Kultur–språk–medier

Examensarbete i fördjupningsämnet Engelska 15 högskolepoäng, avancerad nivå

The Role of Communicative Confidence

in the Swedish English Education Are the Learners Ready for the Global Arena?

Rollen kommunikativ säkerhet har i

engelskundervisningen Är eleverna redo för den globala arenan?

Jonas Berg

Jerry Olsson

Ämneslärarexamen med inriktning Engelska, 300

högskolepoäng

2016-03-06

Examinator: Björn Sundmark

Handledare: Anna Wärnsby

2

Foreword

Both authors contributed equally to the making of this study. We would like to thank

our supervisor Anna Wärnsby for her amazing support and feedback. We would also

like to thank the teachers from the school for helping us out with participants for our

study.

3

Abstract

In today's globalized society, English is one of the main ways of communication.

Therefore, teaching students English in such a way that they not only understand the

basics, but are confident enough to communicate with an international population of

varied ability and linguistic background becomes a high priority in school. In this study

we look at the reported communicative confidence level (CCL) of learners at a Swedish

upper secondary school. This quantitative study collected data from questionnaires from

upper secondary students in the Swedish school. We found that the participants

displayed an above average level of perceived communicative confidence; that a higher

academic achievement correlated with a higher CCL; that the expected need, the

context, and the interlocutors do not correlate with the CCL; and that a higher degree of

formality and unfamiliarity of a communication situation seems to correlate with a

lower CCL. To be able to make confident generalisations in the future about CCL, we

suggest this study be reproduced on a larger set of data and that actual CCL, as opposed

to participant perception of CCL, could be observed.

Keywords: Communicative Confidence Level; English as a Foreign Language; English

as a Second Language; English Education; Globalization; Global English; Lingua

Franca; Swedish Upper Secondary Education.

4

5

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................ 7

2. Aim and Research Questions ................. 9

3. Literature Review ................................ 10

3.1 Communicative Confidence and Language Proficiency ................... 10

3.2 Globalization of English .................................................................... 11

3.3 Summary ............................................................................................ 13

4. Method ................................................. 14

4.1 Quantitative Research ........................................................................ 14

4.2 Setting and Participants ...................................................................... 14

4.3 Ethical Considerations ....................................................................... 19

4.4 Data Elicitation................................................................................... 19

4.5 The Questionnaire .............................................................................. 20

4.5.1 Communication situations .............................................................................. 21

4.5.2 Familiarity and formality ............................................................................... 24

4.5.3 Likert scale ..................................................................................................... 25

4.6 Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 26

4.6.1 Omissions ....................................................................................................... 26

4.6.2 Software employed ......................................................................................... 27

4.6.3 Necessary data conversion ............................................................................. 28

5. Results .................................................. 30

5.1 Average CCL and Uniformity ........................................................... 30

5.2 Academic Achievement, Linguistic Background, and Usage

Expectation ............................................................................................... 32

5.3 NNS or NS Interlocutors .................................................................... 35

5.4 Communication Situations' Formality and Familiarity ...................... 36

5.5 Summary of Results ........................................................................... 40

6. Discussion ............................................ 41

6

6.1 Problematization of Our Results ........................................................ 41

6.1.1 Communicative confidence level average ...................................................... 41

6.1.2 Academic achievement .................................................................................. 42

6.1.3 Communicative confidence level uniformity ................................................. 42

6.1.4 Number of languages spoken ......................................................................... 43

6.1.5 Usage expectations ......................................................................................... 43

6.1.6 NNS and NS ................................................................................................... 44

6.1.7 Formality and familiarity ............................................................................... 45

6.2 Future Role as Teachers ..................................................................... 46

6.3 Limitations of Method and Design of the Study................................ 47

7. Summary and Conclusions .................. 49

7.1 Future Research .................................................................................. 50

8. References ............................................ 51

9. Appendix 1. Questionnaire .................. 55

10 Appendix 2. Correlations Chart .......... 59

7

1. Introduction

In the latest Special Eurobarometer, the official public opinion surveyor of the EU, by

TNS Opinion & Social (2012), the focus was on Europeans and their language. The

report presents results showing that of “those countries where respondents are most

likely to regularly use foreign languages on the internet are Sweden (71%), Denmark

(69%) and Finland (61%)” (p. 51). Since English is the foreign language in Sweden

most people claim proficiency in (p. 21), this demonstrates one of the settings where

Swedish speakers of English make use of the English language in a global setting.

The English education in the Swedish school for upper secondary education

aims to “develop language- and world-knowledge so that [the learners] can, want to,

and dare use English in various situations and for various purposes” (our translation and

emphasis, Skolverket, 2011a, p. 53). In the official English translation (Skolverket,

2011b), Skolverket has opted to not do a direct translation, but instead write

"confidence" (p. 1) instead of "dare". While this translation supports our purpose, we

have decided to use our own more literal translation of the Swedish original, since it is

that document and not the officially translated one we are basing our future career on.

We find the formulation "dare to use English" particularly interesting. Having the

courage to use English in various situations is of course related to the ability (“can”) and

the motivation (“want”), but the fact that Skolverket explicitly adds “dare” indicates that

communicative confidence is important enough to identify as a separate goal. We would

therefore like to inquire into the confidence of learners in relation to their English use.

How confident do they actually perceive themselves using their English? In what

situations would they dare to use English after having completed their English studies?

When the curriculum mentions daring to use English, it is actually talking about

communicative confidence, that is the will and ability to participate in communication

without feeling that one’s language is in the way. This could include aspects like

pronunciation and grammar, but also the self-image of how your English is perceived

by others (Clement, Dornyei, & Noels, 1994).

Innumerable factors may affect a learner’s communicative confidence and in the

Swedish school context there are some factors that may be more prevalent than others.

Firstly, academic achievement is considered to be a relevant factor, since higher grades

ideally correlate with high proficiency (see learning outcomes for the grades

(Skolverket, 2011a, p. 14)). Secondly, the linguistic background of the learner (i.e. how

8

many different languages a learner is proficient in and what those languages are) may

affect communicative confidence (see Bialystok, 2001; Beyene, 2007 in section 3.1 and

3.2). The linguistic background of the interlocutor(s) (e.g. if the learner is speaking to a

native or non-native speaker of English or if the learner shares another language with

the interlocutor) of the learner may also affect communicative confidence (Neeley,

Hinds, & Cramton, 2012; Beyene, 2007; Shehadeh, 1999). A third factor could be a

learner’s expected degree of English usage, which is closely related to finding the

English subject relevant and worthy of personal and intellectual commitment. See Tella

(2007) for discussion on the correlation between usage expectation and academic

achievement. A fourth factor might have to do with the communication situation and the

degree of formality and familiarity it entails. According to American Psychological

Association (2015) matters that stress American people the most are those connected to

money and safety, arguably formal matters. Vygotsky (1978) presents a model showing

that unfamiliar may require more support when learning a language. These are factors

that may affect the linguistic demands of a situation and thereby potentially the

confidence for those situations.

Today due to globalization, the Internet, and the spread of American culture,

English is being taught and used by people all over the world. English is used as a

Lingua Franca (see Jenkins, 2007), a figurative bridge between people with different

native languages. Present Day English is also sometimes described as World Englishes

(see Kachru & Smith, 1985). The plural form indicates that the inner circle countries’

(e.g. US, UK, AUS) versions of English are not the definitive version of English, but

that other non-Anglophone versions of English are as legitimate, containing their own

idioms, cultural words, and dialects. This defines the arena in which the learners in the

Swedish school are supposed to function. Learners' English proficiency must thus allow

them to “dare” to communicate in such an environment where not only traditional

Anglophone variants are used and with interlocutors who are not necessarily native

speakers of English. While this may inspire confidence in the learners' own Swedish

variant of English, there may still exist a cultural bias that could affect students’

communicative confidence. It is the Swedish school’s role to make sure that this

communicative confidence is at an adequate level as indicated by the “dare” mentioned

above.

9

2. Aim and Research Questions

Our aim is to look at the communicative confidence levels (CCL) of students who have

completed or are close to completing their upper secondary English education; the CCL

is scrutinized in relation to the factors that may affect its level to discover what the

relevant factors in a person’s communicative confidence are and what role the school

may have in this. Our aim is to generate further knowledge regarding this, which could

benefit teachers and academic decision makers when developing future English

education in school.

We therefore pose the following research question:

Do any of the following four factors affect the reported communicative confidence level

of learners of English from a Swedish upper secondary program and if so, in what way?

- Academic achievement

- Linguistic background of the learner and of the other interlocutor(s)

- Expected degree of English usage

- Communication situation’s formality and familiarity

10

3. Literature Review

In this section, we present the theoretical framework for this study. The section is

structured into two parts: Communicative Confidence and Language Proficiency, and

Globalization of English.

3.1 Communicative Confidence and Language Proficiency

Communicative confidence, in this text, refers to an interlocutor’s will and ability to

participate in a conversation without feeling hindered by their perception of their own

linguistic qualities, such as pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary, and grammar. The more

confident the interlocutor, the better will this support communication, as the amount of

mistakes could be reduced (Clement, Dornyei, & Noels, 1994). Beyene (2007) has

shown that if you know more languages fluently, your willingness to communicate with

native speakers (NS) of your second languages (L2) increases (Beyene, 2007). If you

learn or know more languages, your confidence in using all of them increase. Henry and

Goddard (2015) show that the biggest issue Swedish students face when studying at an

international university in English is not the language; writing papers, listening to

lectures, and participating in discussions were not considered difficult, instead, the

content being learned proved the bigger challenge (Henry & Goddard, 2015). So, when

it comes to confidence in using English as an L2, Swedish students seem to be doing

okay.

Who you speak with and in what situation the communication takes place may

also affect your communicative confidence (Clement, Dornyei, & Noels, 1994) and

willingness to communicate (WTC), especially when using an L2 (Pawlak and

Mystkowska-Wiertelak, 2015). Further, if the situation is informal or formal, involves

your boss, a stranger, or a friend. Additionally, where communication takes place may

also be of significance: whether at work, at home, or at a public location. All factors in

when determining how secure you are at engaging in communication. CCL may also be

affected by the dialect of whomever you are communicating with, as shown in a study

where NS Americans react differently to hearing different dialects of L2 English

(Delamere, 1996).

Learning English, according to the Swedish curriculum, should increase the

learners' ability to participate in a global academic and professional society (Skolverket,

11

2011a). The English subject is meant to teach the students confidence in using their L2

and to be able to communicate in a variety of contexts and situations. To be able to use

a language you need to have the confidence to use it, and paradoxically becoming

proficient in a language gives you the confidence to use it. Communicative confidence

and L2 proficiency seem to have a positive correlation (Stankov, Lee, Luo, & Hogan).

Confidence is also one of the main factors in achieving a higher grade according to

Park, Lawson, and Williams (2012).

