ENGLISH VERBAL FLUENCY RATE ON THE CONFIDENCE LEVEL AND
ASSERTIVENESS OF GRADE 8 STUDENTS IN LILIW DISTRICT
A Thesis Proposal
Presented to the Faculty of the
Graduate Studies and Applied Research
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Main Campus
Santa Cruz, Laguna
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts
Major in English
ABIGAIL P. ASUNTO
October 2014
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
The Philippines is a multilingual nation with more than 170 dialects.
According to the Philippine census (2007), the biggest Philippine languages
based on the number of native speakers are: Tagalog 21.5 million; Cebuano
18.5 million; Ilocano7.7 million; Hiligaynon 6.9 million; Bicol 4.5 million; Waray
3.1 million; Kapampangan 2.3 million; Pangasinan 1.5 million; Kinaray-a 1.3
million; Tausug 1million; Maranaw 1 million; and Maguindanao 1 million.
English is also a second language or L2 to most Filipinos. According to the
Social Weather Stations, in 2008, about three fourths of Filipino adults (76%)
said they could understand spoken English; another 75% said they could read
English; three out of five (61%) said they could write English; close to half
(46%) said they could speak English; about two fifths (38%) said they could
think in English; while 8% said they were not competent in any way when it
comes to the English language.
As a communication teacher, the researcher finds it quiet frustrating to
see that students do not seem to overcome their fear of speaking in spite of
lessons, exercises, and encouragement that have been so dutifully provided
them. A lot of them still report experiencing disturbing manifestations even as
they follow the lessons and exercises conscientiously.
The researcher has been witnessing the excruciating fear that many
students underwent when they performed in front of the class. The teacher
would naturally feel frustrated when the number of lectures and discussions
on confidence building seemed useless when the actual performances
showed that students still felt as terrible as before.
Learners age has been identified as one of crucial issues in learning
English as a second language, Munoz (2010) as stated in her study that the
age of acquisition in a natural setting has been found to be a very good
predictor in age-related studies. The age of acquisition or age of onset is
taken to be the beginning of significant exposure, or the beginning of
immersion in the L2 context (Birdsong 2006).This landmark is distinguished
from age of first exposure in those studies in which learners have had
instruction in the target language in the home country before immigration or
before immersion. Age of first exposure to the target language by means of
instruction, in contrast, has not been generally found to be a good predictor of
ultimate attainment (Urponen 2004).
In the area of English Language Teaching, in which female and male
students interact to each other by using English for their communication,
problems caused by men and women’s differences in using language may be
affecting. Severiens and Dam (2005) had studied the close relationship
between gender differences and learning styles and found that ‘men were
more likely than women to prefer the abstract conceptualization mode of
learning’.
Another study by Logan and Johnston (2009) found that ‘girls had
better reading comprehension, read more frequently and had a more positive
attitude to reading and school’. This shows that male and female have
different learning styles which can be affected by differences in language
usage as discussed in the dis-course of language and gender.
Peacock (2006) asserts that authentic materials have a positiveeffect
on learner motivation in the foreign language classroom. It is proposed that
research to date on this topic is inadequate, and that further research is
justified by the importance accorded authentic materials in the literature
particularly the large number of untested claims that they increase learner
motivation - and their widespread use in EFL classrooms worldwide. Many
EFL teachers certainly have faith in authentic materials as motivators, and we
suggest that testing these subjective impressions will result in better guidance
being available for the selection of teaching materials. Learners may or may
not be betterserved by authentic materials, and there is still insufficient
rationale for or against their use.
The available multimedia materials like cellphones have a great impact
on the English verbal fluency rate of the students, textese and textisms as an
example may result in diminishing an individual’s use of the English language.
According to Plesteret et. al. (2008), text messaging positively affects the
English literacy of students who tend to use more complex sentence
structures, increased vocabulary, and increased awareness of correct use of
language mechanics.
The age, socio-economic status, gender, language used at home, and
reading and multimedia materials preferred of Grade Eight students can
determine their English Verbal fluency rate to their confidence level and
assertiveness.
Stated in Psychology Today (2014), assertiveness is not necessarily
easy, but it is a skill that can be learned. Developing assertiveness starts with
a good understanding and a belief in the value bring. When you have that,
you have the basis of self-confidence . Assertiveness helps to build on that
self-confidence and provides many other benefits for improving your
relationships at work and in other areas of your life as well.
Knowing that today’s students are the sources of important messages
in various communication processes tomorrow should be more than enough
reason to really find a way to support them now. The researcher personally
believes that such situation calls for an immediate action. This justifies the
necessity to conduct this study. The Grade 8 students of the Liliw District
should be exposed to activities that stimulate independent learning and trigger
the learners’ desire to learn and thus help improve and develop them to speak
in appropriate manner with an acceptable competence commensurate to their
age and year level. The primary focus of this study is on the speaking skills in
English of these Grade 8 students to give the researcher opportunity to
conduct enrichment or remediation lessons.
Background of the Study
Verbal communication is an activity which people are all familiar with.It
is said that 75 percent of man’s day is spent in speaking because human
beings have been communicating all their lives. However some students
cannot speak English in classroom because of the so called “lathophobic
aphasia” (jasonoutthere 2010) which means unwillingness to speak for fear of
making mistakes.That feeling of nervous anxiety and anticipation coursing
through our veins is often the difference between doing something well and
not doing it properly at all.However, under-stimulation is not the only way an
individual fail to perform they tried to do. Over-stimulation, or over anxiety
about what they are about to try and do can get so powerful that beyond a
certain point their performance drops like a stone and fail miserably. They
miss the crucial injury time penalty, they lose our temper and get sent off, and
when we are put on the spot we fluff our lines or forget what to say
completely.
Self – confidence is defined as an attitude, which allows individuals to
have positive yet realistic views of themselves and their situation. It is an
attitude in a sense that it represents the individual’s state of mind. Meaning,
that confidence is not basically affective but rather cognitive in nature. It is a
manifestation of what a person is thinking towards his personality.
Furthermore, self - confidence is a product of what a person thought about
and already conceptualized.
Assertiveness
is
a
skill
communication skills training.
regularly
referred
to
in
social
and
Often wrongly confused with aggression,
assertive individuals aim to be neither passive nor aggressive in their
interactions with other people. Although everyone acts in passive and
aggressive ways from time to time, such ways of responding often result from
a lack of self-confidence and, therefore, are inappropriate expressions of what
such people really need to say.
In any communication context the speaker is the source of the
message and is, therefore, the most crucial element the moment he speaks.
What he says and how he says it almost creates an effect, if not impact on
those who listen to him. His personal characteristics such as dynamism,
integrity, maturity, responsibility, confidence are of prime importance, and
from among those characteristics, self-confidence is perhaps the most vital.
As a popular saying goes, if you have confidence, you already won half of the
battle.
The researcher conducts this study to know the correlation of selfconfidence and assertiveness to the English verbal fluency rate of grade 8
students in Liliw, Laguna.
Theoretical Framework
This study is anchored on William Littlewood’s “Theory on Functional
Communicative Activities.” The principle underlying this theory is that teachers
only structure the situation for the learner, and the students discuss, organize,
simulate,
share
communication
information
tasks
among
and
discover
themselves
situations
through
the
for
a
use
certain
of
the
communicative approach, that is allowing the learning experience to take
place independently with less supervision on the part of the teacher. In this
case, learners develop and improve their speaking skills leading towards
greater communicative ability.
Another theory that supports this research is the “Theory on Habit
Formation.”Yin and Knowlton (2006). This theory states that learning to speak
well is like learning any other skill. It begins with the determination and desire
to learn. It grows with practice. Eventually, it becomes a self-enforcing by
constant practice.
This study is also anchored on Hymes (2004), “Theory on
Communicative Competence and Profile” which attributes communicative
competence to the fact a normal child acquires knowledge of sentences not
only as grammatical structures but also of what is appropriate. The class
where the learner belongs is composed of different individuals who come from
different families. This theory holds the idea that communicative competence
can be determined by the individual’s profile in terms of language spoken at
home, availability of reading materials, co-curricular activities and their school
last attended.
The foregoing theories were considered and integrated in this study
because of their relevance. They are believed to support the idea of this study
that learners’ fluency in English can be determined and developed by
constantly exposing them to classroom activities that enhance and stimulate
oral communication. It further purports that it is theresponsibility of the teacher
to provide activities that stimulate the learners’ desire to learn and structure
the learning situation that promotes independent learning. To ensure effective
independent learning, a module specifically designed to enhance the
speaking skills must be devised.
Conceptual Framework
A basic tool of learning is communication. In order that students
particularly the grade eight of secondary schools in Liliw District to enhance
their verbal fluency in English, it is a must that they identify and determine
their level of confidence and assertiveness.
In this study, the researcher believes that the demographic profile of
the respondents such as age, sex, economic status, dialect or language
spoken, reading materials and broadcast media would influence the speaking
skills of the respondents. It is assumed that students who are young, female
who belong to economically stable families and exposed to more reading
materials and variables their speaking skills. The conceptualization of the
study is shown in Figure 1.
Paradigm of the Study
IV
DV
Personal Profile
-
Confidence Level
Sex
Economic Status
Dialects/Langua
ge
-
Language Materials
Preferred
Assertiveness Level
-Reading
-
-Media
English Verbal Fluency
Rate
Mental
Verbal
Social
-Oral
Frame 1
Frame 2
Research Paradigm
This paradigm implies the significant relationship among the English
Verbal Fluency Rate, Confidence Level and Assertiveness Level. It clearly
suggests the influence of English verbal fluency rate on the confidence and
assertiveness level of students.
Statement of the Problem
This study is intended to determine the English Verbal Fluency Rate in
Relation to Confidence and Assertiveness Level of the Grade Eight Students
in Private and Public Schools in Liliw district school year 2014-2015.
Specifically, it seeks to answer the following problems:
1. What is the personal profile of the respondents in terms of:
1.1 Socio-Economic Status
1.2 Dialects/Language Spoken
1.3 Reading Materials Preferred
1.4 Media Preferred
2. What is the mean level of English Verbal Fluency Rate of the
respondents as to:
2.1 Written aspect
2.2 Oral aspect
3. What is the mean level of confidence of the respondents?
4. What is the mean level of assertiveness of the respondents?
5. Is there a significant relationship between the following?
5.1 English verbal fluency rate and confidence level
5.2 English verbal fluency rate and assertiveness level
Hypotheses
There is no significant relationship between the following:
Ho: English verbal fluency rate and confidence level
Ho: English verbal fluency rate and assertiveness level
Scope and Limitations
This is a comparative-correlational study that focuses on the
relationship among the English verbal fluency rate, confidence level and
assertiveness level of selected Grade Eight students of Liliw District. This
study will tap 100 grade eight students as respondents. Fifty (50) of them will
be from private high schools while another fifty (50) will be from public high
schools. There are 33 barangays composing of the entire municipality of Liliw.
There are two (2) public high schools located in this municipality namely: Liliw
National High School and Calumpang National High School. On the other
hand, there are three (3) private high schools situated there namely: Liceo de
Liliw, St. John the Baptist Academy and School of St. John Bosco. The
abovementioned schools will be the settings of this study.
Significance of the Study
This study is intended to profit to different people and various sectors
of educational setting especially the students who, in the first place are the
primary clients of the learning process.
To the students
This study is intended to raise imminent concerns of education
especially of the obvious descent of English literacy among students. The
primary concern of all the advancements and conscientious manifestos of
changes in the curriculum are the students – the receptors of the learning
process. To increase the quality of education means to reap the eminent
products of the educational system.
To the Teachers
Through this study, teachers may have a tangible and quantitative
basis for improving their lesson plans and teaching pedagogies in English to
hone students based on their academic needs, intellectual demands and
timely curricular advocacies.
To the Academe
The results of this study will also help the academe as it may serve as
guidance in their devising of curriculum; establishment of academic visions
and missions; and improvement of their teachers’ pedagogies and
methodologies for a more fitted and efficient products of learning process.
To the society
Through this study, our society may know not only the system of
education but also the rationale and considerations of the schematic lesson
plan of teachers. In addition, the improvement of the teaching methods of
teachers through this study’s prospective outcome will pave the way for the
assurance of quality of education especially in English curriculum.
To the future researchers
This study may serve as the basis of future researchers in terms of
research on education and literacy. The same study may be conducted in
different settings or with different population.
Definition of Terms
The following terms and their corresponding definitions will be
operationally utilized in this study.
Assertiveness - means standing up for your personal rights, expressing
thoughts, feelings and beliefs in direct, honest and appropriate ways.
Assertiveness Level - subject’s self-knowledge in relation to his/her capacity
for discernment and critical analysis of self and occurrences around him/her.
Confidence -
Confidence Level - self-assurance that the subjects have of themselves.
Grade Eight Students - the enrolled Grade Eight students in the inclusive
high schools of Liliw District in the school year 2014-2015.
English Verbal Fluency Rate - the subjects’ ability to construct, speak and
write using grammatically correct English medium.
High English verbal fluency rate.The mean percentage of 85 and above in
the English verbal fluency test of the grade 8 students.
Low English verbal fluency rate.The mean percentage of 84 and below in
the English verbal fluency test of Grade 8 students.
Private Grade Eight Students - the enrolled Grade Eight students in the
private high schools of Liliw District in the school year 2014-2015.
Public Grade Eight Students - the enrolled Grade Eight students in the
public high schools of Liliw District in the school year 2014-2015.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter presents the related literature and studies which give
further information and background in the development of this study. These
literature and studies cited which are found to be related to this study are
likewise elucidated in this chapter.
Related Literature
Age
In the Philippines children learn the English language as early as 4
years old when they start going to school.
In a research done by Knitzer (2007), the critical period for children to
develop foundational capabilities on which all subsequent development builds
is between the ages of birth to 5 years old. This is the time when the most
dramatic progress in linguistic and cognitive gains are made. Emotional,
social, regulatory and moral dimensions are also intertwined with this early
developmental period. Each of these critical areas will require focused
attention in order to develop appropriately.
Brennus (2010), mentions that Linguists point out that older people are
less likely to use new words for things. One of their favorite examples is the
word "jalopy." They point out that few people younger than 60 probably know
what this word means (an old ramshackle car) because it has been replaced
in American speech by newer words like "old clunker" and "old beater". That's
what most youngpeople call and old beat up car today.
Bateman (2007) states that researchers have shown that pupils who
are trained to read at an early age of two to five years often become
successful readers. Early success in reading motivates the child to explore
more the world of knowledge found in books. The more often the reading skill
is put to use, the more proficient the child becomes.
Reading comprehension is a complex process according to Wu. It
requires cognitive response to print in association with the knowledge of the
structure of the language gained through socio-cultural experience within
one’s environment. The more mature the child becomes, the less training is
needed to develop him.
