Value Remarks
Locale
Rural 184 16.15 4.177
2.291 1.96 Significant
at 0.01 level Urban 116 17.25 4.128
Since ‘t’-value in the above table (2.291) is more than table value (1.96) the null
hypothesis is rejected and it is found that significant difference exists between rural and
urban engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory.
The mean scores show that the urban engineering college English lecturers are facing
more barriers than rural engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical
English with Communication Skills Laboratory
Figure IV. 9. (b)
Bar graph showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the rural and
urban engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory
Objective No. 5 (c)
Hypothesis: 5 (c )
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between government and self financed engineering
college English lecturers in the barriers faced by them in implementing Technical English
with Communication Skills Laboratory.
Table No: IV. 5. c. i. showing the difference between the barriers faced by the
government and self financed engineering college English lecturers in implementing
Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory.
No Barriers Percentage of barriers found
The category having more barriers Govt S.F
1 Lack of curiosity in learning phonetics and stress pattern.
60 75.2 Self financed
2 Lack of preference given to English. 100 95.2 Government
3 Inability in reading materials on the computer screen.
70 66.2 Government
4 No periodical internal assessment test. 90 68.6 Government
5 Lack of special training for English lecturers. 60 73.8 Self financed
6 Unawareness of the current trends of ELT 80 73.1 Government
7 Influence of mother tongue. 70 71.7 Self financed
8 Inability of English lecturers to play different roles.(teacher, soft skill trainer)
70 56.2 Government
9 Lack of previous knowledge about this new technology.
90 64.8 Government
10 Examination oriented teaching. 90 81.7 Government
11 Fear in handling computers and technical setting. 50 63.1 Self financed
12 Inability of faculty members in conversing about technical topics while testing speaking skill.
80 60.7 Government
13 Inadequate supply of computers. 60 66.6 Self financed
14 Lack of well-equipped lab with listening components.
90 84.1 Government
15 Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive. 90 75.9 Government
16 Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet. 80 74.8 Government 17 Using sub-standard software. 80 79.7 Government
18 Lack of technical skill among the English teachers.
90 72.4 Government
19 Insufficient time duration. 50 69 Self financed
20 Lack of willingness to attend workshops. 50 51 Self financed
21 Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues. 40 59.7 Self financed
22 Language proficiency is not a criterion for selecting students.
80 80.7 Self financed
23 Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab.
90 84.5 Government
From the above table it is inferred that the government engineering college English
lecturers are having the following barriers more than their counterpart in implementing
Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum.
• Lack of preference given to English.
• Inability in reading materials on the computer screen.
• No periodical internal assessment test.
• Unawareness of the current trends of ELT.
• Inability of English lecturers to play different roles.(teacher, soft skill trainer)
• Lack of previous knowledge about this new technology.
• Examination oriented Teaching.
• Inability of faculty members in conversing about technical topics while testing
speaking skill.
• Lack of well-equipped lab with listening components.
• Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive.
• Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet.
• Using sub-standard software
• Lack of technical skill among the English teachers.
• Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab.
The self financed engineering college English lecturers are having the following barriers
more than their counterpart in implementing Technical English with Communication
Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum.
• Lack of curiosity in learning phonetics and stress pattern.
• Lack of special training for English Lecturers.
• Influence of mother tongue.
• Fear in handling computers and technical setting.
• Inadequate supply of computers.
• Insufficient time duration.
• Lack of willingness to attend workshops.
• Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues.
• Language proficiency is not a criterion for selecting students.
Figure IV. 10. (a)
Bar graph showing the difference between the barriers faced by the government and
self financed engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical
English with Communication Skills Laboratory.
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the barriers faced by the government and self
financed engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory.
Table No: IV. 5. c. ii
t-test showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the government
and self financed engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical
English with Communication Skills Laboratory.
Variable Category No Mean SD ‘t’-
value
Table
Value Remarks
Type of
college
Government 10 17.80 3.458
2.155 1.96
Significant
at 0.05
level Self-
financed 290 15.39 4.192
Since ‘t’-value in the above table (2.155) is more than table value (1.96) the null
hypothesis is rejected and it is found that significant difference exists between the
government and self financed engineering college English lecturers in implementing
Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory.
The mean scores show that government engineering college English lecturers are facing
more barriers than self-financed engineering college English lecturers in implementing
Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory.