3.2 Globalization of English

Today, the English language is no longer limited to countries like Great Britain or the

USA. It is now a language used worldwide, even in the absence of NS:s of English

(Jenkins, 2007; Kachru & Smith, 1985). This use of English, where not every

interlocutor is an NS of the language, goes by many names, e.g. English as an

international language (EIL), Global English, English for academic purposes (EAL),

World Englishes (WE, mentioned in Introduction), among others. However, we choose

to focus on the Lingua Franca definition, originally made known by Jennifer Jenkins

(Jenkins, 2007). While some may argue that Lingua Franca is only interaction between

interlocutors who are not English NS:s (see Jenkins, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2004), we apply

Lingua Franca in a different sense (see, for example, Mauranen, 2003) and include any

communication situation in English where at least one interlocutor is not an English NS.

The point of using English as a Lingua Franca is to create a common language to

bridge various language backgrounds, allowing for communication regardless of what

your mother tongue is. However, this aid does not come without its problems. Neeley,

Hinds, and Cramton (2012) highlight the issue of forcing English upon people in the

business context. They found that English-only policies would to some extent shift the

focus from content to language to the point where interlocutors felt that they had to

spend their energy on speaking in English rather than putting that energy into conveying

information properly. Had they been using their mother tongues, the focus would have

been on sharing that valuable information they actually possessed (pp. 237-238).

Although this may be harder to achieve in a school environment, it does connect to the

curriculum goal of using English in the context of real working life.

Another potential issue with using English as a Lingua Franca lies in the

situations where an NS of English is present. In several studies (see for example Neeley

12

et al., 2012; Beyene, 2007) the interaction between native and non-native speakers of

English was found to stigmatize the non-native interlocutors. The NNS (non-native

speaker) reported feeling anxious, incompetent, disadvantaged, among others. when

interacting with NS:s (Neeley et al., 2012; Beyene, 2007). In some cases, researchers

reported that NNS would withdraw and become passive during the interaction;

sometimes the NNS would even group up with each other and omit NS from their

interactions (Neeley et al., 2012, p. 238). When NNS interacted with each other,

however, there seemed to be no stigma: the participants claimed that NNS interlocutors

could more easily share ideas (Beyene, 2007, p. 49-50). This is further supported by

Shehadeh (1999), who found that NNS-NNS interaction exhibited a higher frequency of

negotiation for meaning, which would render such an interaction more supportive than

an NS-NNS interaction (p. 658). These findings indicate that when English is used as a

Lingua Franca there may exist a certain imbalance in terms of power: an NS is

linguistically, and therefore possibly also generally, at an advantage. In addition, when

English is used as a Lingua Franca without an NS present, the NNS communication

might be more focused on transfer of meaning.

Although using English as a Lingua Franca may give rise to several problems, it

also has a lot of advantages. For example, Edu-Buandoh and Otchere (2012) found that

participants in Ghanaian Schools wanted to learn and speak English to be able to ascribe

English speaking skill to their identity; in their setting, knowing English was considered

very prestigious, and this motivated the participants to improve their English. This can

be nuanced by considering Cheung and Sung (2013), who compiled a number of studies

looking at learning English as an L2 in the world. One finding was that the appeal to

learning English does not always seem to be a desire of becoming part of a particular

NS-culture, but to be able to participate in a global culture (Cheung and Sung, 2013).

Learning English as a second language can therefore be a matter of identity and

belonging.

Another reason to learn English and use it as a Lingua Franca is brought up by

Ali, Wyatt, and Van Laar (2015), who argue that English may be used as a Lingua

Franca to help promote a positive image of one’s native language and context. This is

partly a contrast to the previous reasons, where NNS:s aimed to affiliate themselves

with an English or global culture, the difference being that this position seeks out to

remain affiliated with one’s current setting and make it part or a greater part of the

global culture instead. This falls in line with Modiano (2003), who considers a Swedish

13

variety of English: Swenglish. In his article, Modiano argues that when the Swenglish

variety is used, it is accepted by the interlocutors and functions as a communicative

vehicle. Thus, the variety gains acceptance as a valid dialect of English. This increased

acceptance can be compared with what Ali, Wyatt, and Van Laar (2015) argue: it

promotes Swedish culture and speech variety as positive and valid member of a global

culture. Modiano (2003) urges teachers to not shame the pupils and correct their

Swenglish because this may prevent the Swenglish variety from becoming an accepted

one.

3.3 Summary

In this section, we have explained two terms important for this study: communicative

confidence and the globalization of English. Communicative confidence is one of the

cornerstones in successful communication and is one of the goals of learning English in

the Swedish curriculum. Communicative confidence is a person’s ability and will to

participate in communication without being hindered by obstacles such as self-doubt. It

is also connected to the globalization of English, the idea that English is becoming more

than the mother tongue of a select few countries. English is now becoming a vehicle of

successful communication globally, even between people who do not have English as

an official language; it has become a Lingua Franca. This is however not without issues.

14

4. Method

In this chapter, we present the methodological choices we have made when conducting

the study. The chapter is divided into sections giving detailed information on the

creation, rationalizations, and execution of the questionnaire; information about the

setting and participants of the study; the ethical considerations taken throughout the

study; and the method and tools used when the data gathered was analyzed and

processed.

4.1 Quantitative Research

Quantitative research focus on statistics and quantifiable results that can be extrapolated

to be applied on a larger population. Common methods are surveys and observations

(see, for example, Nunan, 1992).

Since our research question aims to look at the correlation between CCL

(communicative confidence level) and a number of other factors, we would need data

which could be turned into average and correlation: average will allow us to look

generally at a current situation and then compare that with situations differing in time or

context; correlation will enable speculation about causation, as there can be no

causation without correlation. We therefore decided to create a questionnaire because

the data collected can more easily be quantified (Nunan, 1992, p. 143-144).

4.2 Setting and Participants

The school at which we carried out our study is located in a large city in southern

Sweden. There are approximately 700 students at the school. It offers several programs,

but the one we looked at is the behavioral science program with a focus on uniform

occupations (e.g. police, firefighter, coast guard, customs, military, among others). The

program is thus focused on further studies, however, not necessarily at university level.

Often there are specific courses or certain programs mandatory to applicants of these

jobs which are offered as part of a hire or are educations that lead to a hire. The program

has around 100 students currently attending. The other programs at the school are also

15

Figure 2. Age Distribution of Participants

focused on further studies, however, focus more on university studies than on

occupational studies; the uniform program does, however, provide all courses required

for university studies. Since the program, is oriented towards the social sciences, but

with a practical future application (uniformed jobs), the participants can be said to

straddle two worlds: a theoretical world and a practical world. This can either mean they

represent in part both worlds, or neither.

Figure 3. Gender Distribution of Participants

Our 45 participants were all learners at the upper secondary level of education. They all

attended the school described above, and all participants were from the same education

16

program (the behavioral science with a focus on uniform program). The participants

made up around half of that program's students. Most of the participants were taking

their third and final year (33 participants) and some were taking their second year

(twelve participants). The participants’ age ranged from 17 to 22, but after removing

disqualified questionnaires the range was 18 to 21. 26 of the participants were 18 years

old, seven were 19 years old, and one was 21 years old (see figure 2). After excluding

some additional questionnaires from our study (detailed below), 36 questionnaires

remained. Of those questionnaires, twelve recorded a female participant, and 24

recorded a male participant (see figure 3). Our participants therefore represent upper

secondary students who have completed or nearly completed the mandatory English

education in the Swedish school. We requested, but were denied access to statistics

regarding gender distribution at the school; hence, gender could not be controlled and

could not be used as a variable in the study, but could still be of interest in the

discussion.

Figure 4. Number of Languages Spoken by Participants.

All participants reported proficiency in Swedish, however, not all reported

Swedish as their mother tongue. Of the seven participants who spoke two languages, the

two languages were always Swedish and English. As seen in figure 4, the participants

speaking three languages made out the largest group of 17. Seven participants spoke

four languages. After that, the number of participants dropped significantly to two

17

participants speaking five languages, one participant speaking six languages, and two

participants speaking seven languages. The language distribution lends itself for

analysis when participants speak two, three, or four languages in terms of providing

enough data to be able to say something about those groups. However, it is not

unexpected to find fewer participants in the groups where proficiency in five or more

languages is reported; it is probably not as common that people speak as many as seven

languages as it is that people will speak two or three. Therefore, our sample may not

allow us to say something particular about learners speaking five or more languages, but

the number of languages spoken is still a controlled variable in our study.

The participants had various experiences of English studies in the program;

some had taken the two compulsory courses and were either not currently studying

English or were in the process of taking a third non-mandatory one, whereas others

were currently taking their second mandatory course. This means that their level of

English proficiency might vary. However, since all participants finished their first

mandatory year, they were considered ready for society at that initial level. Assuming

that the grades will not change too much in the second year and given the fact that we

collected our data late in the spring semester, the participants who recorded that they

currently are taking their second mandatory year can still be considered valid for our

purposes and ready to use English in society.

Figure 5. Usage Expectations of English After Graduation

18

Looking at the expected usage of English after graduation, a bell curve appeared

(see Figure 5). No participant recorded “very seldom”; nine participants recorded “quite

seldom”; 21 recorded “quite often”; and six recorded “very often”. This means that the

participants expects to use English to a degree slightly higher than average on our scale.

Figure 6. Latest English Grade of Participants.

The Swedish grade system for English ranges from F to A (see Skolverket,

2011a, pp. 55-63). Among the participants, three recorded an A in their latest English

course, three recorded B, nine recorded C, twelve recorded D, and nine recorded E (see

figure 6). The participants reporting an F as their latest grade were removed from

further analysis, since they were not found ready to use English in the global arena

according to the Swedish school, and thereby would not be of interest for our results.

The bell curve which appeared this time has its highest point around the grade D, which

indicates that the participants are just below average on the grade scale.

The setting and the participants were chosen for two reasons. The first reason

was that those participants were the ones we had access to due to a connection with one

of the teachers at the school, i.e. ease of access. The second reason is that English is a

mandatory choice for any upper secondary school in Sweden and while some of the

context of that learning of English might differ, the general purpose does not, that

purpose being students’ ability to “can”, “want”, and “dare” (Skolverket, 2011a) to use

their English globally (see introduction). Hence, these participants could be said to

represent the average Swedish student in English.

19

4.3 Ethical Considerations

There are four main ethical considerations that we took, which are based on the

recommendations of the Science Council (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002). The first

consideration was the Information Agreement (our translation). It means that we

informed our participants of the purpose of our study, what the role of the participants

would be, and that their participation was non-mandatory. The second consideration

was the Consent Agreement (our translation). First we made sure to obtain oral consent

from all participants and from the school. In addition, one of the personal questions on

the questionnaire asked for the age of the participant; since we did not ask for parental

consent, this was used to remove any questionnaires answered by minors. The

Confidentiality Agreement (our translation) was the third consideration. Before the data

collection commenced, all participants were informed that their participation would be

anonymous. This had two purposes: to make sure no one is identified and to ensure

honest answers. We also made gender an open question to let the participants answer in

any way they felt comfortable with. Lastly, we had an open question asking for the

participants spoken languages and allowed any or all to be checked as mother tongue.

Therefore, the questionnaires did not ask for identifying information. In the description

above, the school at which the survey was carried out has been anonymized as far as

possible. The fourth and final consideration is the Application Agreement (our

translation). It means that we will not to use any collected data for commercial purposes

or outside of our study. It also means that any personal information gathered will not be

used to make decisions affecting that participant (e.g. decisions affecting their progress

or presence in school).