Dearborn (2009), states that reading, as a process, means getting
meaning from and giving to the printed page. The more experience the child
gets as he grows older, the more meaningful his becomes. In additions, Smith
and Fay (2009) states that the reader is able to pronounce words, understand
their commonly accepted meaning, sequence and interpret their message in
the light of his experience. According to Crow 2005), the development of
reading ability is closely related to other aspects of growth and development.
The child’s rate and achieved efficiency in reading are dependent upon varied
factors. For example, visual and auditory acuity, mental ability and
environmental condition including the emotions and attitudes of the child
increase in proportion to age. If a child appears to be little slower than others
during his early years in school in reading, he eventually loses confidence in
himself and will develop discipline for reading situations.
Sex
Gender or sex is also considered as important matter on English verbal
fluency of an individual.
According to Albertrayan (2009), female students are better than male
students at learning languages. When students debate the issue, most
students do not agree with my statement that women are better than men at
learning languages. They say that language is not specific to any one gender
and language proficiency of a person depends on their interest and exposure
to a particular language. Yet, some students believe that women are good at
languages. Some of the reasons given by the students are: (1) Women love
chatting, (2) Women read a lot, (3) Women do the work (language homework)
assigned to them, (4) Women are result-oriented, (5) Women are more
imaginative than men.
Brennus, (2010), adds that Linguists have known for a long time that
men and women use language differently. For example, men rarely use words
like "charming" and "gorgeous" but women often do. Only certain types of gay
men seem to use them with any frequency. At the same time, it's not
uncommon for lesbians to use words like "babe" and "chick" when referring to
women whom they know or like, but heterosexual women never use these
words when talking about another woman. However, the greatest differences
between male and female speech occur not in European languages like
English but in tribal languages spoken in places like Siberia, Micronesia and
New Guinea. In these places, the men and women sometimes speak almost
entirely different languages from each other.
Socio-Economic Status
Socio-economic status has crucial effect on learning of an individual.
Literacy is a fundamental tool that students must have in order to further their
academic success. Early problems in literacy may have a devastating effect
on their later academic motivation and achievement.
In his research, Slavin (2006) indicates that there are some
compensatory programs which are designed to help students from low income
families to overcome learning problems which can be associated with their
social economic status that have been successful. As far as the effects of Title
1 programs in general, has shown only inconsistent success rates. He points
to the success of the early intervention, prevention and some school reform
programs that have proved to be beneficial to these high risk students.
Knitzer (2010), discusses that early education studies have demonstrated that
one of the greatest factors that can predict a child’s success are their early literacy
skills. This “readiness to read” must be nurtured during a child’s early years. This is
long before they ever enter preschool or kindergarten. It is important that children
begin their formal education as developmentally ready as possible. These are the
fundamental skills that provide an important foundation for all education skills-reading, writing, and all other subject areas.
It has been well documented that there is an association between
family poverty and children’s health, achievement and behavior. Family
income appears to be more strongly related to children’s ability and
achievement than to their long term emotional outcomes. However, the
association between income and a child’s educational outcomes is much
more complex than a simple of association between these factors.
According to Dunns (2006), everyone has a unique learning style and
strengths which can be identified and the subject addressed. There is no
“one” best style. At least three-fifths of learning style characteristics are
biological; whereas others are developed through experience. Researchers
indicated that individual responses to good light temperature, design,
perception intake, chronobiological highs and lows, mobility needs and
persistence appear to be biological in nature. In contrast, sociological
preferences, motivation, responsibility and need for structure are thought to
be developmental. Significant learning styles difference among diverse
cultures and tend to support this biological/developmental dichotomy.
Language
Language is important in every individual. The Philippines is a
multilingual nation with more than 170 languages that made it hard for the
Filipino to acknowledge
Nolasco (2008), says that according to the 2000 Philippines census,
the biggest Philippine languages based on thenumber of native speakers are:
Tagalog 21.5 million; Cebuano 18.5 million; Ilocano7.7 million; Hiligaynon 6.9
million; Bicol 4.5 million; Waray 3.1 million; It is an accepted truth that being
proficient in English is an advantage. It essentially helps a person to articulate
his views and express himself. It also enables him to excel in a number of
specialized fields, Kapampangan 2.3 million; Pangasinan 1.5 million; Kinaraya 1.3 million; Tausug 1million; Meranao 1 million; and Maguindanao 1
million.While it is true that no language enjoys a majority advantage in our
country, thecensus shows that 65 million out of the 76 million Filipinos are
able to speak the nationallanguage as a first or second language. Aside from
the national lingua franca, regionallingua francas, like Ilokano, Cebuano and
Hiligaynon are also widely spoken.
English is also a second language or L2 to most Filipinos. According to
the Social Weather Stations (2008), about three fourths of Filipino adults
(76%) said theycould understand spoken English; another 75% said they
could read English; three out offive (61%) said they could write English; close
to half (46%) said they could speakEnglish; about two fifths (38%) said they
could think in English; while 8% said theywere not competent in any way
when it comes to the English language.
EF EPI Hong Kong (2012), Women are better at English than men.
This is one of many findings officially reported today in the EF English
Proficiency Index (EF EPI), the world’s most in-depth ranking of English
ability. The Swedes are the best English speakers of all based on a survey of
1.7 million adults in 54 countries and territories in five continents.
Similarly, in order for an individual to succeed in his undertaking, he
must have adequate English language proficiency. Acquiring the ability to
speak, write and comprehend is crucial to learner’s understanding of what he
reads. Limited English language proficiency impedes comprehension.
Reading Materials Preferred
Fluency is the key to reading competence, enabling readers to devote their
cognitive effort to comprehension and enjoyment of reading. For struggling readers
who decode laboriously or ignore punctuation and natural phrasing, fluency
instruction and practice are necessary and effective, Kuhn & Stahl, (2003). There are
two important approaches to improving fluency: engagement with print like plentiful
reading and repeated reading, Meyer & Felton, (2009). By reading a familiar text
aloud multiple times, students can begin to coordinate their decoding, semantic, and
syntactic skills.
Vinther (2006), states that the meaning derived from reading is based
upon the reader’s language background. Children with rich language
experiences have more chances to develop understanding of the vocabulary
and concepts they encounter in reading than those with meager experiences.
Direct experience with place, thing and processes described in reading
materials make understanding of the materials much more likely. Hearing
other people tell or read about a subject, seeing photos or movies of a place,
event or activity and reading about a topic are examples of vicarious
experience that can build concept development.
Media Materials Preferred
Multimedia reading materials and environments offer a variety of
flexible supports including text-to-speech, voice recognition, animation, music
and sound effects, embedded dictionaries, linked videos to boost background
knowledge and vocabulary, study tools such as highlighters and annotation
capabilities, and animated agent tutors. They have the capacity to support
choice of content and tools, adjustable challenge level, and adjustable
practice
and
feedback.The
potential
of
multimedia
materials
and
environments to support reading for struggling readers.
Watching TV/video/films is the most enjoyable class activity, followed
by drama, role-play, songs and games; group discussion; and reading
books/newspaper articles
The reason of those who cited watching TV/video/films as the most
enjoyable class activity, 66% said this is because it is interesting, relaxing,
lively and easy to do. Another 34% think learning is effective when they are
being entertained at the same time. One other reason given is that by
listening to native or near-native pronunciation and styles of speaking, they
can improve their oral proficiency and learn everyday English.
Research on second language acquisition for language minority
students also indicates a need for teachers to focus on both students’
academic and affective learning (Plass & Jones, 2005). To do so, teachers
need to be aware of the potential discontinuities between learning at home
and learning at school. To address this disconnect between home and school,
many teachers have found success bringing “sociocultural (and personal)
elements into the classroom curriculum and instruction” by allowing students
to select topics for writing assignments (Rueda, August, & Goldenberg, 2006,
p. 329). The teacher can also create shared experiences for the entire class
through virtual field trips or other cooperative activities through a digital
multimedia environment. Researchers also stress the importance of teachers
valuing their students’ first language. When teachers show this respect,
students are more likely to have positive attitudes towards their language
minority peers, creating a supportive environment that can benefit the learning
of all students.
Goldenberg (2006), identifies several issues to consider when selecting
a computer program for students acquiring a second language. First, when
considering scaffolds and supports, learners should be able to link to
multimedia glossaries or other supports (e.g., graphic organizers) that connect
new information to background knowledge. Second, learner control is
important. Programs should allow the learner to manage the path and pace of
learning. If the student needs more background information for a concept or a
definition of a key vocabulary word, the program should offer links to this
information throughout the learning process.
English Verbal Fluency
Communication skills are essential in any sphere of interaction. In fact
when all is said and done, in whatever level, communication is the sole
activity all people share.
According to Camaño (2009), to the main reason of man’s existence is
to interact with each other. God has given humans the gift of speech to be
able to communicate their thoughts and ideas. The ability to ask questions is
an important skill in conversations and discussions. People ask questions to
understand as well too be understood.
Condace (2006) believes that questions are useful both in getting
information and involving others’ conversation.However, it is no Sometimes
the message conveyed is misunderstood. When two persons t always easy to
communicate exactly the meaning others want to convey, want to share
information, one creates a message, one send it and assumes that the other
has received it. Thus, a message is delivered. Then, the message must get
the attention and must be interpreted. The person who receives it always
interprets it in terms of his experiences. If the sender and the receiver do not
share a common knowledge, the message may not mean exactly the same
thing to the receiver to the receiver. A famous author once said, “Learning to
speak well is like learning any other skill. It begins with the determination and
a desire to learn. It grows with practice. Eventually, it becomes a selfenforcing habit.” In speaking, self-confidence is really necessary and the best
way to build confidence in speaking is practice. In fact the more time is spent
in rehearsing, the better the verbal fluency will be. Practicing gives one the
chance to gain confidence and make sure that the presentation meets the
time requirements.
Hubbard (2009) cites that a man is as alive as he can communicate.
Anyone who develops English proficiency is concerned with the most
important function of language to communicate meaning. Language is said to
communicate when others understand the meaning of individual sentences
and in turn, understand theirs too. When one speaks language, preferably
English, he draws on his underlying knowledge of the rules governing its use.
Linguistics competence seems to be universal to people’s ability. It springs
from the way the human brain organizes and develops it. The aspects that
comprise linguistics competence are as follows; (1) knowledge of the sounds
and written elements into larger units with meaning; (2) knowledge of
grammar or syntax; (3) knowledge of the meanings or the word semantics; (4)
knowledge of how to use the language; and (5) knowledge of the rules for
processing and interpreting the speech of other people. Language is
considered an important tool as a vehicle for communication and as an aid in
the acquisition and preservation of ideas. Through usage and custom, words
come to mean precise and specific things. At home, in school, at play or at
work, communications is the integral part of the situation. Hence, knowledge
of linguistic competence is a factor in developing the learner’s communicative
competence.
Deep and Sussman (2010), the eight sensible assumptions about
communication and they are as follows: first communication skills are
acquired more than they are inborn. Remember men are born not speaking.
People learn to speak by imitatingothers and that learning needs never end.
Second, assume the next message you send will bemisunderstood. Third,
don’t worry about being clear; worry about being understood. Fourth, the
meaning of the word cannot be found in the dictionaries. Definitions are in the
dictionaries meanings are in people. Fifth, the meaning people get from you
comes less from what you say than from how you say it. Sixth, whenever two
people are in each other’s presence, they communicate-even when they are
not sending messages. Seventh, eighty percent of the information stored in
people’s mind enters through the eyes. Communication is a complex, ongoing
dynamic and changing process.
Despite the important role that communication plays in our lives
schools have lagged behind in providing us with the proper training needed to
adequately face role. There appear to be little continuity between the fruits of
the intrapersonal communication research and their applications in the
classroom. At best, our schools teach us the basics of preparingthe message,
clothing in language, and expressing it through our voice and body. In any
communication context the speaker is the source of the message and is
therefore the most crucial element the moment he speaks. What he says and
how he says it almost always creates aneffect, if not impact, on those who
listen to him. His personal characteristics (such as dynamism, integrity,
maturity, responsibility, confidence are the prime importance, and from among
those characteristics, self – confidence is perhaps the most vital. As apopular
sayings goes, if you have confidence, you have already half of the battle. A
speaker who is self- assured is better able to do his job as the main source of
the message. He is better able to intellectually prepare and enthusiastically
look forward to sharing his ideas. He feels morecontrol because he possesses
the presenceof mind that confidence gives. He is in touch with what is going
on because he is not preoccupied with non-essentials like jitters or knocking
knees. He appreciates the communication situation more and is better able to
carry himself well.
Self - Confidence
Burger (2005) proves that self-confidence and competence together in
an individual is a desirable archetype. One can almost always guess that one
who is self-confident is a also a competent speaker because confidence
heightens one’s ability to intellectually prepare and comfortably communicate
in any situation. In all communication contexts, be it in the oral, written or any
other mode, communicator’s confidence is the magic ingredient, the x factor,
to make for a better exchange of information.
PVV2.com (2014) states that Learning spoken English is to
communicate with others, so this order of importance of oral English study
should be followed: Fluency Accuracy -- right Try to find some partners
practicing oral English, English corner is a good place, where we can practice
speaking, we may exchange English study experience, widen our sight,
enhance interest in learning English, enhance their self-confidence. If you
can't find a study partner or little chance to attend an English corner, then it
doesn't matter, there are many ways of their own to practice oral English, for
example, through their own English will have to create an English
environment, can see their description of scenery, oral English, what you are
doing.
Coon (2005) says that a confident speaker also understand his ethical
responsibility. This is so because he has that genuine willingness to do his
part in the communication process and is not afraid of the responsibility. He
feels freer to concentrate on the fidelity of his message, how best to present it,
and the probable effect it may have on his listeners. In contrasts a speaker to
perceive himself as fearful behaves in an uncertain ways. Instead of
occupying himself with important concerns like his responsibilities as a
speaker he wastes his time worrying about his fears and what his listeners are
saying about him. He feels less in control of the communication process
because of the unpleasant manifestation of fear, thus even if he has an
important thing to say, he would usually choose to be silent. He therefore
does not do an effective job as a responsible source.
The Filipino mother has always played a major role in the family.
Because of this, she naturally becomes the major instrument in the
socialization of her children. Her children develop into persons that she
herself shaped consciously or unconsciously. Whatever she is therefore
influences her children in a very forceful way.
Melvin (2006) finds that the language spoken at home is significantly
influences speaking ability in school. If the child’s predominant language at
home were English, he would naturally feel comfortable speaking it in school.
If English were the medium of communication in the classroom and the child
is at home with it, he would definitely have an advantage over those who do
not feel at ease with it. The Language spoken at home significantly influences
a child’s speech performance. A home that speaks a language similar to the
one used in school gives the child a definite advantage over others.