Figure IV. 10. (b)
Bar graph showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the
government and self financed engineering college English lecturers in implementing
Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory
Objective No. 5 (d)
Hypothesis: 5 (d )
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the barriers faced by the engineering college
English lecturers with prescribed and more than prescribed educational qualification in
implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory.
Table No: IV. 5. d. i. showing the difference between the barriers faced by the
engineering college English lecturers with prescribed and more than
prescribed educational qualification in implementing Technical English with
Communication lab
No Barriers
Percentage of barriers found
The
cat
egor
y ha
ving
mor
e ba
rrie
rs
pres
crib
ed
Mor
e th
an
pres
crib
ed
1 Lack of curiosity in learning phonetics and stress pattern. 73.2 80.3
More than prescribed
2 Lack of preference given to English. 95 96.7 More than prescribed
3 Inability in reading materials on the computer screen. 64 75.4 More than prescribed
4 No periodical internal assessment test. 69.9 67.2 prescribed
5 Lack of special training for English lecturers. 73.6 72.1 prescribed
6 Unawareness of the current trends of ELT 71.15 80.3 More than prescribed
7 Influence of mother tongue. 68.2 85.2 More than prescribed
8 Inability of English lecturers to play different roles.(teacher, soft skill trainer) 51.9 75.4
More than prescribed
9 Lack of previous knowledge about this new technology. 62.8 77 More than prescribed
10 Examination oriented teaching. 81.2 85.2 More than prescribed
11 Fear in handling computers and technical setting. 62.8 62.3 prescribed
12 Inability of faculty members in conversing about technical topics while testing speaking skill. 60.7 63.9
More than prescribed
13 Inadequate supply of computers. 62.8 80.3 More than prescribed
14 Lack of well-equipped lab with listening components. 84.1 85.2 More than prescribed
15 Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive. 76.6 75.4 prescribed
16 Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet. 71.1 90.2 More than prescribed
17 Using sub-standard software. 76.6 91.8 More than prescribed
18 Lack of technical skill among the English teachers. 71.1 80.3 More than prescribed
19 Insufficient time duration. 69.5 63.9 prescribed
20 Lack of willingness to attend workshops. 48.5 60.7 More than prescribed
21 Lack of supportive Head as well as colleagues. 56.9 67.2 More than prescribed
22 Language proficiency is not a criterion for selecting students.
80.3 82 More than prescribed
23 Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab. 83.7 88.5 More than prescribed
From the above table it is inferred that the engineering college English lecturers with
prescribed educational qualification are having the following barriers more than their
counterpart in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in
engineering curriculum.
• No periodical internal assessment test.
• Lack of special training for English lecturers.
• Fear in handling computers and technical setting.
• Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive.
• Insufficient time duration.
Engineering college English lecturers with more than prescribed educational qualification
are having the following barriers more than their counterpart in implementing Technical
English with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum.
• Lack of curiosity in learning phonetics and stress pattern.
• Lack of preference given to English.
• Inability in reading materials on the computer screen.
• Unawareness of the current trends of ELT
• Influence of mother tongue.
• Inability of English lecturers to play different roles.(teacher, soft skill trainer)
• Lack of previous knowledge about this new technology.
• Examination oriented Teaching.
• Inability of faculty members in conversing about technical topics while testing
speaking skill.
• Inadequate supply of computers.
• Lack of well-equipped lab with listening components.
• Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet.
• Using sub-standard software.
• Lack of technical skill among the English teachers.
• Lack of willingness to attend workshops.
• Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues.
• Language proficiency is not a criterion for selecting students.
• Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab.
Figure IV.11 (a)
Bar graph showing the difference between the barriers faced by the engineering
college English lecturers with prescribed and more than prescribed educational
qualification in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills
Laboratory.
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the barriers faced by the engineering college
English lecturers with prescribed and more than prescribed educational qualification in
implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory.
Table No: IV. 5. d. ii
t-test showing the mean difference between the barriers faced by the engineering
college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication
Skills Laboratory with reference to the variable ‘Educational Qualification’
Variable Category No Mean SD ‘t’-
value
Table
Value Remarks
Educational
qualification
Prescribed 239 16.32 4.238
2.262 1.96
Significant
at 0.01
level More than
prescribed 61 17.58 3.817
Since ‘t’-value in the above table (2.262) is more than table value (1.96) the null
hypothesis is rejected and it is found that the significant difference exists between the
barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers with prescribed and more than
prescribed educational qualification in implementing Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory.