4.4 Data Elicitation

The data was collected at the school where all of our participants attended. It was

collected over a single day, in early April, at four separate classrooms during the school

hours. Each time we started by introducing ourselves by name, that we are university

students doing our final exam study, and described the nature of our study. We gave

instructions on how the questionnaire should be filled out, that it was anonymous, and if

they had any questions regarding comprehension or clarification they were free to ask.

We also informed them that it was to be filled in individually and that it would probably

take no more than 10 minutes. We, and a teacher, stayed in the classroom during the

20

collection process, but did not interfere or watch who answered what on the

questionnaire. Once or twice, when the majority were done with answering the

questionnaire, we prodded a student or two who apparently had stopped writing to

finish by asking if they needed help, which resulted in them not needing it, but finishing

the questionnaire instead. We then gathered all the filled in questionnaires without

marking them or identifying them. Each such session lasted between 15 and 20 minutes.

4.5 The Questionnaire

The questionnaire was created in Swedish in two parts (see Appendix 1). The first part

collected personal information of participants pertinent to the study, i.e. gender, age,

achieved grades in English and the languages spoken. Gender was an open question in

case the options we would have provided would not have included the gender the

participants identified themselves as; gender subsequently constituted one of the

variables for the analysis in this study. Age was included as a variable for correlation

analysis and to make sure the participants were of age as we had not obtained the

consent of participants’ legal guardians. The question about students' achieved grades

gave the participants the choice to fill in the grades they had achieved in English 5, 6,

and 7 if applicable, and was also an analysis variable. The question on languages

spoken included up to seven options and the students were asked to mark the ones they

identified as their mother tongues. This was partly for us to be able to identify people

whose linguistic background would have interfered with their answers. Linguistic

background was also considered an important variable (see Bialystok, 2001; Beyene,

2007).

The second part of the questionnaire consisted of closed-scale questions. Closed

means that the questions had a limited number of answers that can be chosen to each of

the questions, and scale means you are supposed to grade your answer on a scale (in our

questionnaire from 1 to 4) (Nunan, 1992, p. 143-144). We chose the closed approach

because it provided a limited number of possible answers, meaning that the data

became more easily quantifiable. The scale was included because it allowed us to gauge

the level or degree of communicative confidence participants would perceive

themselves to have; this was a vital requirement for our research question.

Initially, we chose several different countries for our communication situations

when creating our questionnaire. We wanted to cover a large number of different World

21

Englishes to reflect the current development in the world. We then conducted a pilot

study with five participants. After feedback from the pilot participants, we decided to

change all non-English speaking countries to Italy and all English speaking countries to

the United States as it proved problematic for the results we wanted. It turned out that

the specific countries mentioned influenced the participants too much, even when both

countries were NS (native speaker) or NNS (non-native speaker). We wanted the focus

to be on whether the communication was with someone with English as a native

language or not; we did not want country specific bias to be a factor (e.g. a participant

having a certain disposition towards a specific country’s level of English). We chose

Italy because it’s not a common first or secondary language in Sweden so we would not

have to exclude many participants, at least it is not one of the languages in which

schools are required to offer education (Utbildningsdepartementet, Ch. 9, 5§.). We

chose the US because we believe that it has a rather strong cultural attraction, which is

discussed in Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hecht (2006); this means that the participants could

more easily recognize themselves in those situations.

4.5.1 Communication situations

Our aim with the questionnaire was to try to find factors that would affect a

participant’s communicative confidence. While asking the participants such a question

directly would be one approach of getting to that data, it would be an approach where

our aim’s transparency might affect the results; to put this in the terms of Nunan (1992),

we would “intervene” (p. 5) too much. Yet, we could not afford being too vague, as that

would yield too much data; again putting this in terms of Nunan (1992), we would be

too “unselective” (p. 5). We therefore had to find a way of asking our participants about

these factors in a subtler and indirect way while still being specific enough to keep the

results manageable. Hence, we chose to create communication situations.

22

Table 1. Questions Where the Mother Tongue of the Interlocutor Can Be Compared and

Contrasted (translated excerpt from the questionnaire).

NS example:

Question 18. You have a friend from USA. You converse about your favorite series on

Skype in English.

NNS example:

Question 19. You have a friend from Italy. You converse about your favorite series on

Skype in English.

The communication situations would describe different situations where

different factors would vary. All situations but three (which were a triad) were

structured into dyads where the only difference between two situations would be the

mother tongue or the nationality of the interlocutor (see Table 1 in bold). In this way we

were able to compare the effect of communicating with a NS of English and a NNS of

English, which was found a valid variable in previous research (see Neeley et al., 2012;

Beyene, 2007; Shehadeh, 1999).

Table 2. Questions where familiarity in relation to the participants’ experiences can be

compared and contrasted (translated excerpt from the questionnaire).

Familiar situation example:

Question 21. You have a friend from Italy. You are writing in the Facebook chat about

your favorite bands in English.

Unfamiliar situation example:

Question 29. You have gotten a job here in Sweden at a company that sometimes conducts

business internationally. You have a client from Italy and your boss gives you the task to

take care of the deal. You and the client converse in English.

The different dyads could also be compared and contrasted depending on the formality

of the situations described (see table 2) and depending on the familiarity in relation to

the learners (see table 3). For example, one question from a dyad would describe a more

formal situation which could then be contrasted with a question from another dyad that

23

would describe a more informal situation, as can be seen in table 2. The same process

was done for questions describing more familiar and more unfamiliar situations (see

table 3).

Table 3. Questions where formality of a situation can be compared and contrasted

(translated excerpt from the questionnaire).

Informal example:

Question 12. A friend from USA is visiting you. One night, you and the friend from USA

are hanging out with one of your friends from Sweden. You are telling your friend from

Sweden about how you met your friend from USA. Only you and your friend from Sweden

know Swedish, so in order for everyone to understand, you speak in English.

Formal example:

Question 6. When you are finished with your upper secondary education, you travel to

USA to study for an occupational degree. You and your classmate from USA are doing a

group work. You speak in English while you work.

Returning to Nunan, our questionnaire can be described using the model

“Parameters in research design”-table (figure 1), a modification by Nunan of the

original model by Van Lier (in Nunan, 1992, pp. 5-6). Our questionnaire would position

itself in the upper right quadrant of the model as a “measuring” approach (see figure 1

below). The questionnaire would be very selective in the sense that we defined the

situations and parameters. The questionnaire would, however, be less interventionist

since we would describe various situations for the participant to imagine rather than

explicitly asking about a specific factor’s impact on their confidence.

24

Figure 1. Parameters in Research Design

It is, however, important to note that while our approach tries to emancipate

itself from opinion-based answers and instead aim to measure reaction to various

situations, the participants are still asked to record self-perceived confidence. Hence,

there is still an element of opinion-based answers, but the degree has been reduced with

the utilization of communication situations. The next step towards making this less

opinion-based would be to actually observe real situations instead of asking about

perceived confidence level, but that is something we leave for future research.

4.5.2 Familiarity and formality

Since familiarity and formality are two important factors in our analysis, we find it of

significance to define the two terms. The Oxford dictionary (2016) defines "familiar" as

follows: "Well known from long or close association" (Familiar, 2016) and "Often

encountered or experienced; common" (Familiar, 2016). We further nuance the

definition of a familiar situation as a situation which the participant has some previous

experience of, a situation that the participant feels confident being in, and a situation in

which the participant has a good understanding of the conventions and expectations that

apply.

Defining formality is not an easy task. Many attempts have been made; for

example, Meiners and Miller (2004), who assert that in business situations “formality is

indicated by the presence or absence of structure shaping the interaction” (p. 306 (pdf:

25

p. 6)) and that “informal interactions are likely more unstructured, spontaneous, and off-

the-record than formal ones” (p. 306 (pdf: p. 6)). While definitions like these may

suffice in certain situations, we found that for our purposes the definition was non-

conducive to our categorization.

Instead, we chose to turn to Maslow’s (1987) Hierarchy of Needs for our

definition of formality. In the hierarchy, Maslow ranks the various needs a human being

has starting with the Physiological Needs (e.g. eating, breathing, and sleeping) followed

by the Safety Needs (e.g. financial safety, a place to live, and “laws and limits” (p. 18))

as the bottom two and most fundamental needs (p. 15-18). We identify situations that

would mainly affect any of these two levels as more formal situations. This means that a

job interview would normally be classified as more formal, since it would affect one’s

financial security substantially. Maslow continues his hierarchy with the following three

upper needs in order: the Belongingness and Love Needs (“relations with people in

general” (p. 20), e.g. friendship, family, and a romantic partner), the Esteem Needs (e.g.

confidence, achievement, self-respect, being respected by others, and holding a good

reputation), and the Self-actualization Need (fulfilling one’s personal desires, e.g.

“artists must paint [and] poets must write if they are to be ultimately at peace with

themselves” (p. 22))). Conversely, we define situations that would mainly affect any of

these three needs as more informal situations. Concretizing this means that conversing

with a friend would normally be informal, since it mainly affects the three upper levels.

We chose this approach in defining formality since it allows us to categorize our

communication situations more clearly and with fewer situations falling into gray areas;

using definitions like the one of Meiners and Miller (2004) above forced us to leave

more situations unclassified, as they would fit both the definition of more formal and

more informal.

4.5.3 Likert scale

The questions in the second part of the questionnaire were answered on a Likert scale

(you indicate your level of confidence on a scale from 1 to 4). We chose the Likert scale

since we wanted to look at the broad structures, not the small nuances in the

participants’ confidence level; that is to say we wanted to see if they had a strong or

weak reaction and if it was positive or negative. Joshi, Kale, Chandel, and Pal claim that

“Likert scale was devised in order to measure ‘attitude’ in a scientifically accepted and

26

validated manner in 1932” (Joshi, Kale, Chandel & Pal, 2015, p. 397). Using an even

number of possible answers is called an asymmetric scale, since it offers less choices on

one side of neutrality. It is used when the researcher perceives no value in a neutral

response (Joshi et al., 2015, pp. 397-398)

The questionnaire had two kinds of Likert scales. There was one question that

asked the participants how much they anticipated they would use English after finishing

upper secondary school. This Likert scale ranged from “very seldom”, “quite seldom”,

“quite often” to “very often”. The remaining 29 questions all described plausible future

scenarios where the participant would use English and gave them the option to answer

how confident they would be in their use of English in that scenario. The Likert scale

for these questions ranged from “very unconfident”, “somewhat unconfident”, “quite

confident”, to “very confident”.

The questionnaire contained quite a bit of reading, the scenarios were quite

detailed and some were similar, with only small but crucial changes which were bolded.

To help with clarifying the details, we decided to create the whole questionnaire entirely

in Swedish, since the study takes place in Sweden and the native language of the

majority of the participants is Swedish. The pairing of the dyads and bolding of certain

words was also used for this purpose.