Part of the individual’s self – concept is formed early in his life through
his experiences outside of his home. School related experiences play a major
role. His achievement in school gives him a powerful measure of his
competencies. In the Philippines, it is generally known that education provided
by private schools is of a much higher standard than those by the public
schools
Assertiveness
Assertiveness is the ability to express yourself openly and honestly
while also reflecting a genuine concern for others.
It is about having the confidence to be yourself, to be true to your
values and beliefs, and to be courageous enough to speak up when needed.
Acting assertively can increase your chances for honest relationships, help
you to feel better about yourself, and give you a sense of control in everyday
situations. However, asserting yourself will not necessarily guarantee you
happiness or fair treatment by others. Just because you assert yourself does
not mean you will always get what you want. Nonetheless, by developing an
ability to express yourself, you may be able to reduce your stress, increase
your feelings of self-worth, improve your decision-making abilities, and feel
more self-confident in relationships.
When confronted with difficult situations, people can sometimes
respond passively or aggressively. Passive people tend to be distrustful of
their own thoughts and feelings. Therefore, they often think about appropriate
“comebacks” or “what I should have said” long after the situation has ended.
This person often feels inhibited, anxious, and allows others to depreciate
their value. Other individuals may respond aggressively to difficult situations.
Aggressive individuals express their rights but often at the expense,
degradation, or humiliation of others. Consequently, the aggressive person
may get what they want, but they may lose the respect of others in the
process. Assertiveness falls in between these two responses. And if being
assertive does not come naturally, it can feel like being between a rock and a
hard place, or what has been bluntly described as “a middle ground between
being a bully and a doormat” (Barnette, 2006). We hope that this brochure
demonstrates some of the subtleties and nuances of acting in an assertive
manner.
This study also focuses on assertive communication that allows you to
express your wishes, thoughts, and feelings in ways that show respect for the
others’ wishes, thoughts and feelings. It also addresses potential barriers to
being assertive and how assertiveness may look different across cultures.
Many people struggle to develop assertiveness because they believe
that they do not have the right to be assertive, lack the skills to express
themselves effectively, or feel highly anxious or fearful about asserting
themselves. They may also struggle due to social and cultural factors. Since
assertiveness tends to require a sense of safety and belonging, individuals
who feel different or that they cannot be themselves, may be less apt to act in
an assertive manner. In other words, when people are afraid or
uncomfortable, they often hold back. For instance, individuals who are a
member of a cultural minority group (whether ethnic, gender, or sexual
orientation) may fear being judged or rejected and thus keep their views or
other important parts of themselves hidden. Women, for example, are not
taught to directly communicate their wants and needs the same way that men
are. And when they do communicate their needs, they are more likely to be
viewed as aggressive rather than assertive. Assertiveness thus extends
beyond individual skills and into the community. Ultimately, being assertive is
about creating an open and accepting environment that welcomes a diversity
of styles and perspectives, thereby enabling others to live and act in an
authentic, assertive manner.
Being assertive is a core communication skill. Being assertive means
that you express yourself effectively and stand up for your point of view, while
also respecting the rights and beliefs of others. It can also help boost your
self-esteem and earn others' respect. This can help with stress management,
especially if you tend to take on too many responsibilities because you have a
hard time saying no.
Because assertiveness is based on mutual respect, it's an effective and
diplomatic communication style. Being assertive shows that you respect
yourself because you're willing to stand up for your interests and express your
thoughts and feelings. It also demonstrates that you're aware of the rights of
others and are willing to work on resolving conflicts.
It is not just what you say — your message — but also how you say it
that's important. Assertive communication is direct and respectful. Being
assertive gives you the best chance of successfully delivering your message.
If you communicate in a way that's too passive or too aggressive, your
message may get lost because people are too busy reacting to your delivery.
Review of Related Studies
Age
Hideo Horiuchi, of Japan conducts an experiment on the effects of
educational media on the retention of written and symbols and picture. The
results showed that in each grade level in both recall and recognition, the
picture group had higher scores than the visual symbol group had higher
scores than the visual symbol group. The experiment pointed out that the
significant result is seen in the fact that the difference between the two groups
was greater at the earlier grade level and decreased with the increase in age.
Therefore, it was concluded that the visual method in teaching was more
important in the earlier grades.
Sex
Haylan (2006) conducts a study of the language learning style
preferences of Japanese students at 8 universities in Japan and to Japanese
students at a tertiary college in New Zealand. It focused on two elements of
language learning styles which were the perceptual modalities and the
grouping preference. The data gathered through a questionnaire were
statistically treated using the mean.
An
analysis of
variance
and
multiplecomparison of means were run on package. The test was used to
determine the significance in the comparison of means. Statistical analysis
showed the sex was related to language learning style differences.
Economic Status
Tablante and Bator (2007), conduct a study on preschool children from
4 – 6 years old in the rural and urban areas to determine the learning styles of
Filipino children to provide baseline data for preschool education. The study
involved a detailed observation of the behavior patterns of children as they
responded verbally and non – verbally to the learning tasks presented to them
during the experiment sessions. This was followed by interviews with the
children to determine whether they noticed details such as color and size of
objects and pictures. They study found that children were visual –motor in
orientation. They would rather be active participant in play situation rather
than passive listeners to sounds and views of pictures. The findings also
showed that the learning style of preschool children was affected by a
combination of factors such as sex, class status, locale and perceptual
normalcy score.
Language
Budy (2009), studies the relationship between the learning style and
brain dominance of selected secondary students at the Tabaco National High
School. It is used the descriptive- correlational research design. The findings
of the study revealed that the secondary school students carried learning
styles, the most common of which was the divergent learning style, wherein
the students preferred to learn by sensing/ feeling and included the use of the
schema, creating inferences, and qualifying concepts or ideas in the text. The
study posited the following generalizations and implications. First, the schema
is a vital component in understanding a reading material. Second, difficulties
in unlocking the meaning of words on the printed page can also help the
reader to focus on the controlling motive or point of the given text. Third,
students believe in the potentialities of the learning strategies they employ,
thus aiding them in achieving the reading task. Fourth, missing out on certain
details is not a hindrance in pinpointing the main idea of the text. Fifth, mere
observation is not enough to capture the complex metal operations of the
leader. Lastly, guided reading is an effective, efficient, and viable teaching
methodology which could deliver numerous positive results.
Yu’s work (2010) closely is linked to this current undertaking because
of the fact that reading in the second language is macro skill that needs to be
improved among Filipino students. Its development will have a great impact
on the progress of the other macro skills. It os through the understanding of
the current state of the reading skill among students of the second language
that educators can devise and employ plans, methodologies, and strategies
that will enhance the skills among them.
Media Preferred
Rionda (2008)offers a collection of reading that could be used by
second language educators not through much theorizing but rather via a wide
range of experiences. Improving the actual classroom instruction and learning
is its focus. Qualitative and fruitful changes in the teaching learning process in
the contemporary second language acquisition and use of the target
language.
Students send text messages to avoid face to face communication and
therefore reduce social interaction (Lee & Perry, 2--, p.74). Adams, Baker,
Daufin et al. (2008) agrees with this notion of the displacement theory.
College students are finding limited amount of leisure time and need to use
their time wisely in which text messaging saves them on time. (James,
Wotring and Forrest, 2005). Text messaging would not be the first technology
to displace face-to-face communication of the radio and on the print medium.
Media scholars continue to recognize the effects of every new technology
including TV and text messaging. So if text messaging does displace face-toface communication, it would not be the first technology to displace.
The task of developing erudite speakers of English among Filipinos is a
Herculean task bestowed upon the language educators of the country. This is,
notwithstanding the heavy impact and influence of the language of the mass
media that makes the task even more demanding.
Speaking Skills
To speak and maintain an atmosphere of good talking, the sender must
put his heart into talks. He must be natural and sincere in telling stories. The
receiver must feel that there is a message being delivered from the mind and
heart of the speaker. To communicate is to share a part of oneself and time to
others. According to Webster, “learning to communicate is one of the greatest
steps in students’ development to their hindrance.” He added that their
communicative ability may be influenced by their intelligence, economic
status, reading materials available. Languages spoken and obviously their
hearing and sight. This is related to the present study because it recognizes
individual profile of the learners as factors that affect the speaking skills of the
individual.
Alcantara, et. al., (2007) emphasize that man’s communicative
competence greatly depends on how well he can express his thoughts
feelings and emotions in any given situation. Such competence is determined
on the extent by which the person interacts with the people around him.
Accordingly, this can be seen in the child’s control of personal and
interpersonal functions of language which connotes that the learner has the
ability to present and converse his innermost thoughts, ideas and feelings that
enable him to develop his personality. This is related to the present study
because the main purpose of this study is to enhance the speaking skills of
the respondents from them to be able to communicate and express their ideas
clearly and correctly to others.
Hayakawa (2006) stresses that one’s reaction patterns and semantic
habits are the internal and most important residue of whatever years of
education or miseducation one may have received from his formal education
to conversations with friends and associates and from all his experiences.
This is related to the present study because the researcher believes that the
present speaking skills of the respondents have something to do with their
family, friends, and with the people whom they are with.
Bever (2006), states that every behavior acquisition depends, to some
extent, on the interaction of the individual with his environment. Thus, in
evaluating communicative ability of the learner to communicate his thoughts
to others and the context of the environment in which he acts or learns. The
present study also recognizes the role of the environment in developing the
individual’s speaking skills: Hence, anything outside the school is the
respondent’s environment which affects his speaking skills.
Sewey and Humber (2009) point out that human ideas, actions and
attitudes are interrelated with the environment and his biological heritage. This
shows that the environment affects how well a person communicates and
interacts with other people in any given situation. The researcher believes that
the speaking skills of the respondents can be affected by the learning
environment where they are exposed to. The ability of the respondents to
communicate is a product of their interaction with their immediate
environment.
Along this line of communicative competence, sauvignon used the term
in language – teaching contexts to refer to the ability to negotiate meaning, to
successfully combine knowledge of linguistic and socio – linguistic rules in
communicative interactions. The term applies to both oral and written
communication in the academic settings. It has to do with the real
speakers/listeners who interpret, express and negotiate meaning in many
different settings. The speaking skills have something to do with oral
communication. This study was aimed at enhancing the respondents’
speaking skills so they can express theirthoughts and ideas clearly and
effectively to others.
Chomsky’s, idea on the development of communicative approaches
was focused on the interpretation of the sentences. When he talked of
linguistic competence he was speaking of the sentence – level grammatical
competence of an ideal speaker listener relationship. Likewise, the researcher
believes that grammatical correctness is one of the important skills in
speaking that needs to be enhanced. It is also important in getting message
across in any attempt to communicate with others.
According to Longman’s Dictionary of Applied Linguistic (Richard’s et.
al.,) communicative competence include: (1) knowledge of the grammar and
vocabulary of the language, (2)
knowledge of the rules of speaking knowing
how to begin and end conversations; what topics may be talked about by
different situations, (3) knowing how to use and respond to different types of
speech acts such as request, apologies, thanks, invitations; and (4) knowing
to use the language appropriately. This four sets of knowledge are essential in
enhancing the speaking skills of the respondents as mentioned in this study
without which, it is difficult to enhance the speaking skills of the individual.
Hymes attributes communicative competence to the fact that a normal
child acquires knowledge of sentences not only as grammatical but also as
what is appropriate. The class where the learner belongs is made up of
different profiles with regard to language spoken at home, availability of
reading materials, co curricular activities and their school last attended. In
other words, the teachers played significant roles during the classroom activity
or instruction and in learning the language. It means something through the
oral and written channels. The learner should be able to make utterances that
do not deviate from the linguistic system of the language. This study also
recognized the importance of linguistics competence in enhancing the
speaking skills of the respondents. Thus, it took into consideration the
importance of grammar in the development of such skills.
Based on this statement, it is evident that verbal proficiency is not a
one – step process but rather an interaction between two persons. Sometimes
in the process the speaker forgets this fact. So in the end he addresses
himself, thus in principle, failure of communication takes place. Relating this
concept to the present day realities, it is must that the speaking skills of
individuals be developed and enhanced for one to be able to convey ones
thoughts and convince others.
In a study made by Fun Lang Yong (2010) English and Communication
students, particularly business students and female students need to improve
their assertiveness. Assertiveness is less extolled in Malaysia, which has a
collectivist culture. Low assertiveness reflects that Malaysian students value
cooperation, group success, and interdependence rather than competition,
individual success, and independence.
Previous research implied that low assertiveness with authority figures
is perceived as respectful in some Asian countries. Hence, high assertiveness
may have negative connotations in Malaysia, giving the impression that one is
rude or arrogant. It runs counter to a face-saving culture that values
compromise and indirect conflict management styles (Rose, Suppiah, Uli, &
Othman, 2007). It is therefore not surprising that many students in this study
showed low assertiveness in terms of interpersonal relationships with peers
and lecturers. However, findings showed that many students were assertive
on one particular item. When asked to do something, 64.7 percent insisted to
know why. This finding was supported by DeVito (2007) who maintained that
people might be assertive in one situation but not in another. Findings imply
that Malaysian students’ assertiveness tends to be situation-specific. In terms
of academic tasks, they are assertive in that they want to know the objectives.
In brief, they may be less assertive in social situations, but are determined
when it comes to task fulfillment.
Similarities and Differences of This Study With Those Reviewed
Gabitos
(2007)
study
measures
the
level
of
communicative
competence of college freshmen enrolled in fourth – year courses with
emphasis on the respondents’ profile with regard to: a) language spoken at
home; b) reading materials available at home; c) co – curricular activities; and
d) school last attended.
This study is related to Gabito’s study because both dealt with
communication skills. However this study focused on English verbal fluency of
the Grade eight students in Liliw, District while Gabito’s study measured the
level of communicative competence of freshmen college students.
De la Cruz’s study on Factors Related the Performance in
Communication Arts (English) of the First Year High School of Capiz National
High School” reveals that the performance of the 1st year students of Capiz
National High School was not satisfactory. He disclosed that the grammatical
structure was the most difficult area in the test, followed by reading,
vocabulary and speech respectively. It was also found out that first year high
school students of the said school lacked adequate skills in communication
arts.
Salazar (2006) proposes lessons that included teaching language –
learning in order to aid the students in developing communicative
competence. In her study the results showed that students needed practice
and opportunities to exercise their writing and speaking skills preferably in
naturalistic situations.
The study of Salazar is related to this study because both studies aim
at providing opportunities for the students to develop their communicative
abilities. It also proposed a module that will enhance the respondents,
speaking skills. The study of Salazar differs in such a way that it focused more
on the second language learning strategies while this study centers on the
Verbal fluency rate of the students on their confidence level and
assertiveness.
