Subzona No 1

The third aspect of transition that the current study explored was respondents’ linguistic adaptation experiences. The respondents were presented with a list of ten linguistic adaptation experiences. The linguistic adaptation results are presented in Table 4.4 below.

Table 4.4 Linguistic Adaptation Experiences

Distribution of responses %

Items SDA DA A SA CDA CA Mean

3.1 I can do critical reading for comprehending the texts (in English) in my BS study syllabus

9.9 29.1 55.0 6.0 39.0 61.0 2.57 3.2 I can comprehend the lectures in English 8.0 23.3 60.0 8.7 31.3 68.7 2.69 3.3 I face no problem in writing assignments in English

3.4 I face no problem in taking assessments in English 3.5 I can speak English fluently

8.6 8.6 14.9 20.4 20.4 48.1 55.9 55.3 31.8 15.1 15.7 5.2 29.0 29.0 63.0 71.0 71.0 37.0 2.78 2.78 2.27 3.6 I can speak English confidently 13.2 45.0 37.2 4.6 58.2 41.8 2.33 3.7 I am adapting to the English language of instruction in

university

2.6 22.4 60.5 14.5 25.0 75.0 2.87 3.8 I can present orally in English in front of an audience

without the fear of making English language mistakes

20.4 40.1 29.6 9.9 60.5 39.5 2.29 3.9 I have to take help (tuition/coaching) in learning and

understanding the English language

9.1 37.9 42.5 10.5 47.0 53.0 2.54 3.10 I think in Urdu and then translate in English before

final reproduction of a response in English

10.5 17.1 59.2 13.2 27.6 72.4 2.75 Note. SDA = Strongly Disagree; DA = Disagree; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree; CDA = Combined Disagree; CA = Combined Agree; M = Mean

The data shows that 61.0 percent respondents agreed (M= 2.57, mean above 2.5) that they could do critical reading for comprehending the texts (in English) in their BS study syllabus (item 3.1). This positive experience for a large number of these respondents may be helpful in their successful linguistic adaptation. However, it is noted that a noticeable proportion of respondents (39.0%) in the current study indicated facing problems in doing critical reading for comprehending texts (in English) in their BS study syllabus. The main reason for these problems can be the non-English speaking background and the schools and colleges not teaching the critical reading skills. A number of previous studies have also found that learners from non-English speaking background encounter linguistic adaptation challenges in university (e.g. Asmar et al, 2000; Evans & Morrison, 2011; Hellekjær, 2009; Huang, 2009; Lam & Kwan, 1999; Naoko & Naeko, 2006). These studies noted that one of the reasons for problems in this regard was low level of academic and critical reading proficiency of these respondents due to learning English as a second language where little attention had been paid at schools to develop this skill. The current finding regarding over a third (39.0%) of respondents facing difficulty in doing critical reading is similar to that of Hellekjær (2009) whose study on the academic English reading proficiency of Norwegian university entrants identified that the Norwegian learners faced problems in meeting the university expectations in critical and academic reading

89

level due to low proficiency in English language and having learnt English as second language (ESL).

For item 3.2, the majority of respondents (68.7%) showed agreement (M=2.69, mean above 2.5) that they could comprehend the lectures in English. With regard to the result for item 3.3, the majority of respondents (71.0%) showed agreement (M=2.78, mean above 2.5) to facing no problem in writing assignments in English. The data for item 3.4 reveals that the majority of respondents (71.0%) agreed (M=2.78, mean above 2.5) that they were facing no problem in taking assessments in English. These findings show that a large proportion of respondents had positive adaptation experiences in these three areas. However, a consistent minority ranging between 29.0 percent to 31.3 percent reported facing problems in these aspects. The main reason for problem in comprehending lectures could be the ESL background and schools and colleges not developing listening skills as noted by Mansoor (2005) in case of Pakistani learners. Prior Urdu MOI, low standard English medium schools and no attention paid at schools and colleges to develop academic writing skills could be another reason for these respondents facing problems in meeting the university academic English requirements such as writing assignments (item 3.3) and taking assessments (item 3.4). Furthermore, some respondents in this study appear not to acknowledge the fact that university linguistic culture demands the production of critically reflective written and oral academic work. This may lead to further difficulties in successful learning through English language which may further impact on learners’ ability to adapt to the university linguistic culture. More insights into these challenges will be provided in Section 4.4 while discussing the findings on the influence of prior MOI on learners’ adaptation into university and the next chapter on the qualitative interview findings.

The result for item 3.5 shows that the majority of respondents (63.0%) disagreed (M=2.27, mean below 2.5) that they could speak English fluently. Similarly, for item 3.6, the results show that 58.2 percent respondents disagreed (M=2.33, mean below 2.5) that they could speak English confidently. However, a noticeable number of respondents (41.8%) reported otherwise. A possible reason for respondents facing problem in speaking English fluently and confidently could be little attention paid at Pakistani schools to develop English speaking skills as reported by Rahman (2002) and Shamim (2008) who studied the situation of English language teaching in Pakistan.