4.6 Data Analysis

In this section, we present the different parts of the data analysis conducted on the

collected data. This includes omissions, software employed, and necessary data

conversion,

4.6.1 Omissions

Some questionnaires had to be removed before analysis. Five of the participants taking

their second year of studies were found to be underage; since we only had oral consent

from the participants and not their guardians, those questionnaires filled out by

underage participants were removed. Four additional questionnaires were removed

before analysis. The first questionnaire was removed because the participant recorded

language knowledge that would interfere with the results; the participant reported

knowledge of Italian, which was a language playing a major role in our questions (no

other participant reported any skills in Italian). The second questionnaire was removed

27

because the participant had not completed the questionnaire to a satisfactory degree.

The third questionnaire was removed because the participant had not completed any of

the mandatory English courses in upper secondary school. The fourth was removed

because it recorded an F in their only taken course, meaning the school had not deemed

the participant proficient in English. After removing questionnaires not meeting our

demands, we were left with 36 questionnaires to analyze.

In the data analysis, four of the 29 questions from the questionnaire described

one-way communication and were therefore deemed to be less comparable with the

other questions which all targeted two- or multi-way communication. When creating

and piloting the questionnaire, we failed to recognize this imbalance. Ultimately, we

decided that this would simply add another layer of possible reasons for divergence in

the results. For us to draw valid conclusions, it was important to keep the number of

possible reasons for divergence to a minimum; hence, we completely omitted those four

questions from the analysis.

4.6.2 Software employed

We used two software when analyzing our data. Our data was collected from the

physical questionnaires and then processed digitally in Microsoft Excel. It was then

converted into graphs and tables for the sake of clarity and analysis. We then used IBM

SPSS Statistics 23, a statistical analysis program by IBM, to check for correlations in

our data.

When presenting our data, we normally indicate the mean and sometimes the

median and mode. The mean is just the average score in a given data set and gives you a

general value and overview of that set of data. Because the mean can be heavily

influenced by a minority of extreme scores, either positive or negative, we also use the

median. The median is simply the value in the middle of the data when ordered after

magnitude (numerical order) and is less affected by extreme scores. The mode is the

score that appears most frequently in a set of data and tells you the majority score

(Field, 2009, pp. 21-23).

Microsoft Excel was used to gather all the data collected and organize it. It

allowed us to calculate means, median, and mode and create graphs and charts to help

visualize the results. The table format of Excel greatly expedited data conversion to

SPSS as well.

28

We used SPSS as the digital platform and Spearman’s Rho, one of the SPSS

tools to analyze correlations between our data sets. Using these, we can see if there is a

positive correlation (or negative) between any chosen variables of factors, how strong

that correlation is, and if any such correlation is statistically significant. If a correlation

is statistically significant it means that there is a 5 % or less probability of the

correlation to be pure chance; if it’s very significant it means there is a 1 % or less

probability to be pure chance (Field, 2009, pp. 52-53).

4.6.3 Necessary data conversion

There were two specific factors which required additional preparation and conversion of

data: the grade factor and the formality and familiarity factor. First, in order to correlate

grade data with the confidence data we had to convert the grade data into numbers from

the letter system used in Swedish school. The five grades of A, B, C, D, and E were

converted into 5,4,3,2, and 1. The failing grade of F was omitted since it indicates that

the participant has not completed the mandatory English course and is not deemed

proficient in English by the Swedish school.

Second, we could not check for correlation between familiarity and formality in

SPSS, since there was only one rank of data; familiarity and formality was a binary trait

rather than a rank. We therefore sorted the questions based on the mean CCL, then

classified each question as formal or informal and as familiar and unfamiliar. Four of

the questions (question 22-25) (all questions from two dyads) regarded online shopping;

we were not certain whether our participants had any experience of online shopping,

especially since most of them had just turned 18 (the age at which online shopping

becomes legal in Sweden). Therefore, we decided to omit questions 22-25 from our

familiarity analysis. Two of the questions (question 22 and 23) (both of the same dyad)

regarded a conversation solving an issue during online shopping, but failed to mention

the nature of the issue; hence, with our definition of formality using Maslow’s

hierarchy, we could not determine whether the issue was of a fiscal nature or an

aesthetic nature. We were therefore forced to omit these questions in our formality

analysis. Additionally, questions one to three were ambiguous in their nature in terms of

formality. These questions considered taking English courses at a Swedish university,

which could be done with the purpose of attaining a job or just for the sake of personal

growth; thus, returning to Maslow’s hierarchy, these questions could be either more

29

formal or more informal. However, the Eurobarometer (TNS Opinion & Social, 2012)

found that the purpose for learning English in Sweden was for 65% of the participants

to work abroad, for 70% of the participants to work in general, and for 48% of the

participants to achieve more personal satisfaction (p. 65). Therefore, we conclude that it

seems more common to study English in Sweden with the purpose of getting a job,

which, returning to Maslow’s hierarchy, mainly affects the bottom two needs; question

one to three were therefore classified as more formal.

Table 4. Examples of communication situations not classifiable for familiarity and/or

formality

Not classifiable for familiarity Not classifiable for formality

Question 23. You have ordered a pair of

shoes from website in Italy. The company

calls you a couple of days later and needs to

fix a problem that has arisen with your order.

The person on the phone speaks English.

Question 22. You have ordered a pair of

shoes from website in the USA. The

company calls you a couple of days later

and needs to fix a problem that has arisen

with your order. The person on the phone

speaks English.

Question 24. You have ordered a perfume

from USA. But you realize that the shipping

will be expensive, so you e-mail the

company about canceling your order. You

have a short e-mail conversation in English.

Question 23. You have ordered a pair of

shoes from website in Italy. The company

calls you a couple of days later and needs to

fix a problem that has arisen with your

order. The person on the phone speaks

English.

When we had classified all questions, we looked at the spread of formality and

familiarity across the rank of mean CCL. We counted the number of times a question

classified as formal would appear above and below the mean CCL for all participants;

then we repeated the process for each factor. We chose to identify the center based on

the mean CCL of the participants, because it showed us in what situations participants

would feel more confident than average or less confident than average.

30

5. Results

In this chapter, we present our findings. The results are divided into the following

categories: Average Communicative Confidence Level (CCL) and Uniformity;

Academic Achievement, Linguistic Background, and Usage Expectation; Non-Native

Speaking or Native Speaking interlocutors; Communication Situation’s Formality and

Familiarity; and Summary of Results. Our research question was as follows:

Do any of the following four factors affect the reported communicative confidence level

of learners of English from a Swedish upper secondary program and if so, in what way?

- Academic achievement

- Linguistic background of the learner and of the other interlocutor(s)

- Expected degree of English usage

- Communication situation’s formality and familiarity

5.1 Average CCL and Uniformity

Our results show that only two participants recorded a mean CCL at about 2,5. This was

the mean of our scale (1-4). The first participant measured at 2,44 and the second at

2,56; other participants deviated from this number by more than 0,10. Further, only four

participants recorded a mean CCL below 2,5; a large majority of 86 % (31 out of the

36) of participants recorded a mean CCL above 2,5. The total mean CCL for all

participants was 3,24. This means that our participants are slightly more confident than

what we expected. If we were to translate this into the terminology used in the

questionnaire, the average participant records a mean CCL of slightly more than “pretty

confident”.

31

Figure 7. Participants’ Mean CCL in Comparison to Mean CCL on Our Scale.

Additionally, we found a correlation between most of the questions when

comparing them to each other; 25 questions compared to each other means a total of

300 different possible comparisons ((25*25-25)/2=300). Of the 300 comparisons,

twelve were insignificant, 31 were significant, and 257 were very significant. Of the 288

significant correlations, seven were significant to a degree of 0,8 or more; as mentioned

earlier, the closer a value is to 1,0 or -1,0 the closer it is complete correlation.

Table 5. Correlations Between Questionnaire Communication Situations

What this means is that participants would display a high degree of uniformity in their

CCL; a participant with a high CCL in one question would have a high CCL in almost

every other question, and vice versa for participants with other levels of communicative

confidence (see table 5 and appendix 1).

32

5.2 Academic Achievement, Linguistic Background, and

Usage Expectation

As can be seen in figure 8, the mean communicative confidence level (CCL) is

compared to three factors: academic achievement, linguistic background, and usage

expectation. A positive value means that when confidence increases the other factor also

increases; the opposite relation applies to a negative value.

Figure 8. How Do Factors Correlate with Communicative Confidence?

A value closer to 1,0 or -1,0 means more correlation, where 1,0 means total positive

correlation; e.g. when communicative confidence increases, the other factor increases an

amount equal to the change in confidence. -1,0 means total negative correlation; e.g.

when communicative confidence increases, the other factor decreases an amount equal

to the change in confidence.

33

Figure 9. Grade Distribution in Relation to Mean CCL

As can be seen in Figure 9, there are three participants with an A or a B

respectively, nine participants with a C, twelve with a D and another nine with an E.

When looking at the correlation between the CCL of the participants and their grade in

English we find a positive correlation to a very significant degree (0,479). What this

means is basically that high grades and high CCL are connected, and low grades and

low CCL are connected (see figure 8).

Figure 10. Number of Language Spoken Relative to Mean CCL

34

Figure 10 shows the distribution of number of languages spoken between

participants in relation to their mean CCL. Each dot is one participant and shows the

number of languages they speak and their mean CCL. When looking at the correlation

between the CCL and the number of languages the participants are proficient in we can

see a small negative change to the number of languages known when CCL increases;

however, the correlation is not significant (-0,189) and can just as well be attributed to

chance. There is no correlation to any significant degree between the participants’

language proficiencies and CCL (see figure 8).

Figure 11. Spread of Usage Expectation in Relation to Mean CCL

In figure 11, the spread of usage expectation of English can be seen. Nine

participants expected to use English “quite seldom”, 21 reported “quite often”, and six

reported “very often”; no participant reported the lowest expectation “very seldom”.

When looking at the correlation between the CCL of the participants and their expected

usage of English you can see a very small positive change to the expected usage of

English as CCL increases; however, the correlation is not significant (0,147) and can

just as well be attributed to chance. There is no correlation to any significant degree

between the expected usage of English and CCL (see figure 8).

35

5.3 NNS or NS Interlocutors

Looking at table 6, we find information about confidence among students comparing

NNS (non-native speaker) and NS (native speaker) related communication. 11 of the

questions were communication within an Italian context (NNS English) and 11 were

with an American context (NS English), these were all in dyads of context, except

questions 1,2, and 3 that were a triad and omitted here because of irrelevance (see

questionnaire in Appendix 1 for examples of dyads in Swedish, e.g. 4 and 5 or 18 and

19, or see the method section titled 4.1.1 Communication Situations for an English

example).

Table 6. Mean CCL in Relation to Interlocutor Linguistic Background

Looking at all the questions where the communication was with an NS yielded a mean

average of 3,15 CCL. Looking at all the questions where the communication was with

an NNS yielded a mean average of 3,18. (see table 6). When analyzing correlation, we

found a strong positive correlation (0,870), meaning that when a participant recorded

high CCL with an NNS interlocutor they also recorded high CCL with an NS

interlocutor, and the opposite can be said for participants with a lower CCL (see table

7). The most significant correlations were always between two questions within a dyad

36

(see Appendix 1). This means that, to the participants' CCL seems to have little effect

whether the interlocutor is an NS or NNS.