Lack of confidence and assertiveness
Poor English speaking skills leading to lack of confidence was also
identified as a deterrent to their performance. Students explained that they are
continuously challenged by their failure to express their knowledge coherently
as their vocabulary is limited and they cannot find the correct words to
articulate their thoughts and ideas.
The lecturer remarked “when they have some difficulty in their studies,
such as cannot understand the lecture, cannot express their ideas in English
clearly, failure in the test/exam, or communication gap with other students or
don’t know how to relieve their pressure, or don’t know how to manage their
time to make their study more efficient. In addition it is culturally inappropriate
for the student to interrupt or question the teacher; consequently
assertiveness is considered discourteous and therefore unacceptable.
Students for whom English is a second language are often reluctant to
speak out in class or seek help because they lack confidence in their ability to
communicate and are fearful of causing embarrassment for themselves or
their teachers). As in the study by Robertson et al., (2000), the students
surveyed in this study reported that difficulties with the language, anxiety and
lack of confidence restricted effective participation. International students with
low English fluency lacked confidence in interacting with people and were ill at
ease in class discussions (Yeh & Inose, 2003) and show lower level of
assertiveness and consequently display poor academic performance.
Assertiveness is an essential skill requisite to success in an individualistic and
competitive Western oriented educational system. Students coming from a
collectivist culture where interpersonal harmony is highly prized, are selfrestrained and less assertive than their New Zealand colleagues in the host
country. Asian students have been reported to have more acculturative stress
than other groups of international students.
According to Del Villar (2010) Verbal fluency was attribution that
explained fears that had to do with students’ ability in verbalizing thoughts,
proficiency in English and facility in pronunciation. Beginners magnified this
fear because they were overly concerned about the image they projected to
others when they spoke. Verbal fluency, a quality that is easily noticeable by
others, was naturally a cause for concern.
Some respondents felt that their ability to express their thoughts
reflected on their person. Their proficiency in the English language, especially,
was very important. It is reflective of their education and intelligence. Other
respondents believed that pronunciation was also important. It also displayed
the quality of education one had
Verbal fluency is a critical factor in the Philippine setting since it is a
known fact that English, the medium of instruction is not the first language in
the Philippines. It is therefore a cause for concern, for some students,
because the level of proficiency in English varied depending on the quality of
training they received during their growing up years. Some high schools gave
superior English training especially the private ones while others did not.
Some homes spoke English as a first language while the majority did not.
Malik (2012) indicates that verbal fluency is always correlated and
affected by the components of oral proficiency like grammar, vocabulary and
pronunciation. The greater number of students believes that the production of
their fluent oral speech is dependent upon their knowledge of grammar of the
English language; many others believe that it depends upon vocabulary and
very few thinks that it is related with the pronunciation.
Verbal fluency of a student is most of the time affected by grammar. If
they don’t have proper knowledge of grammar rules and their automatic
application in verbal speech, they won’t be able to speak fluently. After
grammar, the second factor which affects the verbal fluency is lack of
vocabulary. While speaking whenever students get short of appropriate
words; supposed to be used in relation with particular context, they start
feeling hesitation or start repeating words and lines which they had uttered
before. This thought is proved with evidence in correlation study where word
repetition has a strong relationship with vocabulary mistakes.
It is important that language instructors should recognize that the
limited knowledge of grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation of a student are
creating problems for second language learners. After acknowledging the
presence of such problems they should assist the second language learners
in this regard and should change their teaching strategy according to the
requirement of the student’s problems. There should be some specific
teacher training courses related to the ways of enhancing student’s verbal
fluency in order to make teachers aware of this complex issue and hence,
mitigate it. It is also recommended that teachers should confront student’s
erroneous and irrational beliefs by cultivating in them “reasonable
commitments for successful language learning
Confidence is not something that can be learned like a set of rules;
confidence is a state of mind. Positive thinking, practice, training, knowledge
and talking to other people are all useful ways to help improve or boost your
confidence levels. Confidence comes from feelings of well-being, acceptance
of your body and mind (self-esteem) and belief in your own ability, skills and
experience.
Being assertive means standing up for what you believe in and sticking
to your principles. Being assertive also means that you can change your mind
if you believe it is the right thing to do, not because you are under pressure
from somebody else. Assertiveness, confidence and self-esteem are all very
closely linked - usually people become naturally more assertive as they
develop their confidence.
Assertiveness
is
a
skill
communication skills training.
regularly
referred
to
in
social
and
Often wrongly confused with aggression,
assertive individuals aim to be neither passive nor aggressive in their
interactions with other people. Although everyone acts in passive and
aggressive ways from time to time, such ways of responding often result from
a lack of self-confidence and, therefore, are inappropriate expressions of what
such people really need to say.
It is important to note also that by being assertive we should always
respect the thoughts, feelings and beliefs of other people. Assertiveness
concerns being able to express feelings, wishes, want and desires
appropriately and is an important personal and interpersonal skill.
Michel (2008) stated that assertiveness enables an individual to act in
their own best interests, to stand up for themselves without undue anxiety, to
express honest feelings comfortably and to express personal rights without
denying the rights of others.
Verbal characteristics: Assertive Behavior
• Firm, relaxed voice
• Fluent, few hesitations
• Steady even pace
• Tone is middle range, rich and warm
• Sincere and clear
• Not over-loud or quiet
• Voice appropriately loud for the situation
• “I” statements (“I like”, “I want”, “I don’t like”) that are brief and to the point
• Co-operative phrases, e.g., “What are your thoughts on this”
• Emphatic statements of interest, e.g., “I would like to”
• Distinction between fact and opinion, e.g., “My experience is different”
• Suggestions without “shoulds” or “oughts” e.g., “How about…” or “Wo
to…”
• Constructive criticism without blame, e.g., “I feel irritated when you interrupt me”
• Seeking others opinions, e.g., “How does this fit in with your ideas”
• Willingness to explore other solutions, e.g., “How can we get around this problem?”
Foreign Studies
Reading Fluency in Grades 6 to 8
According to Denton et. al. (2011) few studies have investigated the
relation of fluency and comprehension for students at the secondary level,
with most researchers reporting lower correlations than commonly reported
for elementary school students.
Little research has specifically evaluated the use of reading fluency
measures to identify secondary school students in need of reading
intervention. In a report of data collected, Grades 6 and 7 were significant
predictors of the grades students received in English and social studies
classes in Grades 8, 9, and 10 and accurately differentiated between students
who attended special education, remedial, general education, and honors
classes.
In general, for middle school students, vocabulary tasks may be better
predictors of comprehension than timed oral reading. For example, Yovanoff,
et al. (2005) examined the relative contributions of vocabulary and fluency to
comprehension measured by answering questions following passage reading
across Grades 4 to 8. They found that both vocabulary and fluency were
significant predictors of comprehension at all grade levels but that the relative
importance decreased in the higher grades. Similarly a report that brief timed
measures requiring middle school students to match vocabulary words with
their definitions were better predictors of student performance on content-area
reading tasks like answering questions after reading expository text.
Based on the author’s findings, educators of middle school students
may be best able to identify students at risk for failing reading comprehension
tests by examining students’ performance on these tests during the previous
school year. The use of these assessments would need to be evaluated, but
the advantage in terms of reducing the need for additional assessment of all
students in middle schools is significant. Because all that would be known
from this approach is that the student did not pass a comprehension test,
following this initial screening with fluency assessments may enable teachers
to quickly diagnose the nature of students’ reading problems. Poor
comprehension in older students can be related to complex comprehension of
difficulties in word reading, reading fluency, oral language comprehension,
and construction of meaning from text. This makes reading intervention with
older students challenging, and teacher’ use of fluency measures may help
them provide these students with effective instruction. More research directly
addressing the use of both oral and silent fluency measures for this purpose is
needed.
This study did not investigate the use of fluency measures to monitor
reading progress in middle school students. Repeated assessment using brief
measures of fluency may be useful for progress monitoring. However, there is
a need for research investigating whether such measures are valid for this
purpose for all middle school students with reading difficulties, or primarily for
those who have word reading and fluency difficulties.
There is also a need for research that examines how progress in
reading comprehension might be validly and reliably monitored for students in
the secondary grades. In addition, practitioners and researchers would benefit
from the development and validation of reliable assessments of reading
comprehension that could be used to screen students to identify those with
reading comprehension difficulties, as well as diagnostic measures that could
be used to identify with greater specificity the dimensions of reading
comprehension that should be targeted in intervention like recalling text
details, making different kinds of inferences. Development of such measures
would require a deeper understanding of the construct of reading
comprehension and how various aspects of comprehension might be
measured.
Implications for instruction
Besides addressing the identification of middle school students in need
of reading intervention, this study has implications for their instruction. With
young children, theoretical models such as that developed by LaBerge and
Samuels suggest that providing fluency instruction will impact reading
comprehension as children build automaticity with decoding processes. Our
study, and others, illustrate that this assumption is not necessarily valid at
Grades 6–8, when the relation between fluency and comprehension is weaker
than often observed with young children. Older students with reading
comprehension difficulties are likely to need interventions that directly address
vocabulary, world knowledge, and comprehension processes. Rather than
addressing only decoding and fluency, it is likely that intervention for
secondary-level students who struggle with reading comprehension must
include extensive, explicit instruction in making meaning from text. The field
would benefit from research focused on the effectiveness of such
interventions
for
secondary
school
students
who
have
impaired
comprehension with or without accompanying difficulties in decoding and
fluency.
According to Hasbrouck (2006) while the National Reading Panel's
definition of fluency as the ability to read text with accuracy, appropriate rate,
and good expression is widely accepted among fluency researchers, these
experts continue to debate the more subtle aspects of fluency. However it is
defined, this much is certain: Fluency is necessary, but not sufficient, for
understanding the meaning of text. When children read too slowly or haltingly,
the text devolves into a broken string of words and/or phrases; it's a struggle
just to remember what's been read, much less extract its meaning. So it's
important that teachers determine if their students' fluency is at a level
appropriate for their grade. If not, how should it be developed? If a student is
appropriately fluent for her grade level, how does a teacher help maintain that
student's fluency? And, how does a teacher make these determinations? This
process begins with assessments of the component pieces of fluency:
prosody, accuracy, and rate.
The exact role of expression and phrasing — or prosody — in fluency
and comprehension has not yet been determined, but it certainly is one
element that signifies whether or not a student is truly a fluent reader. To
measure the quality of a student's reading prosody, some educators rely on
the four-level scale first developed for the 1992 National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading (Daane, Campbell, Grigg, Goodman,
and Oranje, 2005). This scale focuses on the level of skill a student
demonstrates in phrasing and expression while reading aloud (see below).
After listening to an individual student read aloud, the educator rates the
student's reading according to the level that best describes the student's
overall performance.
National Assessment of Educational Progress Fluency Scale
Reads primarily in larger, meaningful phrase groups.
Although some regressions, repetitions, and deviations
Level
Fluent
4
from text may be present, these do not appear to detract
from the overall structure of the story. Preservation of the
author's syntax is consistent. Some or most of the story is
read with expressive interpretation.
Reads primarily in three- or four-word phrase groups. Some
Level
Fluent
3
small groupings may be present. however, the majority of
phrasing seems appropriate and preserves the syntax of
the author. Little or no expressive interpretation is present.
Reads primarily in two-word phrases with some three- or
Non-
Level
Fluent
2
four-word groupings. Some word-by-word reading may be
present. Word groupings may seem awkward and unrelated
to larger context of sentence or passage
Non-
Level
Fluent
1
Reads primarily word-by-word. Occasional two-word or
three-word phrases may occur but these are infrequent
and/or they do not preserve meaningful syntax.
A checklist developed by Hudson, Lane and Pullen (2005, p. 707) provides a
more detailed assessment of a student's prosody:
1. Student placed vocal emphasis on appropriate words.
2. Student's voice tone rose and fell at appropriate points in the text.
3. Student's inflection reflected the punctuation in the text (e.g., voice tone rose
near the end of a question).
4. In narrative text with dialogue, student used appropriate vocal tone to
represent characters' mental states, such as excitement, sadness, fear, or
confidence.
5. Student used punctuation to pause appropriately at phrase boundaries.
6. Student used prepositional phrases to pause appropriately at phrase
boundaries.
7. Student used subject-verb divisions to pause appropriately at phrase
boundaries.
8. Student used conjunctions to pause appropriately at phrase boundaries.
Although most researchers consider prosody important, the subjectivity
of judging students' prosody makes it a difficult component of fluency to study.
Many researchers have focused on the more easily quantifiable components
of fluency (rate and accuracy) and, therefore, some basic questions about
prosody — like what should be expected in second grade versus sixth grade
— have not been answered.
Nevertheless, students' prosody is an extra piece of information for
making instructional decisions. When students' speed and accuracy are at
appropriate levels, reading with proper phrasing, expression, and intonation
should be the next goal.
To measure students' oral reading speed and accuracy, researchers
have developed a simple and very brief procedure that uses regular
classroom texts to determine the number of words that students can read
correctly in one minute. To obtain a words-correct-per-minute (WCPM) score,
students are assessed individually as they read aloud for one minute from an
unpracticed passage of text.
To calculate the WCPM score, the examiner subtracts the total number
of errors from the total number of words read in one minute. An error includes
any word that is omitted, mispronounced, or substituted for another word.
Words transposed in a phrase count as two errors like reading "laughed and
played" instead of "played and laughed". Each time a word is read incorrectly
it is counted as an error. Words read correctly that are repeated more than
once, errors self-corrected by the student, words inserted by the student that
do not appear in the text, and words mispronounced due to dialect or speech
impairments are not counted as errors. They do, however, impact the final
score since they slow the student down and, therefore, reduce the number of
words that are read correctly in one minute.
If the passage is randomly selected from a text or trade book, an
average score should be taken from readings of two or three different
passages to account for any text-based differences. If standardized passages
are used in which the text has been carefully controlled for difficulty, a score
from a single passage may be sufficient (Hintze and Christ, 2004).
Standardized passages can be found in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills-DIBELS (Good and Kaminski, 2002), the Reading Fluency
Benchmark (Read Naturally, 2002), or Edformation's AIMSWeb materials.
To determine if the student's score is on target, the examiner compares
it to the oral reading fluency norms (see Screening, Diagnosing, and Progress
Monitoring: The Details). Tindal (2006) developed these national norms for
grades one to eight by analyzing data that were collected using the
procedures just described with over 200,000 students from 23 states. It's
critical to understand that a WCPM score can be an alarm bell, a canary in a
coal mine. If the WCPM is very low, the student is not sufficiently fluent and
an intervention is merited. However, a low WCPM score may be the result of
weak fluency skills or other reading weaknesses, for example, in decoding,
vocabulary, sight words, so administering some diagnostic assessments may
be necessary to determine exactly what type of intervention a student needs .