The mean score shows that the engineering college English lecturers with more than
prescribed educational qualification are facing more barriers than English lecturers with
prescribed educational qualification in implementing Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory.
Figure IV.11 (b)
Bar graph showing barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers with
prescribed and more than prescribed educational qualification in implementing
Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory.
Objective No. 5 (e)
Hypothesis: 5 (e)
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference among the engineering college English lecturers having
teaching experience of 3years, below 3 years and above 3 years in the barriers faced by
them in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory.
Table No: IV. 5. e. i. Showing the difference among the barriers faced by the engineering college English
lecturers having teaching experience of 3years, below 3 years and above 3 years in
implementing Technical English with Communication
Laboratory
No Barriers
3 ye
ars
Bel
ow 3
ye
ars
Abo
ve 3
ye
ars
Cat
egor
y ha
ving
m
ore
barr
iers
1 Lack of curiosity in learning phonetics and stress pattern.
77.1 65.7 80.3 Above 3 years
2 Lack of preference given to English. 100 95.4 94.3 3 years 3 Inability in reading materials on the computer screen. 65.7 63 68.8 Above 3 years 4 No periodical internal assessment test. 74.3 72.2 66.2 3 years 5 Lack of special training for English lecturers. 74.3 76.9 70.7 Below 3 years 6 Unawareness of the current trends of ELT 77.1 75 71.3 3 years 7 Influence of mother tongue. 68.6 71.3 72.6 Above 3 years
8 Inability of English lecturers to play different roles.(teacher, soft skill trainer)
57.1 53.7 58.6 Above 3 years
9 Lack of previous knowledge about this new technology.
60 70.4 63.7 Below 3 years
10 Examination oriented teaching. 91.4 83.3 79 3 years 11 Fear in handling computers and technical setting. 60 66.7 60.5 Below 3 years
12 Inability of faculty members in conversing about technical topics while testing speaking skill.
62.9 60.2 61.8 3 years
13 Inadequate supply of computers. 71.4 68.5 63.7 3 years 14 Lack of well-equipped lab with listening components. 82.9 84.3 84.7 Above 3 years 15 Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive. 68.6 71.3 81.5 Above 3 years 16 Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet. 74.3 75 75.2 Above 3 years 17 Using sub-standard software. 74.3 75.9 83.4 Above 3 years 18 Lack of technical skill among the English teachers. 65.7 77.8 71.3 Below 3 years 19 Insufficient time duration. 68.6 69.4 67.5 Below 3 years 20 Lack of willingness to attend workshops. 48.6 56.5 47.8 Below 3 years 21 Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues. 74.3 54.6 58.6 3years
22 Language proficiency is not a criterion for selecting students.
88.6 82.4 77.7 3years
23 Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab. 82.9 82.4 86.6 Above 3 years
From the above table it is inferred that the engineering college English lecturers with 3
years teaching experience are having the following barriers more than their counterpart in
implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering
curriculum.
• Lack of preference given to English.
• No periodical internal assessment test.
• Unawareness of the current trends of ELT.
• Examination oriented teaching.
• Inability of faculty members in conversing about technical topics while testing
speaking skill.
• Inadequate supply of computers.
• Language proficiency is not a criterion for selecting students.
• Lack of supportive head as well as colleagues.
Engineering college English lecturers with below 3 years teaching experience are having
the following barriers more than their counterpart in implementing Technical English
with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum.
• Lack of special training for English lecturers.
• Lack of previous knowledge about this new technology.
• Fear in handling computers and technical setting.
• Lack of technical skill among the English teachers.
• Insufficient time duration.
• Lack of willingness to attend workshops.
Engineering college English lecturers with above 3 years teaching experience are having
the following barriers more than their counterpart in implementing Technical English
with Communication Skills Laboratory in engineering curriculum.
• Lack of curiosity in learning phonetics and stress pattern.
• Inability in reading materials on the computer screen.
• Influence of mother tongue.
• Inability of English lecturers to play different roles.(teacher, soft skill trainer)
• Lack of well-equipped lab with listening components.
• Setting up of ELC Lab is very expensive.
• Lack of TV, LCD, CDs, DVD and internet.
• Using sub-standard software.
• Lack of spoken English environment outside the lab.
