Chapter 3. The Main Study
3.4 Research design
3.4.3 Methods
The methods of data collection and analysis used to investigate the above variables in order to answer the research questions are presented in Table 8. A more detailed elaboration of the methods used is presented in the description of the data collection and analysis procedures.
Table 8 Methods of data collection and analysis used
Research questions Variables Data collection methods Data analysis methods 1 Does the level of
Eng-lish as a working lan-guage (EWL) profi-ciency influence the degree of group cohe-sion (interculturation)?
EWL proficiency
Interculturation as ac-complishment
Interculturation as a
EWL proficiency was tested twice.
Instrument: language pro-ficiency test
Interculturation as group cohesiveness was tested three times.
Instrument: sociometric test
Interculturation as attitude
The change for signifi-cance was statistically measured at individual and group level – quan-titative analysis by t-test Qualitative analysis was applied to decide if the change in the quantified data, ie.the change in EWL proficiency influ-enced the group struc-ture and the individuals’
position in the group.
The indices of cohesion, integration and expan-siveness were calculated and compared qualita-tively.
The process of
intercul-Intergroup behaviour patterns
Extroverted or intro-verted personality fac-tors
Nationalities Native languages Gender differences External influences (parental support, dura-tion of residence) Situational factors (language use outside the school)
Instrument: attitude ques-tionnare
Self-report
Preference of working styles in groups was determined Instrument:intergroup behaviour questionnare
Ways of dealing with other people were determined Instrument: learning style questionnaire
Instruments:
Background personal data questionnaire,
Teachers’ notes Self-report
change in attitude, and by identifying the changes toward the un-derlying dimensions, thus providing data about the possible causes of modifications in group structures The change for signifi-cance was statistically measured at individual and group level – quan-titative analysis by t-test.
The underlying attitudi-nal dimensions were analysed according to the scores on a 5 point rating scale
The data were quanti-fied, and qualitatively analysed.
Preference of working styles in groups was determined according to the scores on a 2 point rating scale.
The data were quanti-fied, and qualitatively analysed
Ways of dealing with other people were de-termined according to the scores on a 4 point rating scale
The data were quanti-fied, and qualitatively analysed.
The personality factors, personal data, external and situational influ-ences were considered as modifying factors and served to crosscheck data gained from other sources – qualitative analysis
2 Does the level of the language of survival (LS) proficiency influ-ence group cohesiveness (interculturation)?
LS proficiency
Interculturation as
ac-The change of grades in LS proficiency at the end of two terms was at individual and group level.
Instrument: grade data
Interculturation as group
The change of grades in LS proficiency at the end of four terms was statistically measured for significance at indi-vidual and group level - quantitative analysis by t-test
Qualitative analysis was
complishment
Interculturation as a process
Intergroup behaviour patterns
Extroverted or intro-verted personality fac-tors
Nationalities Native languages Gender differences
cohesiveness was tested three times
Instrument: sociometric test
Interculturation as attitude was tested twice.
Instrument: attitude ques-tionnare
Self-report
Preference of working styles in groups was determined Instrument:intergroup behaviour questionnare
Ways of dealing with other people were determined Instrument: learning style questionnaire
Instruments:
Background personal data questionnaire,
applied to decide if the change in LS profi-ciency influenced the group structure and the individuals’ position in the group.
The indices of cohesion, integration and expan-siveness were calculated and compared.
The process of intercul-turation was monitored by measuring the change in attitude, and by identifying the changes toward the un-derlying dimensions, thus providing data about the possible causes of modifications in group structures The change for signifi-cance was statistically measured at individual and group level - quanti-tative analysis by t-test The underlying attitudi-nal dimensions were analysed according to the scores on a 5 point rating scale
The data were quanti-fied, and qualitatively analysed.
Preference of working styles in groups was determined according to the scores on a 2 point rating scale.
The data were quanti-fied, and qualitatively analysed
Ways of dealing with other people were de-termined according to the scores on a 4 point rating scale
The data were quanti-fied, and qualitatively analysed.