With all the assessments schools are required to administer as a result
of No Child Left Behind, Reading First, and numerous statewide and district
initiatives, some educators are concerned about over-testing students. They
ask: "How can we justify spending so much precious instructional time testing
our students over and over again?" This concern is certainly legitimate. The
purpose of having our students in school is to teach them, not to test them.
However, as professional educators, it is imperative that we make decisions
about the instruction we provide our students based on the best information
available.
The WCPM procedure just described is an extremely time-efficient and
reliable way to track students' fluency and their overall reading ability. While it
may be surprising that a one-minute assessment can be so informative,
WCPM has been shown, in both theoretical and empirical research, to serve
as an accurate and powerful indicator of overall reading competence
especially through its strong correlation with comprehension. Its validity and
reliability have been well established in a body of research extending over the
past 25 years (Fuchs et al., 2001.
The relationship between WCPM and comprehension has been found
to be stronger in the elementary and junior high grades than in older students
(Fuchs et al., 2001), likely due to the fact that as a reader matures, competent
reading involves more complex skills, vocabulary, and knowledge (and thus
any single measure becomes less predictive of general reading competence
as a student develops).
Teachers can and should use WCPM as their first indicator that all may
not be well with their students' reading ability. In first through fifth grade,
WCPM should be used to screen all students, help to diagnose a possible
cause of struggling students' problems, and to monitor the progress of
struggling students who are receiving additional support
Hasbrouck and Tindal (2006) stated that screening, diagnosing, and
progress monitoring are essential to making sure that all students become
fluent readers and the words-correct per-minute (WCPM) procedure can work
for all three. The only aspect of the procedure that has to change is the
difficulty level of the text.
For screening, passages are selected from text at the student's grade level.
For diagnosing,
passages
are
selected
at
the
student's instructional
level which may be lower than her grade level). In this context, instructional
level text is challenging but manageable, with the reader making errors on no
more than one in 10 words like the reader is successful with 90 percent of the
text (Partnership for Reading, 2001). For progress monitoring, passages are
selected at a student's individually determined goal level. For example, if an
8th-grade student's instructional level is at the 5th-grade level, the teacher
may conduct the progress monitoring assessments using passages at the 6thgrade level.
Screening
Because empirical research clearly indicates the urgent need to
provide high quality, intensive instructional interventions to students at risk of
reading difficulty as soon as possible, schools should administer screening
measures to every student through the 5th grade.
First-graders should be screened in the winter and the spring; secondthrough fifth-graders should be screened in the fall, winter, and spring. To
determine if students are at the expected levels in their reading fluency, my
colleague Tindal (2006) suggest comparing students' WCPM scores to the
50th percentile score on the norms table (below), given the students' grade
placement and the approximate time of year in which the assessment was
conducted.
A score falling more than 10 words below the 50th percentile should
raise a concern; the student may need additional assistance, and further
assessments may be needed to diagnose the source of the below-average
performance. Depending on the age of the student and any concerns about
reading performance noted by the teacher or parents, such additional testing
might include assessments of oral language development, phonemic
awareness, phonics and decoding, and/or comprehension.
Diagnosing
If a student scores poorly on a fluency screening, or if the teacher has
some other cause for concern such as poor performance in class or on
another assessment, the teacher should take a more careful look at the
student's strengths and needs. The student could be deficient in a variety of
reading skills or in related areas like vocabulary and background knowledge,
so administering some informal diagnostic assessments would be helpful for
designing effective instruction, providing evidence of the need for a reading
specialist, or referring the student for further evaluation.
Typically, if a student's fluency level is low, but word reading accuracy
in grade-level texts is adequate, a teacher can place the student in an
intervention focused just on improving fluency. But if diagnostic assessments
indicate other areas of weakness, a more comprehensive intervention may
need to be developed.
Monitoring student progress
If a student's diagnostic assessment reveals concerns about one or
more areas of reading, additional, targeted instruction should begin right
away. WCPM procedures can be used to monitor the student's progress.
Many educators have found WCPM to be a better tool for monitoring students'
progress than traditional standardized measures that typically are timeconsuming, expensive, only administered infrequently, and of limited
instructional utility (Good, Simmons, and Kame'enui, 2001).
For students reading six to 12 months below grade level, progress
monitoring should be done frequently, perhaps once or twice monthly for as
long as students require supplemental instruction. Progress monitoring should
be done as often as once per week for students who are reading more than
one year below level and receiving intensive intervention services, including
special education. This regular monitoring assures that if the intervention is
not working well, it can be modified.
When monitoring the progress of these struggling readers, the
standard procedures are expanded by graphing the student's WCPM scores.
A progress monitoring graph, for perhaps a grading period or a trimester, is
created for each student. Teachers can use the average weekly improvement
(AWI) data in the norms table to select an ambitious, yet reasonable,
instructional goal; for example, a fourth-grader's goal could be to improve by
15 WCPM over 10 weeks of intensive instruction. An aim line is placed on the
graph to represent the progress a student must make to achieve a preset
fluency goal. Each time the student is assessed, that score is added to the
graph. If three or more consecutive scores fall below the aim line, the teacher
must consider adjusting the instructional program (Hasbrouck et al., 1999).
Teachers should also consider having the students record their own
WCPM scores on their graphs as it increases their motivation and investment
in their reading progress. These procedures for screening, diagnosing, and
progress monitoring have been available for many years, but have not been
widely used in schools. This situation will likely change as educators become
more aware of the importance of preventing reading difficulties and providing
intensive intervention as soon as a concern is noted.
Using fluency norms to set appropriate goals for student improvement
and to measure progress toward those goals can be a powerful and efficient
tool to help educators make well-informed and timely decisions about the
instructional needs of their students, particularly the lowest performing,
struggling readers.
Ransinki (2011) study reveals that fluent readers decode words
accurately and automatically, without or with minimal use of their limited
attention or conscious cognitive resources. The theory that supports this
aspect of fluency begins with the notion that readers have limited attention
resources. If they have to use a large portion of those resources for word
decoding, those resources will not be available for use in comprehension. The
theory of automaticity in reading suggests that proficient word decoding
occurs when readers move beyond conscious, accurate decoding to
automatic, accurate decoding.
At the automatic level, readers are able to decode words with minimal
attention to the activity of decoding. Most adult readers are at this level of
processing. They do not have to examine closely or sound out most of the
words they encounter; they simply recognize the words instantly and
accurately on sight. This type of processing frees the reader’s conscious
attention to comprehend or construct meaning from the text.
In a sense, then, reading fluency is multidimensional; one dimension
stresses the importance of accuracy in word decoding, a second dimension
focuses on quick and automatic recognition of words in connected text, and a
third dimension stresses expressive and meaningful interpretation of text.
These dimensions are related to one another as accurate and automatic
reading creates the conditions for expressive reading. All three are important
for effective comprehension and overall good reading. All must be taught, and
all must be monitored.
Osborn and Lehr (2003) provide an excellent summary of ways in
which reading fluency can be taught and nurtured in classrooms. Methods for
assessing a student’s level of achievement at any given moment and for
determining growth over time are part of any good instructional program. Their
research explores how reading fluency can be assessed in valid and efficient
ways.
The ability to measure students’ level of achievement in fluency and
monitor their progress is keys to successful fluency teaching. Teachers need
to be able to gauge the effectiveness of their instruction in fluency; to do this,
they need ways to assess student fluency validly and efficiently. The study
explores methods for assessing reading fluency. The inclusion of assessment
approaches was guided by two important criteria.
First, fluency assessments must have some degree of reliability and
validity. Users of the assessments must be assured that the results they
obtain are reliable, that the results will provide consistent measures of fluency
and will not vary because of imperfections in the assessment itself. Users
must also be assured that the assessments are valid, that they actually
measure reading fluency. The assessments themselves should resemble the
ways in which reading fluency is defined.
In this research, fluency is defined in terms of three key components:
accuracy in reading, automaticity in reading, and prosody or expression in
reading. Moreover, since fluency is a contributor to overall reading proficiency,
the fluency assessments presented here should correlate with other, more
general measures of reading proficiency.
Second, the assessments must be efficient in administration, scoring,
and interpretation. Assessments should be as quick and easy to use as
possible. If they are not, teachers may not find time to use them or may use
them in ways that are inconsistent with their intent. Moreover, time given to
assessment is usually time taken away from instruction. Thus, quick and easy
assessments will allow teachers to gauge students’ progress and maximize
teaching time so that academic progress can be made.
Since current views suggest that reading fluency consists of three
distinct components, this aligns its approach to assessment with these
components:
• Decoding accuracy – the ability of readers to decode words accurately in
text.
• Automaticity – the ability of readers to decode words in text with minimal use
of attentional resources.
• Prosody – the ability of readers to appropriately use phrasing and
expression.
Assessing Reading Fluency
Fluency has a decoding accuracy component that is the ability of readers to decode
text accurately. Fluency also has a decoding automaticity component, the ability of readers to
decode words in text with minimal use of attentional resources. These two aspects of fluency
are reflected in readers’ level of accuracy in decoding words and their speed of reading,
automaticity, as measured by the reading rate.
The importance of accuracy in reading has a rich history. Informal reading
inventories (IRIs), in use for decades, have used decoding word accuracy as one of their key
benchmarks for marking reading achievement. Accuracy is determined by the
percentage of words a reader can read correctly; it has been shown to be a
valid measure of reading proficiency. The levels of accuracy in reading (see
Table 1), adapted from an examination of several IRIs, reflect various levels of
word decoding accuracy.
Table 1
Levels of Performance for Word Decoding Accuracy
Independent Level:
Instructional Level:
Frustration Level:
97-100%
90-96%
< 90%
Readers who score in the 97-100% range (independent level) are able
to read the assessment text or other text of similar difficulty without
assistance. Readers who score within the 90-96% range (instructional level)
are able to read the assessment text or other text of similar difficulty with
some assistance, usually provided by a teacher or parent. Those readers who
score below 90% in word accuracy (frustration level) find the assessment text
or other texts of similar difficulty too challenging to read, even with assistance.
For example, Theresa is a new fifth grader in Mrs. Hall’s classroom. Mrs. Hall
administers an abbreviated version of an IRI in which Theresa is asked to
read orally a 245-word, fifth-grade passage. Theresa makes 13 errors while
reading, which gives her an accuracy rate of 94.7%. Thus, Theresa can read
fifth grade material at an instructional level (able to read with instructional
support).
Although IRIs incorporates accuracy into their determination of readers’
overall achievement level, they have one distinct disadvantage. They require
the reader to read multiple word lists and passages orally and to be checked
on comprehension for each passage. While this process leads to an in-depth
assessment, it is also very time consuming, especially if the inventory is
administered to a struggling reader. Administration of a complete IRI can take
one to two hours. Most teachers, pressed for instructional time, are not willing
to invest this amount of time for more than a few students. Using IRIs to
assess decoding accuracy of an entire classroom is not a viable option for
most teachers.
Reading rate provides a way of determining students’ level of
automaticity. The assumption is that fast reading is a reflection of automaticity
in word recognition. Recognizing the need for a reading assessment that was
valid and time efficient, Stanley Deno of the University of Minnesota
developed an approach referred to as Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)
in reading. Because this approach is clearly focused on reading fluency, it has
also been called an Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) assessment. The CBM/ORF
approach to assessment (see Figure 1 for administration procedures), like the
IRI, requires the reader to read grade-level text orally. However, the
CBM/ORF only takes 60 seconds. During this period, the teacher or person
administering the test marks the reader’s uncorrected errors and then counts
the total number of words read correctly (words read correctly per minute, or
WCPM).
Because the assessment is so quick, it can be repeated at one sitting
on different passages. If multiple assessments are given, comparing the
median (middle) score against performance norms is recommended (see
Table 2).
Figure 1
Procedures for Measuring Accuracy and Rate in CMB/ORF
1. Find a passage(s) of approximately 250 words written at the student’s
grade placement. Submit the passage to a text readability formula to estimate
its grade appropriateness.
2. Ask the student to read the passage for one minute and tape-record the
reading. Emphasize that the text should be read aloud in a normal way, and
not faster than normal.
3. Mark any uncorrected errors made by the student. Errors include
mispronunciations, substitutions, reversals, omissions, or words pronounced
by the examiner after a wait of 2-3 seconds without an attempt or response
from the student. Mark the point in the text the student has come to after one
minute of reading.
4. Repeat steps 1 and 2 with two different passages (optional). If you choose
to repeat the process, use the median or middle score for analysis.
5. Determine accuracy by dividing the number of words read correctly per
minute (WCPM) by the total number of words read (WCPM + any uncorrected
errors). This number will be a percentage. Compare the student’s
performance against the target norms in Table 1.
6. Determine the rate by calculating the total number of WCPM and
comparing the student’s performance against the target norms in Table 2.
An understanding of reading rate norms is necessary for using the
CBM/ORF results accurately. Target reading rate norms based on several
empirical data sources are presented in Table 2. These norms suggest that
reading rates tend to increase through the middle grades; however, the rate of
acceleration diminishes after sixth grade. This suggests that although the
automaticity component of reading fluency is a focus in the elementary
grades, it should be nurtured and assessed even beyond these grades.
Table 2
Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Target Rate Norms
Grade
Fall
(WCPM)
1
Winter
(WCPM)
Spring
(WCPM)
10-30
30-60
2
30-60
50-80
70-100
3
50-90
70-100
80-110
4
70-110
80-12
100-140
5
80-120
100-140
110-150
6
100-140
110-150
120-160
7
110-150
120-160
130-170
8
120-160
130-170
140-180
Source: Adapted from “AIMS web: Charting the Path to Literacy,” 2003,
Ed formation, Inc.
Readers who perform at or near these target norms should be
considered as progressing adequately in automaticity. Readers who are
significantly and consistently below (or above) the norm span for their grade
level and time of year may be at risk in their reading fluency development. We
generally think of disfluent readers as reading in a very slow and disjointed
manner; disfluency, however, can come from readers who read too fast and
fail to pay attention to intra and inter-sentential boundaries or the meaning of
the text.
The CBM/ORF fluency assessment has been adopted to include
measurements of reading accuracy as well as reading rate (automaticity). The
adaptation adds no time to the administration of the assessment and only one
more calculation; by measuring accuracy, teachers can determine more
precisely the source of reading fluency difficulties. For example, a reader with
high accuracy but low rate scores may show comprehension difficulties similar
to a reader with a high rate but excessive decoding errors. Although both
readers have comprehension difficulties, the source of their comprehension
difficulties is quite different for one reader, the source is a lack of sufficient
automaticity, while for the other, it is a lack of sufficient decoding accuracy.
The most effective instruction would be significantly different for each student.
