Nghiên cứu thái độ và thực tiễn việc sửa lỗi cho sinh viên trong kỹ năng nói của giáo viên tại trường đại học sư phạm hà nội

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES -*** - ĐINH THỊ HƯƠNG AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS AND PRACTICES OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ ORAL MISTAKES AT HANOI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION (NGHIÊN CỨU THÁI ĐỘ VÀ THỰC TIỄN VIỆC SỬA LỖI CỦA GIÁO VIÊN TRONG KỸ NĂNG NÓI CHO SINH VIÊN TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC SƯ PHẠM HÀ NỘI) M.A Minor Programme Thesis Major : English Language Teaching Methodology Code : 60 14 10 Hanoi, 2013 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES -*** - ĐINH THỊ HƯƠNG AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS AND PRACTICES OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ ORAL MISTAKES AT HANOI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION (NGHIÊN CỨU THÁI ĐỘ VÀ THỰC TIỄN VIỆC SỬA LỖI CỦA GIÁO VIÊN TRONG KỸ NĂNG NÓI CHO SINH VIÊN TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC SƯ PHẠM HÀ NỘI) M.A Minor Programme Thesis Major : English Language Teaching Methodology Code : 60 14 10 Supervisor : Dr Đỗ Thị Thanh Hà Hanoi, 2013 i DECLARATION I hereby certify that the thesis entitled “AN INVESTIG ATION INTO TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS AND PRACTICES OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ ORAL MISTAKES AT HANOI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION” is the result of my own research for the Degree of Master of Arts at College of Foreign Languages, Vietnam National University, Hanoi and that this thesis has not been submitted for any degree at any other university or tertiary institution Signature: Date: ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A number of people have influenced the completion of this M.A thesis and have changed a matter of personal responsibility into something much more like real collaboration- whether directly or indirectly I would like to register my profound gratitude to Dr Do Thi Thanh Ha, my supervisor, for her enthusiastic instruction throughout the process, her outstandingly valuable comments for every minor detail I fully understand how busy she is with all responsibilities as a lecturer as well as Dean of a faculty, and I since rely appreciate this support I am obliged to the thirty responding teachers of English, especially the three participants in the later stages of the study for their whole-hearted assistance throughout the whole process, from classroom observations to personal interviews My special gratitude is to be expressed to them for their enthusiasm in completing the survey questionnaire after a short time Along the way, I have been incredibly fortunate to be supported and encouraged by my beloved family and friends To all these people I offer my great appreciation I only hope that they will like the way it has turned out! iii ABSTRACT This minor research investigated the relationship between the attitudes and teaching practices of corrective feedback among a number of teachers of English Participants were those who were teaching English as a foreign language in Hanoi National University of Education with certain years of teaching experience The method to be employed was a survey questionnaire which involved 30 lecturers This was followed by the researcher’s classroom observation of 12 lessons by three teachers chosen from the participants from the survey They were teaching speaking skill for English majors in the same faculty at the university T1 was in charge of a class with 37 sophomores, T1 with 28 juniors and T3 with 32 seniors Finally, one-to-one informal interviews were administered in a semi-structured format with these three teachers Accordingly, the data were collected both quantitatively and qualitatively through a procedure of note-taking, then combining with the results from informal interviews The process of data collection was carried out during the first four weeks of the first semester, academic year 2012-2013 The findings revealed both differences and similarities between participants’ attitudes towards error treatment and their practical application in their speaking classroom settings iv TABLE OF CONTENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii TABLE OF CONTENT .iv LIST OF TABLES vi PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale Aims of the study Scope of the study Methods of the study Overview of the study PART II: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Definition of terms: Corrective feedback Types of corrective feedback The importance of corrective feedback 11 Who should the correcting? 13 Which types of corrective feedback are the most effective? 13 What is the best timing for corrective feedback? 14 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 15 Participants 15 Data collection instruments and procedure 16 2.1 Teacher questionnaire 16 2.2 Classroom observation 17 2.3 One-to-one interview 17 v CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 18 Quantitative analysis and discussion 18 1.1 Collected database from survey questionnaire 18 1.2 Collected database from classroom observation 23 1.3 Summary of quantitative data 26 Qualitative analysis and discussion 27 2.1 Collected database from interviews 27 2.2 Summary 38 PART III: CONCLUSION 39 Conclusions 39 Pedagogical implications 42 Limitations and suggestion for further research 43 REFERENCES 45 APPENDICES vii vi LIST OF TABLES Table Schedule of the classes Table Questionnaire themes Table Distribution of source of feedback Table Distribution of time of feedback Table Distribution of form of feedback Table Distribution of feedback strategy PART I: INTRODUCTION Rationale It is widely approved that errors are unavoidable in language