Figure IV. 12. (a)
Bar graph showing the difference among the barriers faced by the engineering
college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication
Skills Laboratory with reference to the variable ‘teaching experience’
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference
teaching experience of 3years, below 3 years and above 3 years in the barriers faced by
them in implementing
‘F’- test showing the barriers faced by the engineering collimplementing Technical English with
reference to the variable ‘Teaching Experience”
Source of Variance
Sum of Squares
Between samples
Within Samples 5199.648
Since ‘F’-value in the above table (
hypothesis is accepted
between the barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers
below 3 years and above 3 years of teaching experience
English with Communication Skills Laboratory
Bar graph showing the barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with
reference to the variable ‘Teaching Experience”
39.6
39.8
40
40.2
40.4
40.6
40.8
41
Me
an
significant difference among the engineering college English lecturers
teaching experience of 3years, below 3 years and above 3 years in the barriers faced by
them in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory.
Table No: IV. 5. e. ii
test showing the barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory
reference to the variable ‘Teaching Experience”
Sum of Squares df
Mean Square F-Value
Table Value
2.949 2 1.475 0.084 2.99
5199.648 297 17.507
value in the above table (0.084) is less than the table value
accepted and it is found that the significant difference
between the barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers
below 3 years and above 3 years of teaching experience in implementing Technical
Communication Skills Laboratory.
Figure IV. 12. (b)
the barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers in implementing Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory
reference to the variable ‘Teaching Experience”
39.6
39.8
40
40.2
40.4
40.6
40.8
41
3 years Below 3 years Above 3 years
40.81
40.02
40.81
English lecturers having
teaching experience of 3years, below 3 years and above 3 years in the barriers faced by
Communication Skills Laboratory.
ege English lecturers in Communication Skills Laboratory with
reference to the variable ‘Teaching Experience”
Table Value Remarks
2.99 Not Significant even at0.05 level
table value (2.99) the null
significant difference does not exist
between the barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers having 3years,
in implementing Technical
the barriers faced by the engineering college English lecturers in Communication Skills Laboratory with
reference to the variable ‘Teaching Experience”
Objective No. 6
Hypothesis: 6
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant positive correlation between the attitude of
engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication
Skills Laboratory and barriers in implementation.
Table No: IV. 6.
Correlation between the attitude of Engineering College English lecturers towards
Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory and barriers in
implementation
S.no variables
Number
‘r’ value Remarks
Calculated value
Table value
1
Attitude towards
Communication Skills
Laboratory and Barriers
300 0.0559 0.195 NS
even at 0.05 level
2 Gender Male 96 0.0243 0.205 NS
Female 204 0.1029 0.195 NS
3 Locale Rural 184 0.0198 0.195 NS
Urban 116 0.1097 0.195 NS
4 Type of
College
government 10 0.3796 0.623 NS
Self-financed 290 0.0494 0.195 NS
5 Educational
Qualification
Prescribed 239 0.0661 0.195 NS
More than prescribed
61 0.0279 0.250 NS
6 Teaching
Experience
3 years 35 0.0383 0.349 NS
Below 3 years 108 0.0159 0.195 NS
Above 3 years 157 0.0856 0.195 NS
The above table shows the ‘r’ value (correlation co-efficient) between attitude of
engineering college English lecturers towards technical English with Communication
Skills Laboratory and barriers in implementing it. From the table it is inferred that the
calculated “r” value is (0.0559) less than the table value (0.195). Hence the null
hypothesis is accepted.
There is no significant positive correlation between the attitude of engineering
college English lecturers towards technical English with Communication Skills
Laboratory and barriers. The table also shows the ‘r’ value (correlation co-efficient)
between attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory and barriers in implementing it with reference to
different background variables.
Objective No. 7
.Hypothesis No. 7
Null Hypothesis: There are no significant positive correlations, between the different
dimensions of attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English
with Communication Skills Laboratory and barriers in implementation.
Table No: IV. 7.
Correlations, between the different dimensions of attitude of engineering college
English lecturers towards Technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory
and barriers in implementation.
No Dimensions of
attitude Number ‘r’ value
Remarks Calculated value
Table value
1 Psychological 300 0.16275 0.195 NS
2 Academic 300 0.10198 0.195 NS
3 Administrative 300 0.0233 0.195 NS
4 Utility 300 0.04368 0.195 NS
The above table shows that the ‘r’ values (correlation co-efficient) between the
different dimensions of attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards
technical English with Communication Skills Laboratory and barriers in implementation.
