L 217 F

The aim of my essay is to give a general picture of the participants' opinion about the Language Practice course coded ANG1212, based on a survey among the participants of the course. First I will introduce the course itself, showing its aims that have been stated in the beginning of the semester. I will tell about the participants, and the conditions concerning the sessions. Next, I will show the questions the students participating in the course were asked to answer, indicating the number of answers given to each of these questions. As the questions relate to various subjects, I will evaluate them in question-groups, each of which involves one specific topic, such as the usefulness of the handout, the attitude to the computer system used during the sessions, the expectations and conclusions concerning the course, etc. After evaluating all the question-groups, I will finally draw a conclusion, which will be strictly based on the data reflected by the questionnaires.

Introduction of the course

The Language Practice ANG1212 course this essay aims to reflect on took place at Janus Pannonius University English Department, Pecs, during the spring semester 1996. Twelve students and the tutor, Horvath Jozsef, participated in the sessions held on Mondays, 9.40 am to 12.10 pm. The sessions took place off-campus, in the building of the University Library, in the Arizona Room, which is equipped with a computer system designed for small group discussions.

The aim of the course stated in the syllabus was "...to facilitate further development of all major language skills" and "to assist students in strengthening skills necessary for passing the end-of-semester Proficiency Exam." (Course Syllabus) It also aimed at studying small group behaviour. To support these aims, additional materials were used, such as the computer system called GroupSystems V, with the help of which small group discussions were possible. The printed additional material included the required reading 1, Wilson, G L and Hanna, M S (1990). Groups in Context. Leadership and Participation in Small Groups, of which photocopies were available for the students, session data printouts and World Wide Web texts, which were available either photocopied or through the WWW.

Introduction of the questions

The students participating in the course were asked to fill in the following questionnaire anonymously. After each question the number of answers is indicated. (A copy of the original Questionnaire is included in the Appendix.)

1. Did you read the whole handout given by the tutor?
a. Yes (2) b. No (10)

2. Did you find the handout useful from language-learning point of view?
a. Yes (7) b. No (5)

3. Did you find the handout useful for learning about behaviour in small groups?
a. Yes (11) b. No (1)

4. Have you observed any change in your behaviour in certain groups?
(the change of your roles, etc. )
a. Yes (2) b. No (10)

5. Do you think the group underwent any changes in regarding the roles within it?
a. Yes (5) b. No (7)

6. Can you name the computer program we used during the semester in the sessions?
a. Yes .............................................(10) b. No (2)

7. Did you find the system helpful for discussing certain items?
a. Yes (9) b. No (3)

8. Has your attitude towards computers change in any way? If yes, in what way?
a. Yes .............................................(4) b. No (8)

9. Did you participate in course ANG1113 last semester?
a. Yes (11) b. No (1)

10. Did you intend to join course ANG1212 this semester?
a. Yes (11) b. No (1)

11. Do you think the fact that the group members were not completely unknown to one another was important regarding the discussions?
a. Yes (12) b. No (0)

12. Have your speaking skills improved as much as you expected it to happen in the beginning of the semester?
a. Yes (1) b. No (11)

13. Have your writing skills improved as much as you expected it to happen in the beginning of the semester?
a. Yes (4) b. No (8)

14. Do you think it is mostly your fault, or the organisation of the sessions played bigger part? 2
a. Yes (Mostly my fault) (7) b. No (The organisation's fault) (4)3

For the essay I also used questions from the Essay Data Collection 4 04/15/1996 (question 15), Essay Data Collection 5 04/15/1996 (question 16), and Essay Data Collection 6 04/15/1996 (question 18). These questions were answered by ten students during the session April 15th, 1996, and were the following:

15. How difficult is it to categorise group members using the book’s 4 ideas?
(The students had to rate the answers on a scale of 1-10, where, the more difficult the categorisation was, the higher number on the scale was marked.)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- - - - 3 2 2 - 2 1
16. Are you an equal member of this group?
a. Yes (10) b. No (0)
18. Was the additional material (compu, list material) useful?
a. Yes (9) b. No (1)

Evaluation of the questions in question-groups

Question-group I. (questions 1-3)
These questions concern the usefulness of the handout for the course:
1. Did you read the whole handout given by the tutor?
a. Yes (2) b. No (10)
2. Did you find the handout useful from language-learning point of view?
a. Yes (7) b. No (5)
3. Did you find the handout useful for learning about behaviour in small groups?
a. Yes (11) b. No (1)

Seven students found the text useful from language learning point of view, while eleven of them found it useful for learning about behaviour in small groups. Five participants claimed the text to be useless for language learning, and one person found the handout useless for learning about small group behaviour.

When evaluating the answers to these questions, it is interesting to see that ten people have not read the total of the handout. It must be stated here that the tutor did not insist on the group reading the whole text, but certain chapters of it. Regarding the usefulness, however, it can be questioned whether only parts of the text can substitute the value of the total. Yet, as the whole group, with one exception, was satisfied with what they learnt about small group behaviour , even if not having read the whole handout, it seems that parts can carry through the meaning, or the quality of the whole. Thus, it can be presumed that language-learning characteristics were also present in the read chapters just like those elements related to small group behaviour. The opinions about language-learning characteristics, though, differ from the ones related to small group behaviour. The fact that more students were not satisfied with the language-learning features of the text suggests that the handout was not able to fulfil the requirements regarding this field.