learning, especially in speaking The issue of how teachers respond to students’ language errors, i.e corrective feedback, has been investigated over the last decades Having been widely known under a number of terms, such as “negative evidence”, “repair” and “negative feedback” (Lyster and Ranta, 1997), corrective feedback is commonly referred to by second language teachers As a result of their in-depth studies, corrective feedback has been defined and classified into different types Also, there have been investigations into the relationship between teacher’s corrective feedback and learner uptake on an international scale However, few research findings show how language teachers themselves know and feel about corrective feedback, as well as how far it is involved in their practical teaching This has inspired the author to come up with the idea of exploring that relationship so that further improvement can be made to promote learners’ language competence Aims of the study This study examines teachers’ attitudes towards the correction of spoken errors through one-to-one interviews and a belief questionnaire It also investigates the relationship between those standpoints and their teaching practice in classroom context and accordingly suggests more effective ways to deal with students’ spoken errors For convenience, the two terms “error” and “mistake” are used interchangeably in this study To fulfill these purposes, this research intends to answer the following questions: What are teachers’ attitudes towards oral corrective feedback? How these attitudes affect and relate to their teaching practice within their classroom settings? Scope of the study This study focuses on how corrective feedback of spoken errors is perceived and applied by teachers at Hanoi National University of Education Within this scope, the research aims to explore the connection between teachers’ perception and practice, and thereby propose efficient approaches to the treatment of students’ oral mistakes Methods of the study The researcher administered a survey questionnaire on teachers to collect quantitative data on their perspectives of corrective feedback Further data were then accumulated both quantitatively and qualitatively through an observing process of twelve lessons by three out of the thirty participants in the survey Finally, qualitative data were drawn out from three semi-structured personal interviews for more specific information about the use of corrective feedback inside their classrooms Overview of the study This study consists of three major parts: Introduction, Development, and Conclusion; references, and appendices Part I: Introduction – This part presents the rationale, the aims, scope, methods, and the organization of the study Part II: Development – This part is divided into the following three chapters: Chapter 1: Theoretical background – presents the theoretical framework of corrective feedback, including its definition, classification, importance, participants, and timings Chapter 2: Methodology – gives details on the participants, data collection instruments, and procedure Chapter 3: Findings and discussion – analyzes and discusses the results Part III: Conclusion – This part summarizes the research and presents pedagogical implications Limitations as well as suggestions for further study are also included Finally, references and appendices are provided 40 With reference to feedback timings, the highest percentage of agreement fell into the correction after a series of errors and at the end of an activity ensuring there was no interruption of students’ speech flow However, some SLA researchers present theoretical arguments for immediate correction not only in accuracy but also in fluency activities Among those are Basturkmen, Loewen, and Ellis (2001) who engaged themselves in frequent immediate corrective feedback but did not appear to disrupt the overall communicative flow of the lessons The last category of corrective feedback is form, in which the most frequently agreed upon were the oral form alone and the combination of oral and written form on the board In answering the second question (How these attitudes affect and relate to their teaching practice within classroom setting?), the study found both consiste ncy and inconsistency in teachers’ perception and practical teaching For the sources of feedback, although peers and teachers were supported by most respondents, they received just averagely less than one third of the entire feedback moves in all the three classroom settings In other words, there was a big gap between perceptions on error correctors and practices, except for self-correction As explained in the interviews, peer and teacher correction was ignored because the teachers were well aware and appreciated the benefits of self-correction in creating opportunities for students’ consolidation and self-improvement The second category inquired into the time of error correction A quick consideration into the data collected from the survey questionnaire versus classroom observation can unveil significant conformation in the participants In more details, the information and figures collected from the two researching tools were consistent in the categories of giving feedback immediately after a series of erroneous utterances, at the end of the lesson, and at the beginning of the next lesson However, the figure of feedback turns as immediate correction after a single error was drastically inconsistent when it was 41 disapproved by more than half of the survey respondents but used in the most favorable manner in the three classrooms This, according to the justification collected from the interviews, was resulted from a number of factors, mainly including teacher’s annoyance at silly mistakes, habit of interruption in the face of an incorrect utterance, concerns about their