4 Results and Discussion
4.2 Teachers’ perspectives through interviews and the questionnaire
4.2.6 Correlations
Table 48 The correlation between the importance of the command of English and that of knowing how to teach different aspects of the language
Command
of E
How to Command of E Pearson Correlation 1 .455(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 251 250
How to Pearson Correlation .455(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 250 250
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Since a relatively high correlation was found in the data set, it is worth taking a look at the findings on a scatterplot. Cohen & al. state that “when correlations are around .40, crude group prediction may be possible” (2007, p. 536). The scatterplot below shows that those respondents who give high ratings to the statement on knowing English tend to do likewise as regards the statement on knowing how to teach different aspects of the language.
Table 49 Scatterplot on the correlation between the importance of the command of English and knowing how to teach different aspects of the language
5 4
3 2
1
Command of E
5
4
3
2
1
How to
Responses to the statement that a teacher is supposed to know how to teach the language appear to significantly correlate with those given to the statement on the teacher’s
ability to transmit their knowledge (see Table 50). No normal distribution was found here either.
Table 50 The correlation between the importance of knowing how to teach different aspects of the language and the ability to transmit knowledge
How to Transmission
How to Pearson Correlation 1 .336(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 250 248
Transmission Pearson Correlation .336(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 248 249
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The statement on the ability of a teacher to explain the material well significantly correlates with the statement on working well with the students (for detailed figures refer to Table 51), which seems to suggest that giving clear explanations implies the message has to get through to the students. The data did not display a bell-curve, nevertheless.
Table 51 The correlation between the importance of the ability to explain clearly and that of working well with the students
Explaining Work with students
Explaining Pearson Correlation
1 .336(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 249 248
Work with students
Pearson Correlation
.336(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 248 250
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Responses given to the statement on learning from student feedback significantly correlate with the responses given to two other statements, the one on working well with the students and knowing the students well. This seems to underline the importance of the relationship and two-way communication with the students. Those who find their relationship
important with their students tend to value more the feedback they receive from them. Here, both data sets can be characterised by normal distribution (see details in Table 52 and Table 53).
Table 52 The correlations between the importance of knowing the students and the attitude to learning from student feedback
Know the
students+
Feedback Know the ss+ Pearson Correlation 1 .332(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 250 250
Feedback Pearson Correlation .332(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 250 251
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 53 The correlation between the importance of working with students and the attitude to learning from student feedback
Work with students Feedback
Work with students Pearson Correlation 1 .337(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 250 250
Feedback Pearson Correlation .337(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 250 251
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Data concerning the statement “working with students” was not, but data on the statement on feedback was normally distributed.
Out of the teachers who filled in the questionnaire, those who think they can learn from their colleagues also had an inclination to think that class visits were useful, as the following correlation suggests (see Table 54). Both data sets were normally distributed.
Table 54 The correlation between the importance of learning from colleagues and the attitude to class visits
Learn from
colleagues
Visits+
Learn from colleagues
Pearson Correlation 1 .336(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 251 248
Visits+ Pearson Correlation .336(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 248 248
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
As the following correlation in Table 55 shows, learning from student feedback and learning through students seem to be connected in respondents’ heads. Both data sets can be characterised by normal distribution.
Table 55 The correlation between the attitude to learning from student feedback and acquiring new knowledge through the students
Feedback New
knowledge through Ss
Feedback Pearson Correlation 1 ,388(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 251 250
New knowledge through S
Pearson Correlation ,388(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 250 250
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The importance teachers attach to their relationship significantly correlates with the importance of reflection and is described like this: “If an idea works, I use it later, too” (see Table 56). The statement on student relationship can, but the one on reflection cannot be characterised by the bell-curve.
Table 56 The correlation between the importance of the relationship with the students and the attitude to the first statement on reflection
S Relationship Reflection
1 S Relationship Pearson Correlation 1 ,342(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 251 250
Reflection 1 Pearson Correlation ,342(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 250 250
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Evaluations given to the statement “I have learnt a lot from my own teaching experience” seem to significantly correlate with the responses given to the statement “I benefit a lot from my relationship with the students” (as shown in Table 57). The statement on student relationship can, but the one on own teaching cannot be characterised by normal distribution.