Question-group II. (questions 4, 5, 15)
The questions in this group relate to the roles within the group and the students' behaviour outside the group:

4. Have you observed any change in your behaviour in certain groups? (the change of your roles, etc.)
a. Yes (2) b. No (10)
5. Do you think the group underwent any changes in regarding the roles within it?
a. Yes (5) b. No (7)
15. How difficult is it to categorise group members using the book’s 5 ideas?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- - - - 3 2 2 - 2 1

Ten people have not observed any change in their behaviour in certain groups, which means their roles have not changed. Seven people found that there had been no change of the roles within the group, either.

These answers are interesting to see regarding that among the course's aims one of the important was the study of small group behaviour. This includes the different roles within small groups, participation in discussions, etc. The handout was meant to help in defining the roles.
The fact that only a few participants observed role-changes within the group can be interpreted in two ways:

1. The roles within the group were already established and only minor changes could have happened, thus not every student was able to perceive the changes, but the ones paying close attention. This assumption is supported by the fact that the group members had known one another before from Language Practice course ANG1113, from the previous semester. (For more details about this see Question-group V. pg. 12)

2. The roles were mot established, but recognising the roles was not easy. Question 15. shows that out of ten students, who were present at the session on April 15th, 1996, three found categorising group members using the handout's ideas fairly difficult, and six of them said it was not easy. This can explain why the students have not observed any changes in the roles: setting the basic roles could have meant the main problem, thus changes were even harder to recognise.
In observing changes in the participants' own roles in various groups, the answers can also lead to two assumptions:

1. The participants had stable roles in different groups, that was the reason for the roles not having changed.

2. Categorising using the handout's ideas was difficult, thus the participants had problems in stating their own roles and the changes of them, too.

A main contradiction appears in connection with the answers to questions 1., 4 and 5, and leads to a question: If the handout was useful for learning about small group behaviour e.i. group roles, yet the participants could not recognise the roles, what does the term "useful" correspond to? The explanation can lay in the assumptions to the answers of questions 4. and 5., namely that the handout was useful, but because of stable roles changes have not taken place. Another explanation can be, however, that the participants interpreted term "useful" in a special way. Also it is possible that the students have not observed the roles profoundly. This would explain the usefulness of the handout and the fact that not many role-changes have been observed, by the participants. However, the questions do not look for the reasons, thus these interpretations and explanations remain assumptions.

Question-group III. (questions 6-8)
These questions relate to the computer system used during the sessions, and to a general attitude towards computers:

6. Can you name the computer program we used during the sessions?
a. Yes .............................................(10) b. No (2)
7. Did you find the system helpful for discussing certain items?
a. Yes (9) b. No (3)
8. Has your attitude towards computers changed in any way? If yes, in what way?
a. Yes .............................................(4) b. No (8)

Question 6. is more of a personal curiosity, with which my purpose was not only to put the students' memory to a test, but to measure their attitude to the system. This measuring is based on a hypothesis, according to which people can recall the name of things that are of a certain importance to them better, than of those they have not many interest in. According to this hypothesis, there should be some kind of relation between the answers to questions 6. and 7., namely, that the number of those who found the computer system helpful is likely to show similarity with those who could recall the name of it right. The hypothesis seems to be supported by the answers for the first sight, as two people could not recall the name of the computer system used, and three people found the system not helpful for discussing certain items. However, only one of these people gave answer "No" to both questions, and found GroupSystems not only useless for discussion, but could not recall the name of the program, either. The remaining "No" answers belong to three different people.

Whether the students' attitude towards computers has changed in any way or not, can be seen in the answers to question no. 8. Eight people found that their attitude has not changed, while four people claimed to have experienced some change in theirs. Among those students whose attitude has not changed, it is not indicated what the cause of this stableness may be. They might have had a rather positive relation to computers that was hard to change in any way, or a very negative one, with the same characteristics. For those, however, who have experienced a change in their attitude, the change was positive. All of them got to like or accept computers more than they did in the beginning of the course: "I can accept them, but I'm hopeless at using them." "I'm less scared." "I find it more useful." "I actually started to like them."

Question-group IV. (questions 9, 10, 11, 17)
These questions concern the participants' relationship with one another, and the importance of it:

9. Did you participate in course ANG1113 last semester?
a. Yes (11) b. No (1)
10. Did you intend to join course ANG1212 this semester?
a. Yes (11) b. No (1)
11. Do you think the fact that the group members were not completely unknown to one another was important regarding the discussions?
a. Yes (12) b. No (0)
16. Are you an equal member of this group?
a. Yes (10) b. No (0)

Eleven people participated in course ANG1113 last semester, one person did not. Also eleven people intended to join course ANG1212, which means they did not join the course by chance, but they planned it in their schedules. Every student found it important regarding the discussions that they were not completely unknown to one another. Every student out of the ten, who were present on the session on April 15th, 1996, claimed themselves to be equal members of the group.