The norms reflected in Tables 1 and 2, then, are useful in determining
readers’ level of proficiency in accuracy and reading rate (automaticity). The
procedures for assessing readers in these areas are outlined in Figure 1.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter provides a description of the design and procedures to be
used in the study such as the research design and procedures to be used in
the study such as the research design, subject and sampling process,
research instrument, research procedure and statistical treatment to be used
in this study.
Research Design
In this study, descriptive method of research was used to gather data
about the English fluency rate on the confidence level and assertiveness of
the students in LIliw District.
Sevilla et al (2001) state that descriptive method is designed for the
recorded, described, interpreted analyzed and compared. Its objective is to
describe systematically the situation, condition or area of interest factually or
accurately. Descriptive design includes observation, surveys of interview,
standardized test and case study. (Salmorin 2006)
Study is concerned with the English fluency rate on the confidence
level and assertiveness of grade eight students in Liliw District. A sample of 4
national high schools public and private was selected for detailed study.
This study will be conducted at secondary schools such as; Liliw
National High School, Liceo de Liliw, Saint John the Baptist Academy, and
Saint John Bosco School.
Population and Sample
Simple random sampling was done by the researcher to obtain sample
that appears to be the representative of the population, 4 schools will be the
subject namely Liliw National High School, Liceoo de Liliw, Saint John the
Baptist Academy and Saint John Bosco Academy. The chance that a
particular sampling unit was selected the sample from the subjective judgment
of the researcher (Zulueta and Costales 2006). The researcher randomly
selected 80% of the classroom managers comprising a total 100 respondents
from a population of 140.
Research Procedure
After the approval of the research problem by the thesis advisers, the
dean of the Graduate School and the four member of the panel, data from
different books, journal and thesis related to the present studies were
gathered. Formulation and validation of questionnaire will be made through a
dry run, then the researcher will seek permission of the division
superintendent and the principal for the distribution of questionnaire to the
respondents.
The questionnaire were given to the selected grade 8 students from
public and private schools in Liliw District and collected for the tabulation and
analysis of their responses.
Data Gathering Instrument
The research instrument to be used was research – made
questionnaire to meet the researcher’s needs and provide the data necessary
to answer the problem given in the statement of the problem.
The questionnaires will be answered by checking the box provided
proof of respondents rating about the given statement. The first questionnaire
is personal profile with 4 items and the English verbal fluency which has 10
items. The second questionnaire has 10 items to be answered and rate for
confidence level and the third questionnaire is for assertiveness level which
has three parts and each part has 5 items.
Statistical Treatment of Data
After the retrieval, the data will be collected, tabulated and encoded to
be analyzed for the appropriate statistical tools.
1. Frequency and Percentage computation were use for the profile of the
respondents. Computation is as follows:
Formula: P =
F_X 100
N
Where:
F= frequency
N= number of respondents
P= percentage.
2. Weighted mean was used to compute the average of the respondents'
answer regarding the English Verbal Fluency Rate of Grade 8 Students in
Liliw District computed as follows:
Formula:
WM= fw1+fw2+fw3+fw4
N
Where:
WM= Weighted Mean
fw= Frequency X Weight
N= Number of Respondents
Use the 5-Points Likert Scale in Your selected Answers in Questions 2 to 3
Rank
Rated scale
Verbal interpretations
5
4.21- 5.00
Always SA)
4
4.20- 3.21
Usually (U)
3
3.20- 2.21
Occasionally (O)
2
2.20- 1.21
Rarely (R)
1
1.20- 0.00
Never (N)
3. Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS) will be given to the respondents
to measure their level of daily assertiveness in Problem 4. The RAS has 17
reverse-coded items to avoid response bias.
Scoring: Items are rated in terms of how descriptive the item is of the
respondent. Ratings are from +3 to --3. Seventeen items, indicated by an
asterisk on the scale, are reverse-scored. Scores are determined by summing
item ratings, and can range from --90 to +90. Negative scores reflect non
assertiveness and positive scores reflect assertiveness.
Use the 6-Points Likert Scale in Your selected Answers in Questions 4
+3 = Very characteristic of me, extremely descriptive
+2 = Rather characateristic of me, quite descriptive
+1 = Somewhat characteristic of me, slightly descriptive
--1 = Somewhat uncharacteristic of me, slightly nondescriptive
--2 = Rather uncharacateristic of me, quite nondescriptive
--3 = Very characteristic of me, extremely descriptive
4. The Pearson R will be used to compute Question 5.1 and 5.2. Is there a
significant relationship between the following?
5.1 English verbal fluency rate and confidence level
5.2 English verbal fluency rate and assertiveness level
Pearson correlation coefficient is a measure of the strength of a linear
association between two variables and is denoted by r. Basically, a Pearson
product-moment correlation attempts to draw a line of best fit through the data
of two variables, and the Pearson correlation coefficient, r, indicates how far
away all these data points are to this line of best fit (how well the data points
fit this new model/line of best fit). This measurement will be used to determine
the correlation or relationship of the verbal fluency rate and confidence level
and assertiveness level of the students. Computed as follows:
Formula:
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Based on the data gathered
here are the presentation, analysis and
interpretation of data.
TABLE I
1.1 SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
F
P
______________________________________________________________
P 1,000 – P 5,000
97
48.50
5,001– 10,000
50
25.00
10,001– 15,000
28
14.00
15,001and above
25
12.50
TOTALS
200
100 %
===========================================================
TABLE I shows that as to the socio-economic status of the
respondents, the P1, 000–5,000 bracket got 48.50% for 97 respondents out of
200. Next were the P5, 001-10,000 bracket at 25% for 50 of 200 respondents.
Then the P 10,001-15,000 followed with 14% equivalent to 28 respondents.
Last was the P 15.001 and above bracket at 12.50% for 25 out of 200
respondents. The researcher noted that majority of the respondents came
from the P1,000-5,000 bracket, more of a low income group.
TABLE II
______________________________________________________________
1.2 DIALECTS SPOKEN AT HOME
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
______________________________________________________________
Filipino
196
98
English
0
0
Others
4
2
TOTALS
200
100 %
===========================================================
TABLE II reveals that as to the Dialects spoken at home, respondents
overwhelming choice is our National Language Filipino which is rightly so for a
high 98% at 198 respondents as compared to the non bearing second spot of
Others with 2% of 4 respondents out 200. And English got no points.
The researchers observed that the choice of Filipino is quite under
stable since it is our primary Language.
TABLE III
______________________________________________________________
1.3READING MATERIALS PREFERRED
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
F
%
Science Books
31
15.50
Pocket Books
76
38.00
Literature Books
35
17.50
Pilipino Books
25
12.50
History Books
9
4.50
24
12.00
Magazines
______________________________________________________________
Totals
200
100 %
TABLE III indicates that as to the Reading materials preferred, the top
spot goes to Pockets books with 38% for 76 respondents of a total of 200.
Second were Literature books for 17.50% equivalent to 35 of 200
respondents. Third were Science books at 15.50% with 31respondents out of
200. Fourth were Filipino books at 12.50% for 25 respondents. Fifth were
magazines with 12% for 24 respondents. Last were History books for 4.50%
at 9 respondents.
The researcher has no doubt to the top choice of pocket books since
everybody wants to read them both young and old. Magazines were the
expected second choice but it is a good choice that students wanted to read
Literature and Science books to expand their knowledge and vocabulary.
TABLE IV
______________________________________________________________
1.4 MEDIA PREFERRED
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
F
%
Internet
87
43.50
Radio
15
7.50
Television
35
17.50
Cellphone
63
31.50
______________________________________________________________
TOTALS
200
100 %
TABLE IV shows that as to the Media preferred, Internet got 43.50%
as the top choice of 87 respondents put of 200. Next were Cellphones with
31.60% for 63 respondents. Television followed at 17.5% for 35 out of 200
respondents and last radio with 7.50% for 15 respondents.
The researcher guessed that Internet was the top answer since it is the
fad nowadays especially for the teens playing DOTA and connecting with
friends thru facebook.
Another enjoyable gadget nowadays is Cellphone
where everyone can play also games and listen to music. Television is also
one media favorite where one can watch their favorite tv shows. Radios
already considered passé but many still enjoys listening music and dramas.
TABLE V
2. What is the mean level of English Verbal
Verbal
Fluency Rate of the respondents?
WM
Interpretation
Rank
3.20
Occasionally
1
4.15
Usually
2
3.09
Occasionally
3
3.48
Usually
2.1. Speaking Skills
a. I can have both formal and informal
conversation in English
b. I can perform academic presentation in
English in the classroom
c. I have an adequate English vocabulary for
effective speaking
Average WM
TABLE V shows the mean level of English Verbal Fluency Rate for the
respondents as to Speaking Skills. Rank 1st, I can have both formal and
informal conversation in English with a Weighted Mean of 3.20 and Verbal
Interpretation of Occasionally. Rank 2nd, I can perform academic presentation
in English in the classroom for a Weighted Mean of 4.15 and Verbal
Interpretation of Usually. Rank 3rd, I have an adequate English vocabulary for
effective speaking at a Weighted Mean of 3.09 and Occasionally Verbal
Interpretation.
Average Weighted Mean is 3.48 with a Verbal Interpretation of Usually.
The researcher noted that respondents speaking skills were rated usually in
their performance of academic presentation in English inside the classrooms
but only rank 2nd. Noteworthy to mention is that respondents rated
occasionally their Speaking skills both formal and informal conversation in
English and adequate possession of English vocabulary for effective
speaking. They were ranked 1 and 3 respectively.
TABLE VI
3. What is the mean level of Confidence of
the respondents?
Verbal
WM
Interpretation
Rank
a. I am a good English speaking student
3.19
Occasionally
1
b. I am a good member of my English class
3.16
Occasionally
3
c. My teacher wants me to participate in my
English class
4.65
Agree
2
3.67
Usually
3.1. Situational Confidence
.
Average WM
TABLE VI reveals the mean level of Confidence for the respondents as
to Situational Confidence, Rank 1 is I am a good English speaking student for
a Weighted Average of 3.19 and Verbal Interpretation of Occasionally. Rank 2
is my teacher wants me to participate in my English class with 4.65 Weighted
Average and Verbal Interpretation of Agree. And Rank 3 is I am a good
member of my English class at 3.16 Weighted Mean and Occasionally Verbal
Interpretation.
The Average Weighted Mean is 3.67 for Verbal Interpretation of
Usually. Researcher observed that respondents’ gave a very high Agree
rating to my teacher wants me to participate in my English class as what
teachers fervently wish for their students to perform better which is ranked
only second. Both I am a good English speaking student and I am a good
member of my English class got occasionally rating and Rank 1 and 3
respectively. .
TABLE VII
3. 3. What is the mean level of Confidence of the
respondents?
Verbal
WM
Interpretation Rank
3.15
Occasionally
1
3.11
Occasionally
2
2.20
Rarely
3
2.82
Occasionally
3.2. Communication Confidence
a. I don’t feel shy speaking English to my
classmates
b. I don’t feel shy speaking English to my
teacher
c. I don’t feel shy expressing my answers in
English to the teachers questions
Average WM
TABLE VII indicates the mean level of Confidence for the respondents
as to Communication Confidence. Rank 1st, I don’t feel shy speaking English
to my classmates for a Weighted Mean of 3.15 and Verbal Interpretation of
Occasionally. Rank 2nd, I don’t feel shy speaking English to my teacher with
3.11 Weighted Mean and Verbal Interpretation of Occasionally. And Rank 3 rd,
I don’t feel shy expressing my answers in English to the teachers’ questions at
2.20 Weighted Mean and Rarely Verbal Interpretation. Average
Weighted
Mean is 2.82 with an Occasionally Verbal Interpretation. Rank 1 and 2, I don’t
feel shy speaking English to my classmates and I don’t feel shy speaking
English to my teacher got an occasionally rates. While I don’t feel shy
expressing my answers in English to the teachers’ questions got a low rarely
rating which clearly show respondents’ confidence level in expressing their
answer is not fully develop yet.
TABLE VIII
3. What is the mean level of Confidence of the
respondents?
Verbal
WM
Interpretation Rank
3.3. Language Potential Confidence
a. I think that I will get a high score in my
English class
3.05
Occasionally
2
3.12
Occasionally
1
3.01
Occasionally
3
3.06
Occasionally
b. I think that I will speak perfect English
someday
c. I know that I can manage speaking English
publicly
Average WM
TABLE VIII shows the mean level of Confidence for the respondents
as to Language Potential Confidence. Rank 1, I think that I will speak perfect
English someday got 3.12 Weighted Mean and Occasionally as Verbal
Interpretation. Rank 2, I think that I will get a high score in my English class
with a Weighted Mean of 3.05 and Verbal Interpretation of Occasionally. Rank
3, I know that I can manage speaking English publicly for a 3.01 Weighted
Men and Verbal Interpretation of Occasionally.
Average Weighted Mean of 3.06 for an Occasionally Verbal
Interpretation. Researcher notice that respondents possess great confidence
that they will be able to develop their language potential of speaking fluent
and perfect English as a result they will get high score in English class and
eventually they can manage speaking in public.
TABLE IX
3. What is the mean level of Confidence of
the respondents?
Verbal
WM
Interpretation Rank
3.4. Language Ability Confidence
a. I can learn to speak English fluently
4.19
Usually
1
3.17
Occasionally
2
3.00
Occasionally
3
3.45
Usually
b. I speak English effortlessly in front of other
people
c. I am a good English speaker now
Average WM
TABLE IX reveals the mean level of Confidence for the respondents as
to Language Ability Confidence. Rank 1st, I can learn to speak English fluently
for a 4.19 Weighted Mean and Usually Verbal Interpretation. Rank 2nd, I speak
English effortlessly in front of other people with a Weighted Mean of 3.17 and
Verbal Interpretation of Occasionally. And Ran 3rd, I am a good English
speaker now.
Average Weighted Mean is 3.45 with Verbal Interpretation of Usually.
Researcher observed that the Language Ability Confidence of the
respondents were quite high. Subsequently, they harness their ability to speak
English fluently. As a result they can speak in front of other people without
any effort and presently is considered as a good English speaker.
TABLE X
4. What is the mean level of Assertiveness of
the respondents?
Verbal
WM
Interpretation Rank
4.1. Directness
a. I am open and frank about my feelings
5.75
b. I am quick to express an opinion
5.48
Extremely
Descriptive
Extremely
1
2
Descriptive
c. I often talk nonchantly and seek attention
from others.
Slightly
3.60
Descriptive
3
Quite
Average WM
4.94
Descriptive
TABLE X indicates the mean level of Assertiveness for the
respondents as to Directness. Rank 1, I am open and frank about my feelings
got a high 5.75 Weighted Mean for an Extremely Descriptive Verbal
Interpretation. Rank 2, I am quick to express an opinion with a Weighted
Mean of 5.48 and Verbal Interpretation of Extremely Descriptive. Rank 3, I
often talk nonchantly and seek attention from others for a 3.60 Weighted
Mean and Slightly Descriptive Verbal Interpretation.