Table 7. Correlation Between Mean CCL with a Speaker from USA and Italy

5.4 Communication Situations' Formality and Familiarity

In this section, we present our results regarding the formality and familiarity of the

communication situations. Tables 8 and 9 contrast, for example, familiarity and

formality; these tables can also be found in the method section titled Necessary Data

Conversion (see also Appendix 1 for the full questionnaire with the numbered

questions).

Table 8. Example of Contrasting Familiar and Unfamiliar Communication Situations

Familiar situation example:

Question 21. You have a friend from Italy. You are writing in the Facebook chat about

your favorite bands in English.

Unfamiliar situation example:

Question 29. You have gotten a job here in Sweden at a company that sometimes conducts

business internationally. You have a client from Italy and your boss gives you the task to

take care of the deal. You and the client converse in English.

Let us first look at familiarity (see table 10). All questions classified as

unfamiliar situations (questions 2-7, 16-17, and 28-29) ended up below the mean CCL

of all participants; further, the seven situations ranked with the lowest CCL were

unfamiliar situations.

37

Table 9. Example of Contrasting Informal and Formal Communication Situations

Informal example:

Question 12. A friend from USA is visiting you. One night, you and the friend from USA

are hanging out with one of your friends from Sweden. Du are telling your friend from

Sweden about how you met your friend from USA. Only you and your friend from Sweden

know Swedish, so in order for everyone to understand, you speak in English.

Formal example:

Question 6. When you are finished with your upper secondary education, you travel to

USA to study for an occupational degree. You and your classmate from USA are doing a

group work. You speak in English while you work.

For familiar situations (questions 1, 12-15, and 18-21), however, the spread is more

equal, where 56% ended up above the mean CCL for all participants and 44% below the

mean CCL for all participants; the five situations ranked with the highest CCL (ignoring

unclassifiable situations) were all familiar situations. This means that a more familiar

situation does not necessarily affect the CCL of the participants; however, a more

unfamiliar situation seems to, quite convincingly, be related with lower CCL.

38

Table 10. Familiarity in Relation to Mean CCL

Moving on to formality (see table 11), a majority (82%) of the questions

(questions 1-7 and 28-29) classified as formal situations ended up below the mean CCL

of all participants; the seven situations ranked with the lowest CCL were formal. As in

the previous case the opposing counterpart did show a more balanced spread: in fact, the

split was perfectly even, and 50% of the situations classified as informal ended up

above the mean CCL (and vice versa); the three situations ranked with the highest CCL

were informal situations. This seems to indicate that a more informal situation does not

affect the CCL; a more formal situation, on the other hand, seems to be associated with

lower CCL.

3,43 f

3,38 f

3,38 f

3,35 x

3,35 x

3,32 f

3,30 f

3,30 f

3,22 f

3,22 u

3,19 u

3,16 u

3,14 f

3,14 x

3,11 f

3,11 x

3,08 f

3,03 f

3,00 u

3,00 u

2,97 u

Key: 2,97 u

f = familiar 2,95 u

u = unfamiliar 2,92 u

x = unclassified 2,81 u

Mean

CCL

Familiarit

y

Center based on

mean CCL (3,24)

Unfamili

ar (%)

55%

(6/11)

0%

(0/10)

45%

(5/11)

100%

(10/10)

Familiar

(%)

50%

(2/4)

Unclassifi

ed (%)

50%

(2/4)

39

Table 11. Formality in Relation to Mean CCL

However, despite the indication of these patterns, the actual difference in CCL

between the highest and the lowest is not very significant. On our scale of 1-4, the

lowest mean confidence level recorded was 2,81 and the highest 3,43; the difference

being a mean score of 0,62. This means that although the correlation seems to suggest

that the CCL is higher in a more familiar situation and/or in a more informal situation,

the strength of that correlation may not be sufficient. Further research into this area is

needed before a more definite claim can be made.

3,43 i

3,38 i

3,38 i

3,35 f

3,35 f

3,32 i

3,30 i

3,30 i

3,22 i

3,22 i

3,19 f

3,16 i

3,14 i

3,14 x

3,11 f

3,11 x

3,08 i

3,03 i

3,00 f

3,00 f

2,97 f

Key: 2,97 f

f = formal 2,95 f

i = informal 2,92 f

x = unclassified 2,81 f

Informal

(%)

Formal

(%)

Mean

CCLFormality

Center based on

mean CCL (3,24)

100%

(2/2)

Unclassifi

ed (%)

0%

(0/2)

50%

(6/12)

18%

(2/11)

50%

(6/12)

82%

(9/11)

40

5.5 Summary of Results

Our results show that the mean CCL among participants was somewhat higher than the

median on our scale, which means that they report a fairly high CCL. In addition, we

found that participants seemed to record a quite uniform CCL, where a participant who

recorded a high CCL on one question would mostly record a high CCL on every other

question (and vice versa). Our findings also showed a very strong positive correlation

between academic achievement and CCL, thus our findings show that a participant

reporting a higher CCL also has a higher final grade in English. On the other hand, the

following three factors considered did not correlate with CCL: usage expectation of

English after finishing their secondary education, the number of languages spoken, and

interlocutors speaking English either as a mother tongue or as a second or foreign

language. We found a significant correlation when comparing reported CCL for

communication with an NS and communication with an NNS. That is, students rated

their CCL high or low regardless of the interlocutor’s language background. Finally, our

data showed a connection between formal communication situations and a lower CCL,

while informal communication situations had no such connection. This means that

formal settings seems to affect student’s CCL negatively, while informal settings have

no bearing on CCL. When it comes to familiar communication settings, we found a

similar pattern; unfamiliar situations were associated with lower CCL, while familiar

situations seemed to have no connection.

41

6. Discussion

In this section we discuss our findings from the results section and relate them to the

previous research presented in the literature section. We then discuss our results in

relation to the classrooms. This is finally followed by critical considerations regarding

our study and suggestions for further research.

6.1 Problematization of Our Results

This section is divided into seven sections, based on the categories from the results

section.

6.1.1 Communicative confidence level average

Our results showed that the mean CCL (communicative confidence level) of our

participants was above the scale’s mean of 2,5 at 3,4, meaning the average participant

reported their CCL at somewhere between “pretty confident” and “very confident”. In

the Eurobarometer (TNS Opinion & Social., 2012), Sweden ranks just around the

Europe average of 25% at English listening (24%), reading (28%), and online

communication (30%) skills (pp. 28-39). If we compare the Eurobarometer with our

results we can possibly deduce that while skills might be average, confidence levels are

above that. This is in opposition to previous research, which shows a positive

correlation between confidence and academic achievement (See Park, Lawson, and

Williams (2012) and Stankov, Lee, Luo, and Hogan (2012) in the Literature Review).

The Eurobarometer; however, does not measure oral communicative skills maybe

because of difficulties to make such a test reliable, and our questionnaire and data

collection focused on that to a larger extent. Perhaps, Swedes would have shown higher

skill levels if tested on oral, communicative confidence. The Eurobarometer also

collects data from all ages, while our data was collected from people aged 18-21, and

looking at an average 18-21-year-old Swede’s skill in English might better corroborate

our findings. While it is good news that CCL average is higher than expected, because

of the aforementioned correlation between confidence and academic achievement, we

must look into the rest of the results to find further causes for these levels of CCL.

42

6.1.2 Academic achievement

Academic achievement was the only variable we found with a positive correlation, or

any kind of correlation, with CCL among the participants. That means that participants

with a high grade report a high CCL. It is, however, hard to tell what influence what;

does having a high grade increase your confidence, or does a high CCL help you

achieve higher grades? There might be a synergy of the two factors influencing each

other as well. Our findings corroborate what Park, Lawson, and Williams (2012) and

Stankov, Lee, Luo, and Hogan (2012) suggest: that greater confidence could predict

higher academic achievement. However, it is worth remembering that grade is just an

indicator of the skills acquired in school and decided by the curriculum, and perceived

confidence is not necessarily the actual confidence you exhibit in a particular

communication situation. This line of thinking is corroborated by Hennebry, Yi Lo, and

Macaro (2012), whose study claimed that the English as an L2 (second language)

education skills acquired were not enough for students, with good grades, when they

started studying in an Anglophone setting in international schools. Thus, consulting our

results and the findings of Park et al. and Stankov et al, a possible conclusion could be

that increased CCL or even increased perceived CCL can be conducive for English

learning.

6.1.3 Communicative confidence level uniformity

Another finding in the results was the uniformity of the participant’s CCL. In 96 % (288

out of 300) of the cases there was a significant, positive correlation between the

reported answers on the communication situations in the questionnaire. That means that

no matter the context of the situation we presented to the participant, in a vast majority

of cases, a person would self-report about the same CCL consistently throughout the

questionnaire. This is further corroborated by the results connected to the number of

languages the participant reported proficiency in, the usage expectation of English from

the participant, and the mother tongue of the communication situation, discussed below.

We found no previous studies corroborating or contradicting this, meaning this could be

an interesting topic for further studies.

43

6.1.4 Number of languages spoken

Our results showed that there was no correlation between the number of languages a

participant recorded proficiency in and their self-perceived CCL. Bialystok (2001)

provides evidence which suggests that attaining proficiency in a second language

(becoming bilingual) may positively affect academic achievement. Relating this to the

correlation between academic achievement and confidence, mentioned above, suggests

that learning a second language may increase the level of confidence. This is further

nuanced by Beyene (2007), who argued that speaking more languages may increase

one’s willingness to communicate with an NS of one of those languages, which, when

related to the assumption that increased motivation increases confidence (see the

following section titled Usage Expectations), suggests that speaking more languages

should increase one’s confidence towards situations including native speakers (NS) of

those languages. Altogether, these findings seem to suggest a tendency where knowing

more languages increases one’s communicative confidence; our results, however, show

that the number of languages spoken does not seem to have any effect. Further, there are

not a lot of studies done on multilingual students with more than two languages, and our

findings are not substantial enough to make a strong claim. We therefore have to leave

any definitive conclusions to future research.

6.1.5 Usage expectations

Lightbown and Spada discuss motivation in relation to the learner’s position or attitude

towards the target language and its communities. They divide motivation for learning a

language into two categories, the first of which is relevant for our purposes. The first

category, “instrumental motivation” (Gardner & Lambert, 1972), asserts that

[i]f learners need to speak the second language in a wider range of social situations or

to fulfil professional ambitions, they will perceive the communicative value of the

second language and are therefore likely to be motivated to acquire proficiency in it.

(as cited in Lightbown & Spada, p. 87).

This suggests that increased perceived need for a language increases motivation to

learning that language, which does not necessarily mean that learning actually occurs,

but does mean that learning is more likely to occur than if the learner had not felt

motivated. This is further supported by Tella (2007), who found that increased

44

motivation correlated with increased academic achievement. As previously shown in

Park, Lawson, and Williams (2012) and Stankov, Lee, Luo, and Hogan (2012), higher

confidence could predict academic achievement, meaning that increased motivation

should mean higher confidence.