short-term memory, or assurance for a potential improvement in students’ language proficiency In the third category on the form of feedback, there was no contradiction in the form of oral feedback perceived and practiced by the three participating practitioners On the other hand, the statistics in the other two categories presented a noticeable inconsistency More strikingly, while supportive standpoint on written notes for individual error makers accounted for almost one half of all the 30 survey participants, this form was completely discarded from the observed lessons An explanation for this disuse was that written notes, as for the interviewees, were both time-consuming and not beneficial to the whole class Finally, significantly different trends were found in choosing the right feedback strategies The most outstanding feature is great dissimilarities between the survey partakers’ views and the practical teaching These gaps were found in clarification request, elicitation, and body language in all the three teachers whose lessons were observed by the researcher In spite of a clear preference for these feedback techniques revealed from the survey data, they were used at almost no time in the observed classes, especially at no time at all by T1 and T3 Through the interviews, it was made clear that the teachers all felt that these techniques were not effective in their own classrooms mainly because of students’ likely misperception of the teacher’s intention It is also worth noticing the use of the other feedback techniques There was clearly a big gap between what was perceived and what was conducted in the real teaching contexts of T1 and T2 in explicit correction, whereas a converse trend was found in recasts Furthermore, T2’s practical use of repetition was contradictory with the general 42 point of views disclosed from the survey On the whole, this category alone illustrated striking contrasts falling into the entire set of feedback techniques However, each of the three interviewed teachers had their own reasons for which perceptions were different from practices Pedagogical implications In the light of the findings analyzed and discussed in the previous sessions, this research has found some pedagogical implications However, as there were only a small number of participants and the research site was not varied, these implications were drawn and meant for use merely within the particular studied classroom settings Based on the findings from the interviews, it appears clear that self-correction can be the most beneficial to the error makers themselves Therefore, although it might take time to conduct, teachers are advised to provide the most favorable atmosphere for self-repair to take place Together with the observed classes, the results from the interviews also suggest an occasional use of explicit correction as this does not lead to self-repair and hence does not effectively facilitate negotiation for meaning The use of body language, clarification request and repetition should be thought over, simultaneous with a careful consideration of students’ proficiency level and the seriousness of the error Or, in other cases, the teacher should also take account of a mixture between these techniques with others Another implication is that in order to avoid interrupting and discouraging students’ speech flow, and even worse, humiliating them, the teachers should wait until their turn ends instead of immediately interfering into their talk This may lead to a concern about the teacher’s failure to remember all the errors already made, but can be avoided with some notes on the board, pieces of paper, or even a laptop Finally, as suggested by the data from the interviews, teachers are inclined to spontaneously make their own decision on which form of correction will fit well in particular situation A mere oral form may be the most suitable when the time is 43 limited and the errors are not too serious On the other hand, this might be supplemented with some notes on the board so that it can be beneficial to all learners of dissimilar proficiency levels Written notes might work well primarily in a classroom where students not have the same cultural background and therefore might be presumed to be really time-consuming and the least effective in the studied classroom settings Limitations and suggestion for further research There are unavoidable limitations of the study Firstly, a limited number of classroom observations could not help draw a completely reliable conclusion on whose perceptions and practices were more closely related Also, the data recorded from observed lessons would have been more reliable had the written notes by the researcher been assisted by a second researcher and/ or a high-quality tape-recorder Secondly, although an experience sharing session on types of corrective feedback was held prior to the current study, this could not entirely ensure participants’ comprehensive understanding of the items, which would certainly enable valid answers Finally, although this minor research found both considerable consistency and big gaps between teachers’ viewpoints and teaching practice in EFL classrooms, it was not able to generalize where there existed similarities and differences the most often Regardless of the above-mentioned limitations, this research was still significant in terms of the following points: (1) the experience sharing session prior to the study implementation; (2) the inclusion of corrective feedback forms in all data collection tools; and (3) the comparison between perceptions and practices Those features were generally discounted by many previous research papers This paper did not consider variables in teachers’ ages and teaching experiences, nor did it reflect on students related factors like age, proficiency level, and anxiety Furthermore, the researcher