Average Weighted Mean 4.94 for Quite Descriptive. Respondents’
choice show their assertiveness directly by being open, frank about their
feelings and quick to express an opinion for an Extremely Descriptive rates
Rank and 1. While
Rank third was only slightly descriptive of respondents.
TABLE XI
4. What is the mean level of Assertiveness of
the respondents?
Verbal
WM
Interpretation Rank
4.2. Social Assertiveness
a. When the food served at a restaurant is
not done to my satisfaction, I complain
about it to the waiter/waitress
Quite
4.48
b. I enjoy starting conversations with new
acquaintance and strangers
Descriptive
Extremely
5.26
Descriptive
c. I can easily mingle with different kinds of
people without fear of being denied
3
2
Quite
4.93
Descriptive
1
Quite
Average WM
4.89
Descriptive
TABLE XI shows the mean level of Assertiveness for the respondents
as to Social assertiveness. Rank 1st, I can easily mingle with different kinds of
people without fear of being denied at a high Weighted Mean of 4.93 for a
Quite
Descriptive
Verbal
Interpretation.
Rank
2nd,
I
enjoy
starting
conversations with new acquaintance and strangers got a higher Weighted
Mean of 5.26 at an Extremely Descriptive Verbal Interpretation. Rank 3 rd,
when the food served at a restaurant is not done to my satisfaction; I complain
about it to the waiter/waitress with 4.48 Weighted Man and Verbal
Interpretation of Quite Descriptive. Average Weighted Mean is 4.90 for Quite
Descriptive Verbal Interpretation. Researcher noticed that respondents
chosen answers were quite descriptive or themselves, revealing their own
characteristics.
TABLE XII
4. What is the mean level of Assertiveness of
the respondents?
WM
Verbal
Interpretation Rank
4.3. Defence of One's Interests
a. If someone has been spreading false and
bad stories about me, I see him/her as
soon as possible to have a talk about it
Extremely
5.18
Descriptive
1
b. If a couple near me in a theatre or at a
lecture
were conversing rather loudly, I
would ask them to take their conversation
elsewhere
Extremely
5.04
Descriptive
2
c. If a famed and respected lecturer makes a
statement which I think is incorrect, I will
have the audience hear my point of view
Quite
4.81
Descriptive
3
Extremely
Average WM
5.01
Descriptive
TABLE XII reveals the mean level of Assertiveness of the respondents
as to Defence of One's Interests. Rank 1, if someone has been spreading
false and bad stories about me, I see him/her as soon as possible to have a
talk about it got a high Weighted Mean of 5.18 for an Extremely Descriptive
Verbal Interpretation. Rank 2, if a couple near me in the theatre or at a lecture
were conversing rather loudly, I would ask them to take their conversation
elsewhere with a Weighted Mean of 5.04 and Verbal Interpretation of
Extremely Descriptive. Rank 3, if a famed and respected lecturer makes a
statement which I think is incorrect; I will have the audience hear my point of
view for a 4.81 Weighted Mean and Quite Descriptive Verbal Interpretation.
Average
Weighted
Mean
is
5/0a
for
extremely
descriptive
Verbal
Interpretation. Respondents’ choices were a reflection of their assertiveness
to stand in defense of their own interest so no one can trample their rights.
TABLE XIII
4. What is the mean level of Assertiveness of
the respondents?
4.4. Independence
a. There are times when I looked for a good
and vigorous argument
b. I strive to get ahead as well as most
people in my position
c. To be honest some people takes
advantage of me
Average WM
WM
5.01
5.39
4.25
4.88
Verbal
Interpretation Rank
Extremely
Descriptive
Extremely
Descriptive
Quite
Descriptive
Quite
3
1
2
Descriptive
TABLE XIII indicates the mean level of Assertiveness of the
respondents as to Independence. Rank 1st, I strive to get ahead as well as most
people in my position for a 5.39 Weighted Mean and Verbal Interpretation of
Extremely Descriptive. Rank 2nd, to be honest some people takes advantage
of me got a Weighted Mean of 4.25 and Quite Descriptive Verbal
Interpretation. Rank 3rd, there are times when I looked for a good and
vigorous argument with a 5.01 Weighted Mean and Extremely Descriptive
Verbal Interpretation. Average Weighted Mean of 4.88 for a Quite Descriptive
Verbal Interpretation. The researcher noticed that the top choice of the
respondents best reflect their independence in whatever they want by striving
to get ahead in fair competition with anybody in the position they best suited
for. There are times that some people take advantage of our respondents but
they still show their assertiveness by being honest. Being assertive is not
aggressiveness in times one engage in a good and vigorous argument about
some valid issues that one needs to stand up to express their own opinion to
be heard.
TABLE XIV
5. Is there a significant relationship between the following?
5.1 English Verbal Fluency Rate and Confidence Level
Variables
Correlation
Coefficient
English Verbal Fluency
Rate
and
Confidence
Level
Effect of Correlation
A significant relationship
.9768621
exist
between
English
Verbal Fluency Rate and
Confidence Level
TABLE XIV shows that a significant relationship exists between
English Verbal Fluency Rate and Confidence Level which is clearly
manifested in the high correlation coefficient of .9768621. Respondents
became good English speaking students not only in their respective
classroom but also in the way they communicate with their teachers and
fellow students. The ability to be verbally fluent in English is bolstered by a
high confidence level.
The researcher take notice that students that posses confidence in the
way they express themselves don’t hesitate to express themselves either in
the way they participate in the classroom and by being a good speaker in front
of their classmates in giving presentations and became fluent in English.
TABLE XV
5.2 English Verbal Fluency Rate and Assertiveness Level
Variables
Correlation
Coefficient
Effect of Correlation
English Verbal Fluency
A significant relationship
Rate and Assertiveness
exist
Level
.4761936
between
English
Verbal Fluency Rate and
Assertiveness Level
TABLE XV indicates that a significant relationship exist between
English Verbal Fluency Rate and Assertiveness with a correlation coefficient
of .4761936. A good sign of assertiveness is when the students were open
and frank about their feelings and were quick to express their opinions on
issues both local, national and foreign that will greatly affect their current lives
and for future generations to come. Respondents’ that start conversations
with new acquaintance and strangers as well as striving to get ahead as well
as most people in what they want in life are quite assertive enough.
However, the researcher observed that respondents’ level of
assertiveness was not yet fully developed yet as compared to the
confidence level. There were instances some people takes advantage of
them and they don’t stand for their rights.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARYOF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section discuss the summary of findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the researchers to the study made
Summary of Findings
TABLE I shows that as to the Socio Economic Status of respondents,
majority came from the P1000-5,000 bracket, more of a low income group.
This is not a surprise since students of public schools especially in Liliw
Laguna comes mostly from families engage in agriculture and other industries
as compared to students in cities where parents are engage in business,
working in multi-national companies with high paying jobs.
TABLE II reveals that as to the Dialects spoken at home, respondents
overwhelming choice is our National Language Filipino which is rightly so for a
high 98% at 198 respondents. So being the primary language used at home
and even in school greatly affect the English verbal fluency of the students.
TABLE III indicates that the choice of Reading materials preferred by
the respondents greatly affect their English verbal fluency since pocket books
were usually in Filipino dialects. Seldom can you see students reading English
novels, especially Literature and Science books since they considered them
boring.
But the practice of reading books must be develop to increase the
students vocabulary, expand their grammar and most of all increase their
knowledge which proved quite a hindrance to their being not fluent in the
English Language.
TABLE IV shows that the respondents selected Internet as their
preferred Media due to its many uses. One can research for their class
assignments and home works. Connect and communicate with their relatives,
friends and acquaintance thru facebook and Twitter. Play games. Another
favorite Media nowadays are cellphone which considered a gadget necessary
to keep up with the fast lifestyle. Researcher noted that Media can help the
respondents improve their English verbal fluency by always communicating in
the said language.
TABLE V indicates that respondents choose for the mean level of
English verbal fluency rate as to Speaking skills, their ability to engage both in
formal and informal conversation in English. Students speaking skills were
being honed by their teachers in giving advices to effectively communicate in
English.
.
TABLE VI reveals that as to the mean level of Confidence for the
respondents as to Situational Confidence, respondents have chosen I am a
good English speaking student for their confidence in speaking English.
However, they gave a very High Agree rating to my teacher wants me to
participate in my English class since their teachers were prodding them to
always perform better in their class discussion. Not only will they be able to
develop their confidence to speak and be part of the group.
TABLE VII indicates that the confidence mean level of the respondents
as to Communication Confidence were quite high since they don’t felt shy
speaking English to their classmates. Noteworthy to mention was the
confidence level of these students in expressing their answer in English to
teachers’ question were not fully develop yet since they rarely speak in class.
TABLE VIII shows the respondents Confidence mean level as to
Language Potential Confidence as already in existence since they were able
to develop their language potential of speaking fluent and perfect English as a
result they will get high score in English class and
eventually they can
manage speaking in public. All they needed is the teachers’ approval by
giving them high grades in their English subject.
TABLE IX reveals that the respondents Confidence mean level as to
Language Ability Confidence was also high since they usually learn to speak
English fluently and considered themselves as a fluent speaker at present.
TABLE X indicates the respondents Assertiveness mean level for
Directness were extremely high and can be observed. One of the students’
natural characteristic is their being open and frank about their feelings.
Respondents’ show their assertiveness directly by being open, frank about
their feelings and quick to express an opinion for what they thing is right and
must be done in certain circumstances. However they don’t talk incessantly
without sense just to get attention from others.
TABLE XI shows the respondents Assertiveness mean level as to
Social assertiveness was already quite high and developed as they can easily
mingle with different kinds of people without fear of being denied. Researcher
noticed that respondents chosen answers were quite descriptive or
themselves, revealing their own characteristics.
TABLE XII reveals the respondents Assertiveness mean level as to
Defence of One's Interests were already extremely high as they are capable
of defending their reputation if someone has been spreading false and bad
stories about them, whereby besmirching their name. They are also able to
see the person concern and have a talk with him/her about the malicious lie
being spread around and be able to correct them. Respondents’ choices were
a reflection of their assertiveness to stand in defence of their own interest so
no one can trample their rights.
TABLE XIII indicates the respondents Assertiveness mean level as to
Independence, were already in practice in their daily dealing with their
classmates by striving to get ahead as well as most people in any position
they chose in fair competition with anybody in the area of interest they are
best suited for. However the researcher notice that there are times that they
allow some people to take advantage of them but they still show their
assertiveness by being honest. Being assertive is not aggressiveness in times
one engage in a good and vigorous argument about some valid issues that
one needs to stand up to express their own opinion to be heard.
TABLE XIV shows that a significant relationship exists between
English Verbal Fluency Rate and Confidence Level which is clearly
manifested in the high correlation coefficient of .9768621. Respondents
became good English speaking students not only in their respective
classroom but also in the way they communicate with their teachers and
fellow students due to their high Confidence Level.
The researcher take notice that students that posses confidence in the
way they express themselves don’t hesitate to express themselves either in
the way they participate in the classroom and by being a good speaker in front
of their classmates in giving presentations and became fluent in English.
TABLE XV indicates that a significant relationship exist between
English Verbal Fluency Rate and Assertiveness with a correlation coefficient
of .4761936. A good sign of assertiveness is when the students were open
and frank about their feelings and were quick to express their opinions on
issues both local, national and foreign that will greatly affect their current lives
and for future generations to come. Respondents’ that start conversations
with new acquaintance and strangers as well as striving to get ahead as well
as most people in what they want in life are quite assertive enough.
However, the researcher observed that respondents’ level of
assertiveness was not yet fully developed yet as compared to the
confidence level. There were instances some people takes advantage of
them and they don’t stand for their rights.
Conclusion
Respondents Situational Confidence; were already developed due to
their teachers’ prodding them to participate in their English class to perform
better in their class discussion.
As to Communication Confidence were quite high since they don’t felt
shy speaking English to their classmates. Noteworthy to mention was the
confidence level of these students in expressing their answer in English to
teachers’ question were not fully develop yet since they rarely speak in class.
Meanwhile, respondents Language Potential Confidence was already
in existence since they were
able to develop their language potential of
speaking fluent and perfect English as a result they will get high score in
English class and eventually they can manage speaking in public. All they
needed is the teachers’ approval by giving them high grades in their English
subject.
As to Language Ability Confidence was also high since they usually
learn to speak English fluently and considered themselves as a fluent speaker
at present. While Direct Assertiveness which is one of the students’ natural
characteristic is their being open and frank about their feelings. Respondents’
show their assertiveness directly by being open, frank about their feelings and
quick to express an opinion for what they thing is right and must be done in
certain circumstances. However they don’t talk incessantly without sense just
to get attention from others.
Recommendation
From the results of this study it is evident that the verbal fluency of a
student is most of the time affected by grammar. If they don’t have proper
knowledge of grammar rules and their automatic application in verbal
speech, they won’t be able to speak fluently. After grammar, the second
factor which affects the verbal fluency is lack of vocabulary. While speaking
whenever students get short of appropriate words; supposed to be used in
relation with particular context, they start feeling hesitation or start repeating
words and lines which they had uttered before. This thought is proved with
evidence in correlation study where word repetition has a strong relationship
with vocabulary mistakes.
As the results of this research study have shown that oral proficiency
does affect oral fluency. It is important that language instructors should
recognize that
the limited
knowledge of
grammar, vocabulary and
pronunciation of a native language are creating problems for second
language learners. After acknowledging the presence of such problems they
should assist the second language learners in this regard and should change
their teaching strategy according to the requirement of the student’s
problems. There should be some specific teacher training courses related to
the ways of enhancing student’s oral fluency in order to make teachers aware
of this complex issue and hence, mitigate it. It is also recommended that
teachers should confront student’s erroneous and irrational beliefs by
cultivating in them “reasonable commitments for successful language
learning.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Andrews, James R.; C. 2006; Public Speaking: Principles into Practice;
Macmillan Publishing Company, New York
Alberti, R. E., & Emmons, M.L.; 2008; Your Perfect Right: A Guide to
Assertive Living (9thed.). Atascadero, CA: Impact Publishers, Inc.
