g) Comparación con el Bombeo por Generador

The previous section presented students’ perceptions of the usefulness of the CSs. This section examines the correlations between students’ reports of strategy use and usefulness. In order to gauge the relationship between students’ reports of use and usefulness of CSs, Pearson Product-Moment procedures were performed to calculate correlation coefficients of these two variables.

Correlations between students’ reports of use and usefulness of CSs before the CS instruction

Before the 12-week CS instruction, correlations between strategy use and usefulness were computed and calculated. The results of mean scores and the relationship of students’ reports of use and usefulness of CSs are presented in Table 4.7 below.

Table 4.7 Correlation coefficients between students’ reports of strategy use and strategy usefulness before the CS instruction

Strategies Correlation

(r) P value (p) Comprehension check (cp) (M=2.65, 2.86)* 0.375 0.000** Literal translation (lt) (M=2.86, 3.09)* 0.367 0.000**

Appeal for help (ah) (M=2.97,4.02)* 0.361 0.000** Non-linguistic strategy (nl) (M=3.15, 3.71)* 0.360 0.000**

Code switching (cw) (M=2.69, 2.65)* 0.356 0.000** Approximation (ap) (M=2.56, 3.23)* 0.349 0.000**

Strategies Correlation (r) P value (p) Self-repair (sr) (M=2.28, 3.71)* 0.346 0.000** Foreignizing (fr) (M=1.90, 2.22)* 0.343 0.000** Pause fillers and hesitation devices (ph) (M=3.11, 3.27)* 0.339 0.000** Use of all-purpose words (aw) (M=2.60, 3.90)* 0.328 0.000** Clarification request (cr) (M=2.91, 3.90)* 0.289 0.001** Word coinage (wc) (M=1.76, 2.52)* 0.272 0.002** Circumlocution (cl) (M=2.19, 3.69)* 0.154 0.088 Message abandonment (ma) (M=2.84, 2.22)* 0.148 0.100 Confirmation check (cf) (M=2.48, 3.66)* 0.068 0.600 Topic avoidance (ta) (M=2.97, 2.45)* 0.064 0.383

*pre and post mean scores ** p < .01

The above findings showed that prior to the CS instruction there was a low but significant relationship between the strategy use and usefulness of the following 12 strategies: comprehension check, literal translation, appeal for help, non-linguistic strategy, code switching, approximation, self-repair, foreignizing, pause fillers and hesitation devices, use of all-purpose words, clarification request and word coinage. This means that students’ beliefs about the usefulness of twelve CSs turned out to be significantly and positively correlated to their reports of use of these twelve strategies. There were correlations between what the students perceived as useful and what they thought they used (i.e., 12 CSs). The strongest positive correlation existed between the reports of use and usefulness of comprehension check (r = 0.375, p = 0.000),

indicating a moderate link between what the students thought about comprehension check and how much they thought they used it. The weakest positive correlation existed between the reports of use and usefulness of word coinage (r =0.272, p = 0.002), indicating a low link between what the students thought about word coinage and how much they said they used it. Therefore, the positive coefficients identified may indicate that students’ perceptions of usefulness of the strategies would influence positively their decision to use the strategies. In contrast to the aforementioned 12 CSs, the other four items of strategy use, namely circumlocution, message abandonment, confirmation check and topic avoidance did not significantly correlate with the four items of strategy usefulness. Students’ beliefs about the usefulness of these four strategies did not significantly and positively correlate to their reports of use of them (see Table 4.7). In other words, how useful the students perceived these four CSs was not related to their reported use of them. One possible explanation is that prior to the

12-week CS instruction the students may have lacked “strategic knowledge” (Wenden, 1998) about CSs. They could not identify what strategy they used and how useful it was for them. As a result, they might lack confidence and still question these four strategies.

Correlations between students’ reports of use and usefulness of CSs after the CS instruction

After the 12-week CS instruction, the same questionnaire was administered to the 62 students again. Then the correlations between students’ perceptions of strategy use and usefulness were computed and calculated to explore the relationships between these two variables. The results of mean scores and the relationships between students’ reports of use and usefulness of CSs after the CS instruction are presented in Table 4.8 below.