disregarded the basis on which teachers made their choice in the survey questionnaire Therefore, the next phase of the study in error correction 44 should investigate the extent to which some features related to both teachers and students affect teachers’ beliefs and use of feedback These include the factors mentioned above 45 REFERENCES Ajideh, P., FareedAghdam, E (2012) English Language Teachers’ Corrective Feedback Types in relation to the Learners’ Proficiency Levels and Their Error Types Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 2:8 & 2:9, 37-51 Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R (2004) Teachers’ stated belief about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices Applied Linguistics, 25, 243-272 Bower, J., Kawaguchi, S (2011) Negotiation of Meaning and Corrective Feedback in Japanese/ English eTANDEM Language Learning & Technology, 15, 41-71 Braidi, S M (2002) Reexamining the role of recasts in native- speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions Language Learning, 52 (1), 1–42 Braun, V and Clarke, V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology Qualitative Research in Psychology, (2) pp 77-101 ISSN 1478-0887 Retrieved March 21 st 2013 from http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/11735/2/%3Cstrong%3Ethematic%3C/strong%3E_analysis _revise Braun, V and Clarke, V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology Qualitative Research in Psychology, (2) pp 77-101 ISSN 1478-0887 Campillo, P S (2004) An Analysis of Uptake Following Teacher’s Feedback in the EFL Classroom RESLA, 17-18, 209-222 Ellis, R (2009).Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development L2 Journal 1: 3-18 Fawbush, B (2010) Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback for Middle School ESL Learners Master of Arts Thesis 46 10 Ferris, D (2006) Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction In K Hyland & F Hyland (Eds.) (pp 81-104) 11 Fu, T (2012) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in Chinese as a foreign language class: Do perceptions and the reality match? Master of Arts thesis 12 Gass, S M (2005) Input and Interaction In Doughty, C & Long, M H (Eds.) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition Blackwell publishing 13 Gladday, A E (2012) Students’ Uptake of Corrective Feedback Journal of Education and Social Research, 2:7, 31-39 14 Kim, J H (2004) Issues of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4:2, 1-24 15 Krashen, S (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition Oxford: Pergamon 16 Lyster, R (2004) Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432 17 Lyster, R., & Ranta, L (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation form in communicative classrooms Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66 18 Mendez, E H., Cruz, R R., Loyo, G M (2010).Oral Corrective Feedback by EFL teachers at Universidad de Quintana Roo FEL, 240-253 19 Mendez, E H., Margeulles, L G., Castro, A B J (2010).Oral Corrective Feedback: Some Ways to Go About it FEL, 254-270 20 Oliver, R (1995) Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(4), 459-481 21 Panova, I., Lyster, R (2002).Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom TESOL Quarterly, 36: 4, 573-595 47 22 Park, H S (2010) Teachers’ and Learners' Preferences for Error Correction Master of Arts Thesis 23 Rassaei, E., Moinzadeh, A., Youhanaee, M (2012) The Effects of Corrective Feedback on the Acquisition of Implicit and Explicit L2 Knowledge The Journal of Language and Learning, 2:1, 59-75 24 Rezaei, S., Mozaffari, F., Hatef, A (2011).Corrective Feedback in SLA: Classroom Practice & Future Direction International Journal of English Linguistics, 1:1, 21-29 25 Russell, V (2009).Corrective Feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6:1, 21-31 26 Schegloff, E A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H (1977) The preference for selfcorrection in the organization of repair in conversation Language, 53:2, 361382 27 Schulz, R A (2001).Cultural Differences in Student and Teacher Perceptions Concerning the Role of Grammar Instruction and Corrective Feedback: USAColombia The Modern Language Journal, 85:2, 244-258 28 Sheen, Y (2004).Corrective Feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings Language Teaching Research, 8:3, 263300 29 Suzuki, M (2004).Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in Adult ESL Classrooms Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4:2, 1-21 30 Tatawy, M E (2006) Corrective feedback in second language acquisition Teachers’ College, Columbia University Retrieved March 8, 2012, from Journals.tc-library.org/index.php/teso/article/download/160/158 48 31 Tatawy, M E (2012).Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 2:2, 1-19 32 Vasquez, C., Harvey, J (2010) Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication Language Teaching Research, 14:4, 421443 vii APPENDICES APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (On teachers’ views on oral corrective feedback in speaking lessons) I am conducting a study on teachers’ views on corrective feedback of students’ spoken errors in speaking lessons Please answer the following questions Your effort will make a great contribution to my fulfillment of a master’s degree in English Language Teaching methodology as well as further improvement for better use of corrective feedback within classroom For questions 1-23, tick on the box to the information that applies to you Make sure to mark only ONE Age 22-24 25-34 35 or more Years of language Less than years 5-9 years 10 years or more Years of speaking skills None Less than years teaching experience 5-9 years 10 years or more teaching experience Statements You let your students correct their own spoken errors You let your students correct their classmates’ spoken errors As a