The data reflected by these answers are important regarding the groups' discussions and the relationships within it. These facts can not only mean support to certain assumptions, as seen in Question-group II., pg. 8, but can show a general feature of well-working groups. Students claim that when having small group discussions, it is important that the members know each other. This can be related to the roles within the group, as in a "new group" the formation of roles takes certain amount of time and discussions about previously set topics is held back more than in a groups with members who know one another. As the members of this group had known each other already, discussion was possible during the first sessions.

Being equal member of a group is also essential to be able to discuss items without tension. As 100% of the students who answered question 16. said they were equal members of the group, it is very likely that discussions were not stopped by tension caused by someone feeling unequal.

Question-group V. (questions 12, 13, 14)
These questions reflect how much the participants' expectations concerning certain language skills have fulfilled by the end of the course.

12. Have your speaking skills improved as much as you expected it to happen in the beginning of the semester?
a. Yes (1) b. No (11)
13. Have your writing skills improved as much as you expected it to happen in the beginning of the semester?
a. Yes (4) b. No (8)
14. Do you think it is mostly your fault, or the organisation of the sessions played bigger part?
a. Yes (Mostly my fault) (7) b. No (The organisation's fault) (4)

Eleven students' speaking skills have not improved as much as they expected it to happen in the beginning of the semester, while eight people think the same regarding their writing skills. Seven people found this improvement was due to themselves or not having improved was their own fault, four people give credit to, or blame, the organisation of the sessions.

As it has been stated in the syllable, the course aimed at improving the major language skills. During the sessions discussions served the speaking practice and home assignments were planned to help improve writing skills. There were also writing exercises during the sessions, most of which were in connection with the study of small group behaviour.

The fact that the majority of the participants were not satisfied with skills' improvement suggests that either the participants' efforts or the methods of the tutor, or both, were not satisfactory. When looking at question 14., it appears that some participants admit to having not made enough effort. In terms of actions this meant not being present at the discussions, and not preparing home assignments for the sessions.

The assumption that the organisation of the sessions was not satisfactory, either, seems to be supported by the answers given to question 2. (Question-group I., pg. 7) As the answers show that some students did not find the handout useful for language-learning, their skills were probably not able to improve at wished rate. However, the answers to question 14. do not show whether the "satisfied" participants gave credit to themselves to to the organisation, and it is not indicated whether the ones not satisfied with the improvements blame themselves or the organisation. As all assumptions supported by certain data, it is likely that mistakes have been made from both sides -- the participants and the tutor's side.

Conclusions
The answers to the questions show the opinions of the students participating in the course. The data carried in the answers seem to be contradictional in some cases and the reasons for the answers are not indicated in the questionnaire. For each question-group a conclusion can be drawn:

Question-group I.
The handout was found useful for the majority of the participants for language learning and for learning about small group behaviour. The fact that not every student was satisfied with the handout suggests that there might have been a better choice of the tutor. The participants, however, seem not to have made as much effort as possible, either, as far as the reading of the handout is concerned.

Question-group II.
A few participants perceived changes of roles within the group or the change of their own roles in various groups. This can either be because of the stableness of the roles or because of the difficulties the role-categorisation caused. It seems that participants have not studied roles profoundly, or because of lack of interest they have not paid close attention. Either the more profound study of roles or the of the instructions of the handout itself, or more interest could have meant more involvement, thus result in a higher rate of realising roles and the changes of roles.

Question-group III.
The computer system GroupSystems V got a positive judgement from the participants. The majority of them found the system useful for discussions and the changes in their attitudes towards computers were all positive. The tutor's decision to use the system appears to be one that had good impact on the discussions.

Question-group IV.
The group members were not unknown to one another, which fact was important regarding the discussions. The members also felt equality within the group. It appears that small group discussions are more effective when members know one another, and feel equal with the group.
This can be useful regarding not only this course, but other seminars, and university groups, too.

Question-group V.
The expectations of most of the participants have not been fulfilled, as far as the language (speaking and writing) skills are concerned. Many participants found the reason of this fact in themselves, while some claimed the organisation of the course for it. Taking all the data into account, both the participants and the tutor made certain mistakes, which altogether resulted the opinions carried in the answers.

When revising all the data from the answers, it appears that the participants are satisfied with some aspects of the course, while not satisfied with others. When looking at the reasons, it can be seen that most assumptions are supported by various facts, and there seems to be no single exact reason, but more factors created the final result. The participants and the tutor of the course all seem to have made both efforts and mistakes, the result of which was a course that has not been useless, and had its positive effects, but one that could have given more

1 In the essay this text will be referred to as "the handout".
2 The author of the questionnaire has made an obvious mistake in this question, and has created an "implicit answer" to the previous questions. As the students have all answered to this question though, having changed it would not have been ethical.
3 As one person has not answered this question, the total of the answers is eleven, not twelve, here.
4 The term "book" here stands for "handout".
5 The term "book" here stands for "handout".