For item 3.7, the data shows that 75.0 percent respondents agreed (M=2.87, mean above 2.5) that they were adapting to the English language of instruction in university. This shows that the majority of respondents were having a positive attitude towards English medium of instruction

90

at university which was a new experience to many learners (who had attended Urdu medium schools and colleges) and were making efforts to successfully adapt to the university linguistic culture. The results also show that 25.0 percent respondents found it challenging to adapt to the English language of instruction in university. Some reasons behind this issue could be the dual language of instruction policy being practised in Pakistan, low quality of English language teaching, and wide use of Grammar Translation Method for teaching and learning English language which leads to impaired language skills as indicated by some researchers who studied English language teaching and learning issues in Pakistan (e.g. Mansoor, 2004, 2005; Rahman, 2002, 2005; Rassool, 2007).

The results for item 3.8 show that 60.5 percent respondents disagreed (M=2.29, mean below 2.5) to the item which reveals that the majority of them were not capable of presenting orally in English in front of an audience without the fear of making English language mistakes. It is also noted that a noticeable percentage (39.5%) of respondents expressed agreement to the item. Considering that a large number of respondents indicated that they could not speak English fluently (63.0%) and confidently (58.2%), these issues could be causing respondents’ hesitation and difficulties in making oral presentations in English. These challenges may lead these respondents to a number of academic adjustment problems in university. Again ESL background, low standard of English language teaching in schools and colleges, and little attention paid to developing the oral and spoken English skills could be the reason for Pakistani respondents facing these challenges in this study. Another possible reason for respondents’ lack of confidence and fluency in spoken English in this study could be their habit of thinking in Urdu and translating in English before producing the final response. Similar problems were reported by Huang (2012) who studied Taiwanese university entrants and found that low proficiency in English language can lead students to feel hesitant to pose questions or reply to a lecturer's question in English, and showing unwillingness to participate in class discussion. The academic and linguistic issues of the respondents in the current study could also have similar outcomes for learners as can be seen in the problems faced by them in making oral presentations in English.

The data for item 3.9 reveals that over half of the respondents (53.0%) reported agreement (M=2.54, mean above 2.5) to the need to take help (tuition/coaching) in learning and understanding the English language. The data further shows that a noticeable number of respondents (47.0%) showed disagreement to the item which means that near half of the respondents did not need to take help for learning and understanding English language and could do that independently. The finding regarding current study respondents’ (53%) need to

91

take help (tuition or coaching) in learning and understanding the English language is contrasting to what the respondents reported to item 1.4 (I need to take tuition for completing my study tasks outside university hours) in the current study where the majority of respondents (78.6%) reported that they did not need tuition for completing their study tasks outside university hours. This indicates that the respondents may perhaps not be in need of taking formal tuition for overall studies (subjects other than English) but may be in need to take only informal help from someone in learning and understanding the English language but not a formal tuition or coaching. This also indicates the need and importance to learn English language to understand and comprehend the course content (texts in English) for overall BS study syllabus.

The results for item 3.10 show that 72.4% respondents expressed agreement (M= 2.75, mean above 2.5) that they think in Urdu and then translate in English before final reproduction of a response in English. This finding reflects other findings in the linguistic adaptation category in this study where it was found that a large number of respondents could not speak English fluently (63.0%) and confidently (58.2%). Naturally, thinking in Urdu and then translating in English may negatively impact fluency and confidence to speak English. Huang (2009) also found in case of Taiwanese first year university students that low proficiency in English language can lead to hesitation in speaking English. Ahmed (2012) who studied English language learning situation in Pakistan also reports that the biggest challenge faced by English second language learners is the positive transfer of thoughts and ideas from first language (Urdu in this case) into second language (English).

The findings show that over 60 percent respondents reported positive experiences for five linguistic adaptation items (3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.7). The percentage of the responses to positive experiences ranged between 61.0 percent to 75.0 percent. Yet this also means a considerable number of respondents, ranging between 19 percent to 39 percent, faced problems in these areas which should not be overlooked. There were five items (3.5, 3.6, 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10), the responses to which indicated that the linguistic adaptation challenges were faced by 53.0 percent to 72.4 percent respondents. The positive linguistic experiences and linguistic adaptation challenges faced by respondents are presented in the lists below.

Positive linguistic adaptation experiences

The majority of respondents reported that they:

x could do critical reading for comprehending the texts (in English) in their BS study syllabus (Item 3.1)

92

x could comprehend the lectures in English (Item 3.2)

x faced no problem in writing assignments in English (Item 3.3)

x faced no problem in taking assessments in English (Item 3.4)

x were adapting to the English language of instruction in university (Item 3.7)

Linguistic adaptation challenges

The results showed that the majority of respondents:

x could not speak English fluently (Item 3.5)

x could not speak English confidently (Item 3.6)

x could not present orally in English in front of an audience without the fear of making English language mistakes (Item 3.8)

x had to take help (tuition/coaching) in learning and understanding the English language (Item 3.9)

x thought in Urdu and then translated in English before final reproduction of a response in English (Item 3.10)

The results on environmental adaptation experiences are presented next.