Table 57 The correlation between the importance of the relationship with the student and the attitude to learning from one’s own teaching
S
Relationship
Own teaching S Relationship Pearson Correlation 1 ,366(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 251 250
Own teaching Pearson Correlation ,366(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 250 250
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Responses given to the first statement on reflection and the one on learning from one’s own teaching significantly correlate with each other (see Table 58). Neither data set was normally distributed.
Table 58 The correlation between the importance of the attitude to learning from one’s own teaching and the first statement on reflection
Own
teaching
Reflection 1 Own
teaching
Pearson Correlation
1 ,369(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 250 249
Reflection 1 Pearson Correlation
,369(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 249 250
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
It is a noteworthy finding that those who rated methodology conferences and professional journals high rated research findings high as well. There is a significant positive relationship between learning from methodology conferences and learning from professional journals (r = .52, p < .01) and learning from methodology conferences and learning from the results of the latest research (r = .33 p < .01), as shown in Table 59. Responses highly correlate in the case of leaning from research and learning from professional journals, as well, (r = .45, p < .01). All three data sets were normally distributed.
Table 59 The inter-correlations between the attitude to professional journals and methodology conferences and research
Prof
journals+
Meth Conf+
Research + Prof journals+ Pearson Correlation 1 ,522(**) ,459(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000
N 249 249 246
Meth Conf+ Pearson Correlation ,522(**) 1 ,334(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000
N 249 250 247
Research+ Pearson Correlation ,459(**) ,334(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000
N 246 247 248
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The responses concerning the acquisition of new knowledge through students significantly correlate with feedback and they also do so with learning new vocabulary from students as is shown in Table 60 below. Both data sets were normally distributed.
Table 60 The correlation between the attitude to learning new vocabulary from students and acquiring new knowledge through the students
Learn
vocabulary from S+
New knowledge
through S Learn vocab from S+ Pearson Correlation 1 ,461(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 251 250
New knowledge through S Pearson Correlation ,461(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 250 250
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Since this was a relatively high correlation, it is worth taking a look at the findings on a scatterplot (see Table 61). It shows that those respondents who gave high ratings to the statement “I have acquired new knowledge through my students” gave a low rating to the statement “I have never learnt any new words or expressions from my students”.
Table 61 A scatterplot on the correlation between the attitude to learning new vocabulary from students and acquiring new knowledge through the students
5 4
3 2
1
New knowledge through S
5
4
3
2
1
Learn vocab from S+
There seems to be significant correlation between the ratings given to acquiring new knowledge through students and learning from one’s own teaching according to the sample in the study (see Table 62). However, responses concerning the statement on learning from one’s own teaching were not normally distributed.
Table 62 The correlation between the attitude to acquiring new knowledge through students and the attitude to learning from one’s own teaching
New
knowledge through S
Own teaching New knowledge through S Pearson Correlation 1 ,343(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 250 249
Own teaching Pearson Correlation ,343(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 249 250
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Having looked at the correlations above, it can be stated that there is a fairly strong relationship between the above variables, but only when the data showed characteristics of normal distribution (Csendes, 2011, p. 80). Thus, a positive significant relationship was identified between responses given to the statement on learning from colleagues and those given to the statement on learning from class visits. The same positive relationship exists between knowing the students and learning from feedback, between learning from feedback and acquiring new knowledge from students, and between acquiring new knowledge from students and learning new vocabulary from students. This fairly strong positive relationship can also be identified between learning from professional journals and methodology conferences, between learning from methodology conferences and learning from research, between learning from research and learning from professional journals. The above proves, for example, that those who value class visits also value learning from colleagues and vice versa, or that those teachers in the sample who do not consider methodology conferences useful find professional journals useless.
However, it must be borne in mind that correlations do not indicate a causal relationship (Cohen et al, 2007, p. 531; Falus, 2000, p. 220), but merely that the variables are related.