The personality factors, personal data, external and situational influ-ences were considered as modifying factors and
(parental support, dura-tion of residence) Situational factors (language use outside the school
Self-report data gained from other sources – qualitative analysis
3 Is there direct causal relationship between interculturation and study achievement?
Study achievement
Interculturation as ac-complishment
Interculturation as a process
Intergroup behaviour patterns
Extroverted or
intro-The change of grades in five subjects and of the overall averages at the end of four terms was measured at indi-vidual and group level Instrument: grade data
Interculturation as group cohesiveness was tested three times.
Instrument: sociometric test
Interculturation as attitude was tested twice.
Instrument: attitude ques-tionnare
Self-report .
Preference of working styles in groups was determined
Instrument: intergroup behaviour questionnaire Ways of dealing with other
The change of grades at the end of four terms was statistically meas-ured for significance at individual and group level - quantitative analysis by t-test Qualitative analysis was applied to decide if changes in study achievement influenced the group structure and the individuals’ position in the group.
The indices of cohesion, integration and expan-siveness were calculated and compared.
The process of intercul-turation was monitored by measuring the change in attitude, and by identifying the changes toward the un-derlying dimensions, thus providing data about the possible causes of modifications in group structures The change for signifi-cance was statistically measured at individual and group level - quanti-tative analysis by t-test The underlying attitudi-nal dimensions were analysed according to the scores on a 5 point rating scale
The data were quanti-fied, and qualitatively analysed.
Preference of working styles in groups was determined according to the scores on a 2 point rating scale.
The data were quanti-fied, and qualitatively analysed
Ways of dealing with
verted personality fac-tors
Nationalities Native languages Gender differences External influences (parental support, dura-tion of residence) Situational factors (language use outside the school)
people were determined Instrument: learning style questionnaire
Instruments:
Background personal data questionnaire,
Teachers’ notes Self-report
other people were de-termined according to the scores on a 4 point rating scale
The data were quanti-fied, and qualitatively analysed.
The personality factors, personal data, external and situational influ-ences were considered as modifying factors and served to crosscheck data gained from other sources – qualitative analysis
4 Does the degree of group cohesiveness (in-terculturation) influence the members’ study achievement?
Study achievement
Interculturation as ac-complishment
Interculturation as a process
The change of grades in five subjects and of the overall averages at the end of four terms was measured at indi-vidual and group level Instrument: grade data
Interculturation as group cohesiveness was tested three times.
Instrument: sociometric test
Interculturation as attitude was tested twice.
Instrument: attitude ques-tionnare
Self-report
The change of grades in five subjects and of the overall averages at the end of four terms was statistically measured for significance at indi-vidual and group level - quantitative analysis by t-test
Qualitative analysis was applied to decide if changes in study achievement influenced the group structure and the individuals’ position in the group.
The indices of cohesion, integration and expan-siveness were calculated and compared.
The process of intercul-turation was monitored by measuring the change in attitude, and by identifying the changes toward the un-derlying dimensions, thus providing data about the possible causes of modifications in group structures The change for signifi-cance was statistically measured at individual and group level - quanti-tative analysis by t-test The underlying attitudi-nal dimensions were analysed according to the scores on a 5 point
Intergroup behaviour patterns
Extroverted or intro-verted personality fac-tors
Nationalities Native languages Gender differences External influences (parental support, dura-tion of residence) Situational factors (language use outside the school)
Preference of working styles in groups was determined Instrument: intergroup behaviour questionnaire
Ways of dealing with other people were determined Instrument: learning style questionnaire
Instruments:
Background personal data questionnaire,
Teachers’ notes Self-report
The data were quanti-fied, and qualitatively analysed.
Preference of working styles in groups was determined according to the scores on a 2 point rating scale.
The data were quanti-fied, and qualitatively analysed
Ways of dealing with other people were de-termined according to the scores on a 4 point rating scale
The data were quanti-fied, and qualitatively analysed.
The personality factors, personal data, external and situational influ-ences were considered as modifying factors and served to crosscheck data gained from other sources – qualitative analysis