Table 4.8 Correlation coefficients between students’ reports of strategy use and strategy usefulness after the CS instruction

Strategies Correlation (r) P value (p) Comprehension check (cp) (M=3.19, 4.09)* 0.355 0.000** Literal translation (lt) (M=3.02, 2.97)* 0.470 0.000** Appeal for help (ah) (M=3.44, 4.23)* 0.264 0.003** Non-linguistic strategy (nl) (M=3.52, 3.72)* 0.398 0.000** Code switching (cw) (M=2.77, 2.35)* 0.473 0.000** Approximation (ap) (M=3.90, 4.03)* 0.242 0.001** Self-repair (sr) (M=3.55, 4.08)* 0.177 0.049*** Foreignizing (fr) (M=2.27, 2.35)* 0.494 0.000** Pause fillers and hesitation devices (ph) (M=4.40, 4.39)* 0.470 0.000** Use of all-purpose words (aw) (M=3.06, 3.69)* 0.279 0.002** Clarification request (cr) (M=3.65, 4.20)* 0.322 0.000** Word coinage (wc) (M=2.20, 2.79)* 0.453 0.000** Circumlocution (cl) (M=3.37, 4.23)* 0.297 0.001** Message abandonment (ma) (M=3.04, 1.94)* 0.182 0.043*** Confirmation check (cf) (M=3.29, 4.19)* 0.453 0.000** Topic avoidance (ta) (M=3.40, 2.84)* 0.388 0.000**

As seen in Table 4.8, after the 12-week CS instruction there was a significant

relationship between the strategy use and usefulness of all sixteen strategies. In other words, the analyses showed that students’ beliefs about the usefulness of all the strategies significantly and positively correlated to their reports of use of these sixteen strategies. The correlation coefficients of students’ reports of use and usefulness of CSs ranged from 0.177 (Self-repair) to 0.494 (Foreignizing). The strongest positive correlation existed between the reports of use and usefulness of foreignizing (r = 0.494,

p = 0.000), indicating a moderate link between what the students thought about

foreignizing and how much they thought they used it. The weakest positive correlation existed between the reports of use and usefulness of self-repair (r =0.177, p = 0.049), indicating a low link between what the students thought about self-repair and how much they thought they used it. These findings, therefore, demonstrated that after the 12-week CS instruction there was a clear relationship between what the students perceived as useful and what they thought they used. It is possible that the awareness- raising of some CSs might encourage the students to realise the types of CSs they used most and report what they really thought about these strategies.

Comparison of correlations between students’ reports of use and usefulness of CSs before and after the CS instruction

In order to compare the difference of correlation coefficients in students’ reports of use and usefulness of CSs in the pre-and post-CS instruction, Fisher’s z-test was performed. When a z-value is not between -1.96 and +1.96 with the p-value less than 0.05 (see Pallant, 2007), the conclusion is that the two coefficients (of each individual strategy) are significantly different. The p-values (p) with z-test (Z) of coefficients in students’ reports of use and usefulness of each CS before and after the CS instruction are shown in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9 Comparison of correlation coefficients between students’ reports of strategy use and strategy usefulness before and after the CS instruction

Strategies Z* P value**

(p)

Comprehension check (cp) 0.179 0.857557

Literal translation (lt) -0.973 0.330457

Appeal for help (ah) 0.837 0.402491

Non-linguistic strategy (nl) -0.345 0.729922

Code switching (cw) -1.102 0.270625

Approximation (ap) 1.123 0.261410

Self-repair (sr) 1.416 0.156865

Foreignizing (fr) -1.430 0.152714

Pause fillers and hesitation devices (ph) -1.222 0.221702 Use of all-purpose words (aw) 0.420 0.674537 Clarification request (cr) -0.283 0.777068

Word coinage (wc) -1.629 0.103290

Circumlocution (cl) -1.174 0.240221

Message abandonment (ma) -0.272 0.785707

Confirmation check (cf) -2.283 0.022421**

Topic avoidance (ta) -3.304 0.000955**

* Test of difference between two correlation coefficients ** p < .05

From the above findings, the z-values of all 16 coefficients (strategies) ranged from -3.304 (Topic avoidance) to 1.416 (Self-repair), with the p-values between 0.000955 (Topic avoidance) and 0.857557(Comprehension check). It should be noted that the z- values of fourteen coefficients were between -1.96 and +1.96 (see Table4.9). That means there was no statistically significant difference in the correlation between students’ reports of use and usefulness of these fourteen strategies before and after the CS instruction. In other words, there was no change in the correlation between the students’ reports of use and usefulness of these fourteen strategies before and after the CS instruction. However, the z-values of two coefficients (confirmation check and topic avoidance) which were -2.283 and -3.304 with the p-value less than 0.05, showed that there was a statistical difference in the correlation between students’ reports of use and usefulness of these two strategies before and after the CS instruction. There were some changes in students’ reports of use and usefulness of these two

strategies before and after the CS instruction.

To summarise, significant correlations were found in the current study between students’ reports of use and usefulness of CSs. There were some changes in

correlations between the reports of use and usefulness of CSs before and after the CS instruction. That is, after the 12-week CS instruction a positive relationship existed between the reports of use and usefulness of all 16 CSs. What can be concluded is that the students have received instruction about CSs so they might realise the benefits of using them. When they considered these strategies useful for them, they might try them out.

4.2.4 Summary of section 4.2: Analysis of self-report strategy questionnaire on