We found that there was not a significant correlation between perceived need for

English and CCL. This contradicts our argument above. Concretizing our results then,

means that a participant expecting a lot of English use might have a high CCL just as

well as a low CCL; a participant might expect a lot of English use and rise to the

occasion or might find the task far too overwhelming. We leave this for future research.

6.1.6 NNS and NS

We found that it did not seem to matter whether the interlocutor was an NS or not. This

contradicts Shehadeh’s (1999) and Beyene’s (2007) findings. Shehadeh found that an

NNS-NNS interaction would be more supportive and intelligible than an NS-NNS

interaction, because of the higher frequency of negotiation for meaning. Beyene found

that NNS-NS interaction was more stigmatizing and stressful for the NNS than NNS-

NNS interaction was. Our results show that neither of these effects seem to be of

significance: NNS-NS and NNS-NNS interactions were found to correlate with an equal

CCL in our data. Further, our results also contradict a number of comments from some

of the participants from our pilot study. The pilot participants claimed, while giving

feedback on the questionnaire, that talking to an NS would be easier, since that speaker

would have a better command of the English language; interaction with an NNS would

require using a lot more communicative strategies, which can be taxing. The pilot

participants’ claims fall in line with Shehadeh’s findings that NNS-NNS interaction

require us of more strategies. But this claim also contradicts Shehadeh, since the

participants perceived such an environment more demanding.

An aspect that may have influenced this dissonance is the fact that our study

targeted participant perception. Firstly, in the Swedish school the communicative

situations are rarely authentic Lingua Franca situations where the interlocutors use

English as a way of allowing for communication; mostly the learners all speak Swedish,

although it may not be their mother tongue, and English is only spoken because it is the

target language in the classroom. Also, NS:s are not common in the English as a second

language class in Sweden, meaning that the interaction in English with NS:s of English

45

is also limited. This means that the learners would not have much experience of

interaction with NS:s of English nor of interaction where English was the only or best

language to achieve understanding, at least in school contexts. Secondly, the

participants probably do not have much experience of English interaction in most of the

communication situations described in the questionnaire, since the questionnaire and

our study targets English usage after finishing the education they are currently

participating in. Hennebry, Yi Lo, and Macaro (2012) further support this: English

education in NNS settings seemed to be inadequate or at least not fully satisfactory in

terms of meeting the demands of studies in Anglophone settings (p. 225). This suggests

that our participants may perceive readiness for communication situations that may not

fully exist outside of their current school environment. Had we been able to physically

position the participants in communication situations and observe the interaction, our

results may have differed, potentially in the direction of Shehadeh’s and Beyene’s

findings.

6.1.7 Formality and familiarity

More familiar and more informal communication situations seemed to correlate with

higher CCL in our data.

Starting with familiarity, this falls in line with Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of the

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The theory presents a linear model of learning

consisting of three zones. The leftmost zone represents what a learner already knows

(i.e. knowledge familiar to the learner); the rightmost zone represents what the learner

may not currently make known (i.e. very unfamiliar); the zone in between these two

zones is the ZPD, which represents the knowledge a learner may make known with the

help of a mentor (i.e. unfamiliar, but not to the extent where progress is more or less

impossible) (Vygotsky, 1978). A participant in a familiar communication situation

would, hence, place somewhere around the leftmost zone on Vygotsky’s model,

meaning that the participant would have knowledge about that situation and, as our

results seem to indicate, a higher CCL.

As for formality, our results can possibly be explained consulting the American

Psychological Association (2015), who found that in America “money” and “work” (p.

2) are the two most common stress factors. Bringing back Maslow’s hierarchy, we find

that these two factors mainly affect the bottom two levels of the hierarchy. It therefore

46

seems that in more formal situations, one could expect more stress. Our results showed

a similar tendency, where more formal situations correlated with lower CCL. It can

therefore be concluded that more formal situations may be associated with negative

aspects like stress and low CCL.

6.2 Future Role as Teachers

A number of points can be made about the relevance of our findings.

First, the CCL seemed to be quite uniform for each participant and at a fairly

high level. Further, the academic achievement of the participants seemed to positively

correlate with higher CCL, which, as has been argued, seemed to suggest that higher

CCL can be conducive for English development. For the classroom, there might be a

reason to explicitly focus on developing CCL, to further facilitate the learning of

English.

Second, there seems to be the need to discuss and nuance the expectations of

CCL among the learners, which the pilot participants have helped to highlight. They

claimed that speaking with an NNS would be harder because they would have to use a

lot more strategies (see section 6.1.6). However, in this statement they seem to have

failed to acknowledge the implications of being NNS:s themselves. Speaking with an

NS would still require the use of strategies (see, for example, Long & Sato (1983) who

argue for the use of “modified interaction”). Potentially, the pilot participants have

suggested that there is the need to nuance the perception of what interactions with NS

and NNS means and how strategies are supposed to be used and function. While it is

satisfactory to have found out that the learners are aware of strategy usage, it would be

beneficial if they also could see strategy use positively. Shehadeh (1999) emphasizes

strategy use to make interactions more intelligible; in fact, it might even be quite

essential for the learners to embrace strategies as a tool rather than view it as a hurdle.

Third, formality seems to be the cause of stress in other studies and was found to

correlate with low CCL in our study. This suggests that formality might be an aspect of

learning worth putting extra focus on in the education of English, to make those

contexts more approachable and more familiar.

Finally, our results seem to indicate that the Swedish school is doing quite well

in terms of meeting the goal of “develop[ing] language- and world-knowledge so that

[the learners] . . . dare use English in various situations and for various purposes” (our

47

translation, our emphasis, Skolverket, 2011a, p. 53) since our participants reported a

fairly high average CCL. This may appear contradictory to what the PISA results for

Sweden show (Skolverket, 2013), which report a decline in the Swedish school

performance. However, the PISA focuses exclusively on mathematics, natural science,

and reading comprehension (in Swedish). Our study therefore may provide insight into

other subjects of the Swedish school, namely English, and highlights that it may not be

entirely true that performance decline in the Swedish school exists across the board.

6.3 Limitations of Method and Design of the Study

As with any study there are, of course, limitations to consider. We address them in this

section.

One of the main data analysis tools in this study is correlations, and it is always

important to remember that correlation does not equal causation: two factors correlating

does not necessarily mean they affect each other. However, you can use the correlations

to corroborate other studies claiming similar results, and find grounds for further

studies.

Another aspect to consider when looking at correlation is the question of what

came first. For example, did a participant report a high CCL because their grade was

high or was their grade high because they reported a high CCL. To identify which of

these factors affected which, a more specialized study is needed.

The selection and the size of the data collected can also be questioned. The final

total of participants in the study was 36 (see section 4.6.1 for details on omission of a

number of filled questionnaires from the study) which is quite low for a quantitative

study. However, when taking into account the setting and the fact that the program

totaled at approximately 100 students, the results are still applicable to that group.

One of the main variables studied in this paper also requires clarification. This

study investigates self-perceived communicative confidence, not to be confused with

actual communicative confidence. You need to be aware that what the participants

report is only their own belief in their confidence, as it might never have been tried or

analyzed by the participant. This is why this study looks at how prepared the

participants feel they are after finishing English in school.

The choice not to include interviews could possibly affect the discussion and

conclusions drawn in this study. Greater understanding of some of the results could

48

have been achieved if interviews had been conducted with some or all of the

participants, but we chose a quantitative approach to the topic of CCL rather than a

qualitative.

In hindsight, we have realized that familiarity and formality could have been

more accurately tested had we designed the questionnaire differently. Regarding

familiarity, we have no actual way of knowing whether a communication situation

would be familiar to our participants; instead, we assume based on the participants’

context that certain situations are more familiar for the participants (e.g. conversing on

Facebook or talking to friends at a café) and other situations are more unfamiliar for the

participants (e.g. working for a company in Sweden with international clients or

working at a restaurant in Italy). What could have improved our accuracy is the addition

of questions asking about the participants’ habits (e.g. if they usually shop online or if

they usually travel abroad).

49

7. Summary and Conclusions

We have investigated the communicative confidence level (CCL) of learners in a

Swedish upper secondary program. CCL is singled out as an important factor in the

English education in Sweden (see LGY11). In this study we asked the following

research question:

Do any of the following four factors affect the reported communicative confidence level

of learners of English from a Swedish upper secondary program and if so, in what way?

- Academic achievement

- Linguistic background of the learner and of the other interlocutor(s)

- Expected degree of English usage

- Communication situation’s formality and familiarity

We found that high academic achievement correlated with high perceived CCL. The

linguistic background of the interlocutor (i.e. whether the interlocutor is a native or non-

native speaker of English) was found to be of little significance for the perceived CCL.

The linguistic background of the learner (i.e. the number of languages a participant

recorded proficiency in) and the expected degree of English usage did not correlate with

perceived CCL either. Finally, unfamiliar communication situations and formal

communication situations seemed to correlate with a lower perceived CCL.

In addition, we found that the average CCL of the learners was fairly high,

especially when compared to the rest of Europe in the Eurobarometer. Also, we found

significant degree of uniformity in the CCL of each participant, suggesting that a

participant with a high CCL would record a high CCL in almost every situation and vice

versa.

On the basis of the results above, we are able to draw three conclusions. First, an

increase in CCL seems to increase academic achievement in English, thus suggesting

that explicit focus on CCL development in the classroom is of potential benefit to the

learners. Second, from our pilot study we were able to identify an attitude towards

strategy usage suggesting that schools may not only teach strategies, but also teach

learners about the purpose and status of strategies as an effective communicative tool.

Third, formality may induce stress and lead to low CCL; hence, it may be beneficial to

work purposefully also with formal contexts in the classroom.

50

7.1 Future Research

Our study has identified several potential areas for future research. Firstly, this

study should be conducted on a larger set of data that could allow for generalisations to

be made across the data set. As mentioned in section 6.3 few have participated in our

study. Increasing the number of participants would allow one to make more generalized

statements and get a better grip on the average CCL, and what it correlates with, of a

larger populace.

Another suggested area of research is the logical next step from our study;

looking at actual skills and communicative confidence in students who have completed

the mandatory English courses in Sweden. This suggested study would give a more

precise understanding whether Swedish schools manage to fulfill the goal of teaching

English to Swedish students in a globalized world.

Further, another direction future research could take is investigating in more

detail any of the variables that was compared to CCL in this study, e.g. English grade

correlated with CCL, and do interviews to determine which of the two affects the other.

One aspect we have excluded was the impact gender may have, mostly because

of an uneven distribution (one girl for every two boys). Further studies could look more

closely at how gender impacts CCL. This could be done, for example, in concert with

research concerning “timid girls and confident boys” stereotypes in classrooms.

Qualitative interviews, for example, could help gain insight into this area.

Looking at languages spoken and CCL could also be a possible area of research.

Our results showed no correlation between number of languages participants recorded

proficiency in and their CCL:s. A larger data set could help gain better insight into what

effects, if any, the number of languages you know and your CCL or actual proficiency

in each language.

Lastly, future research could look at the reasons behind the very high or non-

existent correlation between some questions. For example, seven out of twelve (out of a

total of 300) of the questions with no correlation occurred when trying to correlate

question number four to the other questions. That means that no matter what

participants answered on any other questions there was no connection to what they

answered on question four. Question four is about working in the USA at a McDonalds.