From the table it is inferred that the calculated “r” values (0.16275, 0.10198, 0.0233, and
0.04368) are less than the table value (0.195). Hence the null hypothesis is accepted.
There is no significant positive correlation between the different dimensions of
attitude of engineering college English lecturers towards Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory and barriers in implementation.
Objective No.8
Hypothesis No.8
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant factor with positive loading of the variables
namely psychological, academic, administrative, utility level, attitude towards Technical
English with Communication Skills Laboratory and barriers in implementation.
Table No: IV. 8.
Factors loading of attitude towards Technical English with Communication Skills
Laboratory and barriers in implementation.
No Factors Factor Loading
Nature of presence of the variables in the
factor 1 Psychological 0.785 Very high presence
2 Academic 0.858 Very high presence
3 Administrative 0.608 Considerable
4 Utility 0.851 Very high presence
5 Attitude towards communication skills lab
0.998 Extremely high presence
6 Barriers 0.978 Extremely high presence
The factor analysis of the correlation matrix yields a single factor with extremely
high factor loading as given in the above table. The factor for the sample has been
identified as Psycho-academic Admin Attitude. Hence there is a significant factor with
positive loading of the variables namely Psychological, Academic, Administrative,
Utility and Attitude towards communication skills lab and Barriers.
The following figure explains the graphical representation of factor loading of the
variables namely Psychological, Academic, Administrative, Utility and Attitude towards
communication skills lab and Barriers.
Figure No: IV. 8.
Graph showing the factors loading of attitude towards Technical English with
Communication Skills Laboratory and barriers in implementation.
Objective No.9
IV.3. Analyses of Respondents’ Opinions about “Technical English with English
Language Communication Skills Laboratory”
Very few out of 300 respondents (Engineering college English lecturers), had
shared their views on “comments if any” column of the tool, “English lecturers attitude
0.7850.858
0.608
0.851
0.998 0.978
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Psy
cho
log
ica
l
Aca
de
mic
Ad
min
istr
ati
ve
Uti
lity
Att
itu
de
Ba
rrie
rs
FA
CT
OR
S
VARIABLES
Factor Loading
towards Technical English with English Language Communication Skills Laboratory”.
The opinions given by the respondents were analysed and compiled here:
The components of the course, “Technical English with English Language
Communication Skills Laboratory” is relevant to acquire competency both in
spoken and written English.
Students learn English easily by using English language lab. So this course,
“Technical English with English Language Communication Skills Laboratory”
suits the needs of today’s engineers.
The scope of the, “Technical English with English Language Communication
Skills Laboratory” is marvelous.
English language lab serves as an excellent resource for developing
communication skills. If the lab is used properly, it will be a blessing channel for
developing communication skills, not only for students but also for teachers.
Campus placement proves to be a bugbear to many students, not because of
technical skill but due to inadequate communication skills in English. English
communication language lab in engineering English provides opportunities for
practicing the skills of communication. Hence efforts should be sincerely made in
utilizing the lab.
Majority of the English students and lecturers found the course; “Technical
English with English Language Communication Skills Laboratory” very
meaningful and enjoyable.
Even though this course has some demerits, it has created a positive impact on
students’communication skills.
“Technical English with English Language Communication Skills Laboratory” is
a relevant subject for engineering students.
The learners find this course, “Technical English with English Language
Communication Skills Laboratory” interesting and useful.
“Technical English with English Language Communication Skills Laboratory” is
a successful tool for engineering students to attain fluency in English.
“Technical English with English Language Communication Skills Laboratory” in
engineering curriculum is an apt course which motivates and trains the learner to
meet the challenges of employability. Really, it is a guiding star for engineering
students.
The students will be more benefited if the managements provide proper
infrastructure and trained human resources for English communication lab.
English lecturers working in engineering colleges have to motivate the students
and kindle their interest to make use of the course, “Technical English with
English Language Communication Skills Laboratory”.
The course, “Technical English with English Language Communication Skills
Laboratory” encourages engineering students to participate in the classroom
actively with their peer group and helps to develop communication skills.
IV.4.CONCLUSION
The statistical analysis and its interpretation are discussed in this chapter. The
summary of the findings, their educational implications and suggestion for further
research are discussed in the next chapter.