teacher, you are the person who corrects students’ spoken errors In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll say: - No, it’s not “gone” “Been” (Explicit correction: The teacher provides the correct form with a clear indication of what is being corrected) In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll say: - Been? You’ve been to Singapore once? (Recast: The teacher repeats the student’s error in the correct form without pointing out the student’s error) Strongly agree Agree Can’t Disagree Strongly decide disagree viii Statements In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll say: - Pardon me? (Clarification request: The teacher asks the student for clarification to signal that the student’s utterance is not understood or illformed by saying “sorry?” “pardon me?” or “What did you say?”) 10 In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll say: - Do we say “have gone” when you have visited somewhere and come back? (Metalinguistic: The teacher gives a hint or a clue without explicitly providing the correct form or pointing out the mistake) 11 In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll say: - Gone? (Repetition: The teacher repeats the student’s error changing his/ her intonation) 12 In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll say: - You’ve…? (Elicitation: The teacher gives an incomplete sentence and then pauses to allow the student to fill in the blank) 13 In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll say: - What verb you use when you have visited somewhere and come back? (Elicitation: The teacher elicits the correct form by asking questions, excluding yes/ no questions) 14 In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll say: - Can you correct that? (Elicitation: The teacher asks the student to reformulate the erroneous utterance) 15 In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll move your head and frown Strongly agree Agree Can’t Disagree Strongly decide disagree ix Statements (Body language: The teacher uses a facial expression or body movement rather than an oral response to indicate an error) 16 A student’s spoken error is corrected immediately after the error has been made 17 A student’s spoken error is corrected after a series of erroneous utterances when the student has finished speaking 18 A student’s spoken error is corrected at the end of the activity 19 A student’s spoken error is corrected at the end of the class 20 A student’s spoken error is corrected at the beginning of the next lesson 21 You correct student’s spoken errors orally 22 You correct student’s spoken errors in both oral and written forms using the board 23 You correct student’s spoken errors by writing quick notes for the student Strongly agree Agree Can’t Disagree Strongly decide disagree x APPENDIX B CLASSROOM OBSERVATION ON ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK General information: Date: Class: Classroom No.: Building: Semester: Code of teacher: _ Observation (underline one): 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Lesson start: Lesson end: Page: Content: _ Classroom Observation Tally Sheet Criteria Source of feedback: o Self o Peer o Teacher o Other (*) Time of feedback: o Immediate after one error o Immediate after a series of erroneous utterances o At the end of the lesson o At the beginning of the next lesson Form of feedback: Oral form Written form using board Tallies Total xi Written form using notes for individuals Other(**) Feedback strategy: (***) Explicit correction Recasts Clarification request Metalinguistic Repetition Elicitation Body language Details Coding scheme: S: Student, Self Cl: Whole class T: Teacher DifS: Different student P: Peer No Participant Example Technique Timing xiii APPENDIX C GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS (On teachers’ view on oral corrective feedback) What you know about oral corrective feedback? How often you use corrective feedback in your speaking classroom? When a student makes a mistake, who you think can best correct it, for example, the student himself, you as the teacher, or another student in the classroom? Why? In your lesson I observed, why did you apply this participant rather than the o thers for most errors? What corrective feedback technique(s) you think is the most effective? Why? From the observation of some of your classes, I noticed that these techniques were hardly used Can you explain it? After a mistake is made, when you think is the best time for correction, (immediately after the error is made, when the student finishes speaking, when the activity is over, at the end of the class or at the beginning of the next lesson)? Why? As observed from your class, this corrective feedback timing was very popular, although it did interrupt the flow of the student’s speech Why? Which form of feedback is the most effective (talk to the class, talk and at the same time write on the board, or just write the correction on pieces of paper and give them to each student who made mistakes)? Why? In your lessons, why didn’t you use this corrective feedback form? Why was this form used the most often? Thank you very much for sparing your time with me! ... HANOI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION (NGHIÊN CỨU THÁI ĐỘ VÀ THỰC TIỄN VIỆC SỬA LỖI CỦA GIÁO VIÊN TRONG KỸ NĂNG NÓI CHO SINH VIÊN TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC SƯ PHẠM HÀ NỘI) M.A Minor Programme Thesis Major... “strongly agree” and “agree”; (2) “can’t decide”; and (3) “disagree” and “strongly disagree” The last four items 24-27 were developed under multiple choice designs where participants could choose... skills All the three questions were in multiple choice designs The next twenty questions applied 5-point Likert scales ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” which were assigned numerical