Conclusion
One of the aspects of the spread of English worldwide is the
emergence of its use vertically (i.e. its infiltration into major domains of
life) and horizontally (i.e. its propagation around the world). The appearance
of the division of ESL and EFL
countries is one of the aspects of the horizontal spread of
English. Putting into consideration the rising importance of English as a
global language, it seems crucial to investigate the value attached to it by
young university students in the sciences. The variation of the reasons
explaining the worldwide emergence of English strengthens this claim as within
some of those reasons one can realise the dependence of the coming decades on
English in the world (Graddol, 1997) despite the fact that according to some
perspectives English is the sign of colonialism (Phillipson, 1992). Such a
position is expected to be of minor importance in Tunisia and especially for
Tunisian university science students. The perception of the value of English
among those students can be coloured by the various attempts to promote it, at
least apparently, in education since independence.
Chapter Two: Methodology
2.0. Introduction
This chapter aims at providing the context of the research in
terms of components and way of data collection and analysis. For this reason,
it is composed of five sections. The first sub-section deals with the research
design that is the reasons behind choosing the survey method. The second
sub-section contains the description of the participants before moving to deal
with the questionnaire itself in terms of its themes in the third sub-section
entitled `the data collection instrument'. The procedures, the timing, and the
difficulties witnessed when collecting information are to be dealt with in the
fourth sub-section under the subtitle `data collection'. Finally, the way the
data was handled will be the focus of the fifth sub-section entitled `data
handling'.
2.1. Research design
The aim of this paper is primarily to investigate the value of
English as perceived by Tunisian university science students. For this reason,
the questionnaire is helpful in gathering the needed information as it allows
to elicit personal view directly from the respondents.
2.2. The participants
The target population of this paper is one hundred Tunisian
university science students in five higher education institutions in Tunis and
Manouba. The institutions are the Faculty of Medicine, the Engineering
Preparatory Institute Tunis (IPEIT), the Higher Institute of Commerce (ESC),
the Higher Institute of Commerce and Business Administration (ISCAE), and the
Faculty of Science Tunis. The decision of choosing science students was taken
because of the important link between them, English, and the future. Their
perception could be valuable in recognising attitudes towards English
today (2008) and according to who are assumed to be the
scientists of the future in Tunisia in the direction of predicting their
inclusion to a world dominated by English. 2.3. The data collection
instrument
The questionnaire was divided into six sections. The first one
contained the background information about the students, which means their age,
gender, department, level, and specialisation. The second section aimed at
collecting data about the proficiency of the students as they claimed it. For
instance, responded were asked to indicate their level in the last English exam
they sat for by giving them three alternatives (0-7, 8-12, and 13-up) in order
to classify them into «under average», «intermediate», and
«Good» learners of English. The second and the third questions of
this section aimed at exploring students' communicative ability. What is meant
by `communicative abilities' is their ability to perceive English utterances
and communicate using English. Therefore, the second question of this section
explored their ability to understand people speaking English in an authentic
English film or TV program by giving them four alternatives. The first
alternative «I understand every word they say» is taken to reflect
ability as very competent users of English. The second alternative provided in
«I miss few words at times» was put to classify respondents
intermediate in understanding spoken English. The alternative «I have
difficulties with understanding» was put to investigate the number of
students who assess their ability as «weak» or «low». The
fourth alternative that is «I understand better British films than
American films aimed at recognising the closest variety to students' abilities.
In the third question of this section, the concern was student' ability to
produce exclusively English utterances when in real life and the possible
alternatives they resort to when they cannot communicate their ideas. Thus,
students had to choose between three alternatives, which are
«perfectly», «sometimes I resort to
gestures», and «I resort to French if I can't
express myself». The first alternative concerns competent users of English
at the level of verbal production while the second and third alternatives aimed
at scrutinising the possible solutions students resort to when failing in
finding English words. In an attempt to witness the relationship between
English and French in terms of use, students were asked, in question four, to
identify the language of their favourite films and, in question five, of the
interface when using internet.