Further studies could investigate what makes this and certain other questions stand out.

51

8. References

Ali, M., Wyatt, M., & Van Laar, D. (2015). Pakistani postgraduate students'

orientations for learning English as a second language: A factor analytic study.

System, 51, 77-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.013

American Psychological Association (2015). Stress in America Paying With Our

Health. Retrieved from

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2014/stress-report.pdf

Beyene, T. (2007). Fluency as stigma: Implications of a language mandate in global

work. Stanford University.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Cheung Matthew Sung, C. (2013). Learning English as an L2 in the global context:

Changing English, changing motivation. Changing English, 20(4), 377-387.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1358684x.2013.855564

Delamere, T. (1996). The importance of interlanguage errors with respect to

stereotyping by native speakers in their judgements of second language learners'

performance. System, 24(3), 279-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0346-

251x(96)00022-x

Edu-Buandoh, D. & Otchere, G. (2012). “Speak English!” A prescription or choice of

English as a Lingua Franca in Ghanaian schools. Linguistics and Education,

23(3), 301-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.06.003

Familiar. (2016). in Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved from

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/familiar

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage

Publications.

Fushino, K. (2010). Causal relationships between communication confidence, beliefs

about group work, and willingness to communicate in foreign language group

work. TESOL Quarterly, 44(4), 700-724.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.235993

Gardner, R. & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language

learning. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.

Gienow-Hecht, J. (2006). A European considers the influence of American culture.

eJournal USA, 11(1).

52

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2008/06/20080608094132xj

yrrep0.2717859.html#axzz46pJFMwm

Hennebry, M., Lo, Y., & Macaro, E. (2012). Differing perspectives of non-native

speaker students’ linguistic experiences on higher degree courses. Oxford Review

of Education, 38(2), 209-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.651312

Henry, A. & Goddard, A. (2015). Bicultural or hybrid? The second language identities

of students on an English-mediated university program in Sweden. Journal of

Language, Identity & Education,14(4), 255-274.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2015.1070596

Ito, N. (2008). Exploring the nature of language anxiety: Experiences of non-native

English speaking college students in the United States (Ph.D.). University of New

Orleans.

Jauregi, K., de Graaff, R., van den Bergh, H., & Kriz, M. (2012). Native/non-native

speaker interactions through video-web communication: a clue for enhancing

motivation?. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1), 1-19.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.582587

Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. (2015). Likert Scale: Explored and explained.

British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396-403.

http://dx.doi.org/10.9734/bjast/2015/14975

Kachru, B. & Smith, L. (1985). Editorial. World Englishes, 4, 209-212.

Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL

settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3-18.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2010.519030

Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. Oxford [England]:

Oxford University Press.

Long, M. & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions

of teachers’ questions. In Seliger, H.W. & Long, M.H. (Eds.), Classroom-oriented

research in second language acquisition (pp. 268-85). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury

House.

Maslow, A. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Mauranen, A. (2003). The corpus of English as Lingua Franca in academic settings.

TESOL Quarterly, 37, 513–527.

53

Meiners, E. & Miller, V. (2004). The effect of formality and relational tone on

supervisor/subordinate negotiation episodes. Western Journal of Communication,

68(3), 302-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570310409374803

Modiano, M. (2003). Euro-English: A Swedish perspective. ENG, 19(02).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0266078403002074

Neeley, T., Hinds, P., & Cramton, C. (2012). The (un)hidden turmoil of language in

global collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 41(3), 236-244.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.03.008

Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Pajares, F. & Miller, M. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics

performances: The need for specificity of assessment. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 42(2), 190-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.2.190

Park, H., Lawson, D., & Williams, H. (2012). Relations between technology, parent

education, self-confidence, and academic aspiration of Hispanic immigrant

students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(3), 255-265.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/ec.46.3.c

Pawlak, M. & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2015). Investigating the dynamic nature of

L2 willingness to communicate. System, 50, 1-9.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.02.001

Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a Lingua Franca.

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–242.

Shehadeh, A. (1999). Non-native speakers' production of modified comprehensible

output and second language learning. Language Learning, 49(4), 627-675.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00104

Skolverket. (2011a). Läroplan, examensmål och gymnasiegemensamma ämnen för

gymnasieskola 2011. Skolverket. Retrieved from

http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2705

Skolverket. (2011b). English. Skolverket. Retrieved from

http://www.skolverket.se/polopoly_fs/1.174543!/Menu/article/attachment/English

%20120912.pdf

Skolverket. (2013). PISA 2012 - 15-åringars kunskaper i matematik, läsförståelse och

naturvetenskap. Skolverket. Retrieved from

http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=3126

54

Stankov, L., Lee, J., Luo, W., & Hogan, D. (2012). Confidence: A better predictor of

academic achievement than self-efficacy, self-concept and anxiety?. Learning and

Individual Differences,22(6), 747-758.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.013

Tella, A. (2007). The impact of motivation on student’s academic achievement and

learning outcomes in mathematics among secondary school students in Nigeria.

Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(2), 8.

TNS Opinion & Social. (2012). Special Eurobarometer 386: Europeans and their

languages. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf

Utbildningsdepartamentet. (2011). Skolförodningen (2011:185).

Vetenskapsrådet (2002). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-

samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

55

9. Appendix 1. Questionnaire

Vänligen svara på frågorna så sanningsenligt som du kan. A. Kön: B. Ålder: C. Fyll i slutbetyget du fick i respektive kurs. Om du ej läst kursen, gör ett streck.

Engelska 5 Engelska 6 Engelska 7

D. Fyll i de språk du talar. Kryssa i rutan till höger om språket är ett modersmål.

Språk Modersmål

E. Hur ofta förväntar du dig att använda engelska efter gymnasieexamen?

1 Väldigt sällan 2 Ganska sällan 3 Ganska ofta 4 Väldigt ofta

F. Ange hur säker du känner dig på att kommunicera på (endast) engelska i följande situationer: 1. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning läser du en kurs i engelska på ett universitet i Sverige. Du och din klasskamrat ska göra ett grupparbete. Ni båda kan svenska men ni talar på engelska medan ni jobbar.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

2. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning läser du en kurs i engelska på ett universitet i Sverige. Du och din klasskamrat ska göra ett grupparbete. Du kan svenska men din klasskamrat kan inte svenska; ni har båda engelska som andraspråk. Ni talar på engelska medan ni jobbar.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

3. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning läser du en kurs i engelska på ett universitet i Sverige. Du och din klasskamrat ska göra ett grupparbete. Du kan svenska men din klasskamrat kan inte svenska och har engelska som modersmål. Ni talar på engelska medan ni jobbar.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

56

4. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning reser du till USA för att jobba. Du har precis fått jobb på ett McDonald’s. Du tar beställningar i kassan. Alla beställningar görs på engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

5. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning reser du till Italien. Du har precis fått jobb på ett McDonald’s längs motorvägen. Du tar beställningar i kassan. Eftersom det är många internationella förbiresande så görs alla beställningar på engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

6. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning reser du till USA för att studera till yrkesexamen. Du och din klasskamrat från USA ska göra ett grupparbete. Ni talar på engelska medan ni jobbar.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

7. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning reser du till Italien för att studera till yrkesexamen. Du och din klasskamrat från Italien ska göra ett grupparbete. Ni talar på engelska medan ni jobbar.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

8. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning hittar du en annons om ett jobb som du länge drömt om i USA. Du skriver en ansökan på engelska och skickar in.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

9. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning hittar du en annons om ett jobb som du länge drömt om i Italien. Du skriver en ansökan på engelska och skickar in.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

10. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning reser du till USA för att studera. Din första uppgift är att skriva en uppsats. Utbildningen är på engelska så du skriver också uppsatsen på engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

11. När du är färdig med din gymnasieutbildning reser du till Italien för att studera. Din första uppgift är att skriva en uppsats. Utbildningen är på engelska så du skriver också uppsatsen på engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

12. En kompis från USA är på besök hos dig. Du och kompisen från USA hänger med en av dina kompisar från Sverige en kväll. Du berättar om hur ni träffades i USA för din kompis från Sverige. Det är bara du och din kompis från Sverige som kan svenska, så för att alla ska förstå varandra berättar du på engelska.

57

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

13. En kompis från Italien är på besök hos dig. Du och kompisen från Italien hänger med en av dina kompisar från Sverige en kväll. Du berättar om hur ni träffades i Italien för din kompis från Sverige. Det är bara du och din kompis från Sverige som kan svenska, så för att alla ska förstå varandra berättar du på engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

14. Du och ett gäng kompisar är på ett café. De flesta av er kommer från Sverige och kan svenska, men några av er kommer från Italien och kan inte svenska. Av respekt talar ni på engelska hela tiden, även när ni inte direkt talar med de som inte kan svenska. Du och din kompis hamnar i en djup diskussion. Ni kan båda svenska, men ni talar ändå på engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

15. Du och ett gäng kompisar är på ett café. De flesta av er kommer från Sverige och kan svenska, men några av er kommer från USA och kan inte svenska. Av respekt talar ni på engelska hela tiden, även när ni inte direkt talar med de som inte kan svenska. Du och din kompis hamnar i en djup diskussion. Ni kan båda svenska, men ni talar ändå på engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

16. Du och din familj är på semester på USA. Ni är på en rundvandring på ett museum. Guiden talar på engelska. Du är intresserad av en av utställningarna, så du frågar guiden. Ni samtalar på engelska om utställningen.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

17. Du och din familj är på semester i Italien. Ni är på en rundvandring på ett museum. Guiden talar på engelska. Du är intresserad av en av utställningarna, så du frågar guiden. Ni samtalar på engelska om utställningen.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

18. Du har en kompis från USA. Ni samtalar om era favoritserier över Skype på engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

19. Du har en kompis från Italien. Ni samtalar om era favoritserier över Skype på engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

20. Du har en kompis från USA. Ni skriver i Facebook-chatten om era favoritband på engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

58

21. Du har en kompis från Italien. Ni skriver i Facebook-chatten om era favoritband på engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

22. Du har beställt ett par skor på en hemsida från USA. Företaget ringer dig ett par dagar senare och behöver reda ut ett problem som uppstått med din beställning. Personen i telefonen pratar engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

23. Du har beställt ett par skor på en hemsida från Italien. Företaget ringer dig ett par dagar senare och behöver reda ut ett problem som uppstått med din beställning. Personen i telefonen pratar engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

24. Du har beställt en parfym från USA. Men du inser att frakten kommer bli dyr, så du mailar företaget om att få avbeställa produkten. Ni har en kort mail-konversation på engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

25. Du har beställt en parfym från Italien. Men du inser att frakten kommer bli dyr, så du mailar företaget om att få avbeställa produkten. Ni har en kort mail-konversation på engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

26. Du är ute på stan när någon går fram till dig och frågar om var närmaste bankomat finns. Personen frågar dig på engelska med en tydlig amerikansk accent.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

27. Du är ute på stan när någon går fram till dig och frågar om var närmaste bankomat finns. Personen frågar dig på engelska med en tydlig italiensk accent.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

28. Du har fått ett jobb här i Sverige på ett företag som ibland gör internationella affärer. Ni har en kund från USA och din chef ger dig uppgiften att hantera affären. Du och kunden samtalar på engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

29. Du har fått ett jobb här i Sverige på ett företag som ibland gör internationella affärer. Ni har en kund från Italien och din chef ger dig uppgiften att hantera affären. Du och kunden samtalar på engelska.