In section three, the position of English in students' plans
was put under study. They were asked to identify whether they plan to study in
an English speaking country or just they need English to have access to more
sites on the internet for their studies. The emphasis of this question is
mainly the second alternative which is planning to study in an English speaking
country.
Sections four and five questioned the attitudes of students
concerning English. The first question of section four aimed at recognising the
percentage of students who studied English out of public institutions and the
rate of those who did not in addition to the reasons behind each choice. The
reasons were reported using open-ended questions as an attempt to elicit direct
information from the participants. The second question of the fourth section
tackled the domains of the importance of English according to the students.
They were offered two intrinsic motivators («to discover other cultures of
the world» and «to find out about any topic of the world») and
two extrinsic motivators («to succeed in education» and «to
succeed in professional life») in order to witness the type of motivation
that drives the students. The third question dealt with the possible obstacles
students' face with learning English. They were asked to choose the most
inhibiting obstacle. Such a question aimed at recognising students'
difficulties concerning mastering English. The first alternative provided was
the «absence of extra curricular activities» and it aimed at
measuring the number of
students who think they could promote their level from
activities like English clubs. The rational behind suggesting the alternative
of «dominance of French language in Tunisia» is investigating the
degree to which the availability of this language is an obstacle facing
learning English. The alternative of whether students feel they have no time to
study English or not was put to explore the degree to which students claimed
that loaded timetables is an obstacle. The alternative that the time allocated
to study English is not encouraging was put on the basis of personal
observations of complaints of science students who claim they could not learn
English because the time allocated for it is too early or too late. The last
alternative in this question is that «the program is not interesting»
and it is put because students might feel bored and frustrated because of
particular kinds of programs that, for example, enormously lay on the
structure.
In the fifth section, the prospect of adopting English and
Arabic and the reasons behind the choices were tackled. In the first question,
which concerned the possibility of adopting English as the language of
instruction in universities teaching science and technology, students were
given four alternatives which are «I agree», «I disagree»,
«I totally disagree» (which aim at measuring those who extremely
refuse the idea), and those who say they are «indifferent». The
degree of acceptance or refusal is measured as students might have some
conditions before taking such a decision. In the same question, they were asked
to provide the reasons for their choices. They were not given alternatives as
the question was given in an open-ended manner to elicit direct and real data.
The same structure used with the first question of section five was used with
the second question in the same section. Students were asked to state their
perception of adopting Arabic as the language of instruction in scientific
sections at universities and to provide the reasons (in an open-ended manner)
for their choices. The solutions students propose as measures to promote the
learning of English among science students are investigated in the third
question of this section. Students had to choose
what they think the most efficient decision from five
alternatives, which are «oblige teachers to use tape recorders and
multimedia in teaching English», «increase the coefficient of
English», «establish English clubs in every university»,
«increase the hours devoted to study English», and «teach
English literature and civilisation». Suggesting using multimedia and
establishing clubs as alternatives to the question intends to exploring the
rate of students who support creative methods in teaching as a solution to
promote learning English. Increasing the coefficient aims at investigating
instrumentally motivated students while increasing the number of the hours aims
at measuring whether students do need more exposure to English or not.
The sixth section of the questionnaire, which investigated the
use of English among university science students, is composed of three
questions. The first question reports students' use of English when sending
e-mails where students were given three alternatives, which are
«never», «few times», and «many times». The
second question scrutinised the situations where students were obliged to use
English and they were given four alternatives which are «never»,
«when chatting», «when using English documents», and
«with foreigners». The use of English was measured also in terms of
the language set in students' mobile phones. They were given four alternatives,
which are «French», «English», «Arabic», and
«other».
In brief, the themes included in the questionnaire aimed at
collecting data mainly about three issues, which are students' proficiency in,
perception of, and use of English in education and daily life.
| 