1 Mycket osäker 2 Lite osäker 3 Ganska säker 4 Mycket säker

Tack för din medverkan!

59

10 Appendix 2. Correlations Chart

1/4 (upper left)

Question

1

Question

2

Question

3

Question

4

Question

5

Question

6

Question

7

Question

12

Question

13

Question

14

Question

15

Question

16

Spearman

's rho

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

1,000 ,764** ,821** ,461

**,587

**,761

**,651

**,613

**,569

**,674

**,565

** ,331*

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,024

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,764** 1,000 ,746

**,486

**,610

**,742

**,654

**,482

**,492

**,651

**,503

**,447

**

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,001 ,000 ,001 ,003

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,821**

,746** 1,000 ,498

**,536

**,824

**,623

**,576

**,585

**,682

**,629

** ,308*

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,034

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,461**

,486**

,498** 1,000 ,766

**,660

**,402

**,482

**,494

** ,371* ,326* ,270

Sig. (1-

tailed),002 ,001 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,007 ,001 ,001 ,013 ,026 ,056

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,587**

,610**

,536**

,766** 1,000 ,581

**,664

**,489

**,532

**,391

** ,318* ,329*

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,009 ,029 ,025

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,761**

,742**

,824**

,660**

,581** 1,000 ,608

**,648

**,585

**,550

**,514

**,498

**

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,001

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,651**

,654**

,623**

,402**

,664**

,608** 1,000 ,438

**,436

**,392

** ,286* ,376*

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,007 ,000 ,000 ,004 ,004 ,009 ,046 ,012

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,613**

,482**

,576**

,482**

,489**

,648**

,438** 1,000 ,908** ,781

**,689

**,628

**

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,001 ,000 ,001 ,001 ,000 ,004 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,569**

,492**

,585**

,494**

,532**

,585**

,436**

,908** 1,000 ,710

**,670

**,494

**

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,001 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,004 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,674**

,651**

,682**

,371*

,391**

,550**

,392**

,781**

,710** 1,000 ,753

**,474

**

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,013 ,009 ,000 ,009 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,002

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,565**

,503**

,629**

,326*

,318*

,514**

,286*

,689**

,670**

,753** 1,000 ,473

**

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,001 ,000 ,026 ,029 ,001 ,046 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,002

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,331*

,447**

,308* ,270 ,329

*,498

**,376

*,628

**,494

**,474

**,473

** 1,000

Sig. (1-

tailed),024 ,003 ,034 ,056 ,025 ,001 ,012 ,000 ,001 ,002 ,002

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,479**

,557**

,365* ,222 ,326

*,488

**,372

*,557

**,488

**,488

**,493

**,890

**

Sig. (1-

tailed),002 ,000 ,014 ,096 ,026 ,001 ,013 ,000 ,001 ,001 ,001 ,000

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,642**

,587**

,609**

,439**

,556**

,751**

,504**

,731**

,594**

,657**

,510**

,667**

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,004 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Question

1

Question

2

Question

3

Question

4

Question

5

Question

6

Question

7

Question

12

Question

13

Correlations

Question

14

Question

15

Question

16

Question

17

Question

18

60

2/4 (upper right)

Question

17

Question

18

Question

19

Question

20

Question

21

Question

22

Question

23

Question

24

Question

25

Question

26

Question

27

Question

28

Question

29

,479**

,642**

,760**

,611**

,476**

,639**

,709**

,411** ,360* ,659

**,492

**,599

**,551

**

,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,006 ,015 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,557**

,587**

,564**

,519**

,458**

,728**

,767**

,503**

,454**

,659**

,466**

,557**

,469**

,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,003 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,003 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,002

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,365* ,609**

,630**

,505** ,340* ,693

**,661

** ,383* ,334* ,620**

,425**

,733**

,647**

,014 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,021 ,000 ,000 ,011 ,023 ,000 ,005 ,000 ,000

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,222 ,439**

,520** ,162 ,256 ,521

** ,386* ,276 ,197 ,458** ,271 ,468

** ,378*

,096 ,004 ,001 ,173 ,066 ,001 ,010 ,051 ,125 ,003 ,055 ,002 ,012

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,326* ,556**

,604** ,224 ,332* ,674

**,610

**,406

** ,321* ,449**

,391**

,516**

,439**

,026 ,000 ,000 ,095 ,024 ,000 ,000 ,007 ,028 ,003 ,009 ,001 ,004

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,488**

,751**

,735**

,480**

,435**

,751**

,713** ,310* ,261 ,749

**,537

**,671

**,603

**

,001 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,004 ,000 ,000 ,033 ,062 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,372* ,504**

,538** ,236 ,334* ,621

**,637

**,409

** ,354* ,485**

,403**

,562**

,467**

,013 ,001 ,000 ,083 ,023 ,000 ,000 ,007 ,017 ,001 ,007 ,000 ,002

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,557**

,731**

,799**

,557**

,622**

,675**

,602**

,502**

,533**

,751**

,658**

,578**

,596**

,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,488**

,594**

,696**

,466**

,562**

,655**

,631**

,541**

,577**

,620**

,545**

,510**

,463**

,001 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,002

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,488**

,657**

,649**

,635**

,496**

,678**

,620**

,509**

,536**

,623**

,486**

,592**

,544**

,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,493**

,510**

,511** ,370* ,289* ,681

**,579

**,444

**,532

**,535

** ,329* ,653**

,498**

,001 ,001 ,001 ,013 ,044 ,000 ,000 ,003 ,000 ,000 ,025 ,000 ,001

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,890** ,667**

,572** ,340* ,446

**,578

**,436

**,412

**,438

**,635

**,484

**,435

**,494

**

,000 ,000 ,000 ,021 ,003 ,000 ,004 ,006 ,004 ,000 ,001 ,004 ,001

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

1,000 ,622**

,595**

,420**

,478**

,522**

,554**

,448**

,478**

,647**

,473**

,415**

,442**

,000 ,000 ,005 ,002 ,001 ,000 ,003 ,002 ,000 ,002 ,006 ,003

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,622** 1,000 ,854** ,606

**,568

**,731

**,651

**,473

**,421

**,736

**,563

**,695

**,678

**

,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,005 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

61

¾ (bottom left)

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,760**

,564**

,630**

,520**

,604**

,735**

,538**

,799**

,696**

,649**

,511**

,572**

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,611**

,519**

,505** ,162 ,224 ,480

** ,236 ,557**

,466**

,635**

,370*

,340*

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,001 ,001 ,173 ,095 ,002 ,083 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,013 ,021

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,476**

,458**

,340* ,256 ,332

*,435

**,334

*,622

**,562

**,496

**,289

*,446

**

Sig. (1-

tailed),002 ,003 ,021 ,066 ,024 ,004 ,023 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,044 ,003

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,639**

,728**

,693**

,521**

,674**

,751**

,621**

,675**

,655**

,678**

,681**

,578**

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,709**

,767**

,661**

,386*

,610**

,713**

,637**

,602**

,631**

,620**

,579**

,436**

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,010 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,004

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,411**

,503**

,383* ,276 ,406

**,310

*,409

**,502

**,541

**,509

**,444

**,412

**

Sig. (1-

tailed),006 ,001 ,011 ,051 ,007 ,033 ,007 ,001 ,000 ,001 ,003 ,006

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,360*

,454**

,334* ,197 ,321

* ,261 ,354*

,533**

,577**

,536**

,532**

,438**

Sig. (1-

tailed),015 ,003 ,023 ,125 ,028 ,062 ,017 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,004

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,659**

,659**

,620**

,458**

,449**

,749**

,485**

,751**

,620**

,623**

,535**

,635**

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,003 ,003 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,492**

,466**

,425** ,271 ,391

**,537

**,403

**,658

**,545

**,486

**,329

*,484

**

Sig. (1-

tailed),001 ,002 ,005 ,055 ,009 ,000 ,007 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,025 ,001

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,599**

,557**

,733**

,468**

,516**

,671**

,562**

,578**

,510**

,592**

,653**

,435**

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,004

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Correlatio

n

Coefficient

,551**

,469**

,647**

,378*

,439**

,603**

,467**

,596**

,463**

,544**

,498**

,494**

Sig. (1-

tailed),000 ,002 ,000 ,012 ,004 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,001 ,001

N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

0,8 or higher significance Insignificant

Significant at the 0,05 level (Correlation with the same question)

Question

23

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Question

19

Question

20

Question

21

Question

22

Question

24

Question

25

Question

26

Question

27

Question

28

Question

29

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

62

4/4 (bottom right)

,595**

,854** 1,000 ,692

**,744

**,621

**,639

**,646

**,599

**,762

**,748

**,605

**,594

**

,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,420**

,606**

,692** 1,000 ,770

** ,322* ,440**

,563**

,519**

,609**

,596** ,318* ,486

**

,005 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,028 ,004 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,029 ,001

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,478**

,568**

,744**

,770** 1,000 ,345* ,464

**,733

**,694

**,577

**,693

** ,272 ,406**

,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,020 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,054 ,007

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,522**

,731**

,621**

,322*

,345* 1,000 ,881** ,426

**,449

**,621

**,430

**,715

**,525

**

,001 ,000 ,000 ,028 ,020 ,000 ,005 ,003 ,000 ,004 ,000 ,001

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,554**

,651**

,639**

,440**

,464**

,881** 1,000 ,495

**,521

**,597

**,510

**,622

**,434

**

,000 ,000 ,000 ,004 ,002 ,000 ,001 ,001 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,004

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,448**

,473**

,646**

,563**

,733**

,426**

,495** 1,000 ,947** ,397

**,546

**,409

** ,359*

,003 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,005 ,001 ,000 ,008 ,000 ,007 ,016

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,478**

,421**

,599**

,519**

,694**

,449**

,521**

,947** 1,000 ,430

**,546

** ,383* ,271

,002 ,005 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,003 ,001 ,000 ,004 ,000 ,011 ,055

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,647**

,736**

,762**

,609**

,577**

,621**

,597**

,397**

,430** 1,000 ,707

**,572

**,564

**

,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,008 ,004 ,000 ,000 ,000

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,473**

,563**

,748**

,596**

,693**

,430**

,510**

,546**

,546**

,707** 1,000 ,478

**,525

**

,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,004 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,001

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,415**

,695**

,605**

,318* ,272 ,715

**,622

**,409

**,383

*,572

**,478

** 1,000 ,839**

,006 ,000 ,000 ,029 ,054 ,000 ,000 ,007 ,011 ,000 ,002 ,000

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

,442**

,678**

,594**

,486**

,406**

,525**

,434**

,359* ,271 ,564

**,525

**,839

** 1,000

,003 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,007 ,001 ,004 ,016 ,055 ,000 ,001 ,000

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36