Alvero, Lara S.; c. 2008; Development and Validation of Self-Confidence
scale For College Students
Chomssky, Noam; c. 2005; “Linguistic Theory”, New Horizon in Linguistics
Condace, Mattews; c. 2004; Speaking Solution: Interaction, Presentation,
Listening and Presentation Skills, New Jersey; Prentice Hall Regents
Deep, Sam and Lyle Sussman; c2004; Smart Moves; National Bookstore Inc
Addison-Wesl Publishing Company Inc
Dell, Hymes; c. 2005; Direction in Socio Linguistics
Gabito, Jr.; c. 2005; Public Speaking; 2nd Edition Manila Philippines: National
Bookstore
Hakoyawa, S.L; c. 2006; How World Change and Lives in Richard Thruben
John Kobler (ed); Adventure of the Mind, First Series; New York
Hibbs, Paul, et al.; c.2008; Speech for Today (St. Louise, New York, San
Francisco, Dallas: Webster Division McGraw Company
Hideo, Horiuchi; c. 2006; The Effect of Education Media Retention in the NIW
Media for Instruction, No. 3 (New York: American Book Co.
Hyms, Dell; c. 2006; Direction in Socio – Linguistic; 2nd Edition (USA:
McMillan
Publishing Co.,)
Littlewood, William; c. 2009; Communicative Competence; (USA McMillan
Publishing Co
Ocampo, Doris; c. 2007; The Assertiveness and Argumentativeness of Public
Elementary Teachers Relationship to Their Well-Being
UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS
Chang Ching Wu; c. 2006; “Reading Comprehension Difficulties in English of
the Grade V Pupils of Lanao Chung Hua School, Iligan City, SY 20052006 (Unpublished Master’s Thesis, MSU, Iligan Institute of
Technology)
De la Cruz, Julia; c. 2006; Factors Related to the Performance in
Communication Arts (English) of the First Year Students at Capiz
National High School, (Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Colegio de la
Purisima)
Gabito, Maria Isabel P.; c. 2007; Communicative Competence of College
Freshmen Students of D.B Pens Memorial College Foundation,
(Unpublished Master’s Thesis)
Salazar, Elaine; c. 2006; The Teaching language Strategy for Freshmen
Students of Bicol University College of Education, (Unpublished
Master’s Thesis Bicol University)
Suha, Alijundi; c. 2005; Measuring Grammatical Competence and Discourse
Competence of Fifty Students of UST, Unpublished Master’s Thesis
UST)
JOURNALS/MAGAZINES
Isabel Tablante and Celeste Buto; c. 2007; “Learning Styles of Selected
Filipino Children;”NSDB Assisted UP’s Integrative Research Project
No. 7610
Ritchie, S.; c. 2006; National Center for Early Development and Learning
NCEDL
Knitzer, Jane, Klein, Liza G.; c. 2007; Promoting Early Learning; What Every
Policymaker and Educator Should Know; National Center for
Children in Poverty; Columbia University; Mailman School of Public
Health.
INTERNETS AND WEBSITES
http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/forum-topic/are-women-better-menLearning-languages
http://hstrialchristinavoss70172.homestead.com/Similarities_and_differences_
male_female_learners.pdf
http://theindividualist.hubpages.com/hub/socio-economicfactorsofearlyliteracy
http://www.ef.com/about-ef/press/release/women-better-at-english-than-menstudy/
LITERATURES
Birdsong, D.; c. 2006; Age and L2A: An Overview
De Villa, C. c. 2010; Beginning Filipino students’ attributions about oral
communication anxiety
Malik, N. c. 2012; English as a Second Language in Relation with Verbal
Fluency
Michel, F.; c. 2008; Assert Yourself. Perth, Western Australia: Centre for
Clinical Interventions.
Hasbrouck, J.; c. 2006; Understanding and Assessing Fluency: Reading
Rockets
Hasbrouck, J. and Tindal, G.; c. 2006; Screening, Diagnosing, and Progress
Monitoring for Fluency: The Details
Carmen Muñoz, C.; c. 2010; On how age affects foreign language learning*
Osborn, J., & Lehr, F.; c.2003; A focus on fluency; Pacific Resources for
Education and Learning
Outthere, J.; c. 2010; Fear of speaking English, can it be helped? British
Council
Rasinski, T.; c. 2011; Assessing Reading Fluency; Pacific Resources for
Education and Learning, Honolulu, Hawai‘i
Rasinski, T. V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building
word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York: Scholastic.
STUDIES
Denton, C. et. al.; c. 2011; the Relations among Oral and Silent Reading
Fluency and Comprehension in Middle School: Implications for
Identification and Instruction of Students with Reading Difficulties
Yovanoff, P. et. al.; c. 2005; Grade-level invariance of a theoretical causal
structure predicting reading comprehension with vocabulary and oral
reading fluency; Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice
APPENDIX “A”
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES
I.
PERSONAL DATA
Age: _________________
Gender: _______________
Please check each item that best represents your chosen answer.
1. Monthly income of the family
____ P 1, 000 – 5, 000
____ P 5, 000 – 10, 000
____ P 10, 000 – 15,000
____ P 15,000 – 20, 000
2. Dialects spoken at home
___English
___ Filipino
___ Others (pls. specify)
3. Reading materials do you prefer
______ Science Books
_____ Filipino Books
______ Pocket Books
_____ History Books
______ Literature
_____ Newspaper/Magazines
Others (pls. specify if any) _____________________________
4. Media do you prefer
____ Internet (facebook, twitter, wattpad,)
____ Radio
____ Newspaper/magazine
____ TV
____ Cellphone
II.
QUESTIONNAIRE PROPER (For Problem Questions 2 to 4)
Use the 5-Points Likert Scale in Your selected Answers in Questions 2 to 3
For Problem Question 2:
Rank
Rated scale
Verbal interpretations
5
4.21- 5.00
Always SA)
4
4.20- 3.21
Usually (U)
3
3.20- 2.21
Occasionally (O)
2
2.20- 1.21
Rarely (R)
1
1.20- 0.00
Never (N)
Direction: Please circle a number to indicate your chosen answer
A
U
O
R
N
5
4
3
2
1
a. I can have an informal conversation in English
5
4
3
2
1
b. I can have a formal conversation in English
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
e. I can explain my idea clearly in English
5
4
3
2
1
f. My teacher understands my pronunciation
5
4
3
2
1
g. I find it easy to express myself in English
5
4
3
2
1
h. I can ask questions in English in the classroom
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
Rank
2. What is the mean level of English Verbal Fluency
Rate of the respondents?
2.1 Speaking Skills
c. I can perform academic presentation in English in the
classroom
d. I have an adequate English vocabulary for effective
speaking
i. I feel comfortable talking in English with my teacher in
the classroom
j. I never have a speaking problem
Direction: Please circle a number to indicate your chosen answer
A
U
O
R
N
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
b. I can understand classroom lectures in English
5
4
3
2
1
c. I participate class discussions in English
5
4
3
2
1
d. I participate group discussions in English
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
g. I understand the tone of voice of an English speaker
5
4
3
2
1
h. I can understand classroom lectures in English
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
Rank
2. What is the mean level of English Verbal Fluency
Rate of the respondents?
2.2 Listening Skills
a. I can understand an English speaker talking at normal
speed
e. I feel comfortable in listening to an English speaker
instructor in the classroom
f. I can understand the main idea of the English speaker
instructor
i. I can understand comments given by native English
speakers
j. I never have a listening problem
Direction: Please circle a number to indicate your chosen answer
A
U
O
R
N
5
4
3
2
1
a. I can write an academic paper in English
5
4
3
2
1
b. I can write reports and class assignments in English
5
4
3
2
1
c. I can paraphrase English passages
5
4
3
2
1
d. I can use correct grammar in writing any papers
5
4
3
2
1
e. I can choose appropriate vocabulary to write my paper
5
4
3
2
1
f. I have an adequate English vocabulary for writing
5
4
3
2
1
g. I can write a report within limited time
5
4
3
2
1
h. I never have a writing problem
5
4
3
2
1
Rank
2. What is the mean level of English Verbal Fluency
Rate of the respondents?
2.3 Writing Skills
Direction: Please circle a number to indicate your chosen answer
A
U
O
R
N
5
4
3
2
1
a. I can read an academic textbooks in English
5
4
3
2
1
b. I can read a magazine in English
5
4
3
2
1
c. I can guess the meaning of new vocabulary
5
4
3
2
1
d. I can understand English idioms
5
4
3
2
1
e. I can explain the main idea and summary of what I read 5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
Rank
2. What is the mean level of English Verbal Fluency
Rate of the respondents?
2.4 Reading Skills
f. I never have a reading problem
For Problem Question 3:
Rank
Rated scale
Verbal interpretations
5
4.21- 5.00
Always SA)
4
4.20- 3.21
Usually (U)
3
3.20- 2.21
Occasionally (O)
2
2.20- 1.21
Rarely (R)
1
1.20- 0.00
Never (N)
Direction: Please check each item that best represents your chosen
answer
Rank
3. What is the mean level of Confidence of the
respondents?
3.1 Situational Confidence
a. I am a good English student
b. I am a good member of my English class
c. My teacher wants me to participate in my English
class
3.2 Communication Confidence
a. I don’t felt shy speaking English to my classmates
b. I don’t felt shy speaking English to my teacher
c. I don’t felt shy expressing in English my answers to
the teachers questions
3.3 Language Potential Confidence
c. I think that I will get a high score in my English class
d. I think that I will speak perfect English someday
3.4 Language Ability Confidence
e. I can learn to speak English fluently
f. I am a good English speaker now
A
U
O
R
N
5
4
3
2
1
For Problem Question 4 will be using the 6-Points Likert Scale since the
Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS) has no assigned rated scale value so
we will not be able to compute the mean level of Assertiveness of the
respondents. But we will still be using their Verbal interpretations.
Rank
Rated scale
Verbal interpretations
6
5.21- 6.00
Extremely Descriptive (ED)
5
5.20- 4.21
Quite Descriptive (QD)
4
4.20- 3.21
Slightly Descriptive (SD)
3
3.20- 2.21
Quite Nondescriptive (QN)
2
2.20- 1.21
slightly nondescriptive (SN)
1
1.20- 0
ExtremelyNonDescriptive (END)
Direction: Please check your chosen answers to the questions
Rank
4. What
is
the
mean
level
ED
6
QD
5
SD
4
QN
3
SN
2
END
1
ED
6
QD
5
SD
4
QN
3
SN
2
END
1
of
Assertiveness of the respondents?
4.1 Directness
a. I am open and frank about my feelings
b. I am quick to express an opinion
c. I
often
talk
nonchantly
and
seek
attention from others.
Rank
4. What
is
the
mean
level
of
Assertiveness of the respondents?
4.2 Social Assertiveness
a. When the food served at a restaurant is
not done to my satisfaction, I complain
about it to the waiter/waitress
b. I enjoy starting conversations with new
acquaintance and strangers
c. I can easily mingle with different kinds of
people without fear of being denied
Direction: Please check your chosen answers to the questions
Rank
4.
What
is
the
mean
level
ED
6
QD
5
SD
4
QN
3
SN
2
END
1
ED
6
QD
5
SD
4
QN
3
SN
2
END
1
of
Assertiveness of the respondents?
4.3 Defense of One's Interests
a. If someone has been spreading false and
bad stories about me, I see him/her as
soon as possible to have a talk about it.
b. Anyone attempting to push ahead of me
in a line is in for a good battle
b. If a famed and respected lecturer makes
a statement which I think is incorrect, I
will have the audience hear my point of
view
Rank
4.
What
is
the
mean
level
of
Assertiveness of the respondents?
4.4 Independence
a. There are times when I looked for a good
and vigorous argument.
b. I strive to get
ahead as well as most
people in my position
c. To
be
honest
advantage of me
some
people
takes
APPENDIX B
2. What is the mean level of English Verbal Fluency Rate of the
respondents? Speaking Skills - I can have both formal and informal
conversation in English
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
4.06
3.18
2.99
1.20
2.42
2.78
4.01
3.06
2.40
4.30
3.01
4.18
2.77
4.16
2.64
2.50
4.03
3.20
2.76
3.84
2.98
4.21
2.75
3.79
2.63
2.55
4.15
3.97
3.10
3.81
2.74
3.48
4.34
2.96
3.97
X = Ex
N
= 640.59
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
3.93
2.95
4.12
3.73
3.86
2.72
3.45
4.27
3.16
4.11
2.94
4.09
3.71
3.78
2.54
2.68
4.36
2.93
3.19
3.96
4.00
2.67
4.19
2.92
3.75
3.11
3.70
4.22
2.69
4.53
3.89
2.66
4.02
2.65
4.08
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
2.20
3.00
4.28
3.12
3.77
4.49
2.62
4.18
2.91
3.83
3.09
2.14
2.61
1.20
2.58
3.92
2.60
4.05
2.59
4.25
2.58
4.16
2.57
3.04
4.11
2.47
4.09
2.46
4.02
2.45
2.90
4.33
2.80
3.87
4.17
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 3.20295 or 3.20
VI= Occasionally
Rated
Scale
3.99
2.56
4.01
2.55
4.17
2.44
4.15
3.05
2.51
1.20
2.43
4.07
2.53
3.88
2.89
3.17
4.23
2.42
2.10
2.52
3.85
2.47
2.32
4.29
3.08
2.88
3.91
2.03
2.48
4.20
2.41
3.76
2.87
2.39
4.10
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
2.86
4.05
2.41
2.22
4.31
2.27
3.00
2.50
3.95
2.37
2.08
2.54
4.37
2.40
2.13
2.36
4.14
2.33
2.44
4.07
2.81
3.14
3.90
2.79
2.51
1.20
2.49
3.03
4.80
2.52
4.26
2.38
2.46
2.31
4.00
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
2.12
4.35
2.43
2.37
3.98
2.82
3.07
4.38
2.26
2.19
2.35
4.13
2.83
3.15
4.04
2.32
2.06
2.84
4.24
2.16
3.02
3.94
2.85
4.32
3.13
N
200
2. What is the mean level of English Verbal Fluency Rate of the
respondents? Speaking Skills - I can perform academic presentation in English
in the classroom
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
4.39
4.18
3.99
4.20
4.42
3.78
4.01
4.60
3.40
4.30
4.01
4.18
3.77
4.16
3.64
4.50
4.03
4.20
4.76
3.84
3.98
4.21
3.75
3.79
4.63
3.55
4.15
3.97
4.10
3.81
3.74
3.48
4.34
3.96
4.02
X = Ex
N
= 830.95
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
4.66
3.95
4.12
3.73
3.86
3.72
4.45
4.27
4.16
4.11
3.94
4.09
3.71
3.78
4.54
3.68
4.36
3.93
4.19
3.96
4.00
3.67
4.19
3.92
3.75
4.11
3.70
4.22
3.69
4.53
3.89
3.66
4.02
3.65
4.38
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
4.51
4.45
4.28
4.12
3.77
4.49
3.62
4.18
3.91
3.83
4.09
4.14
3.61
4.20
3.58
3.92
4.60
4.05
4.59
4.25
4.58
4.16
4.57
4.04
4.11
4.47
4.09
4.46
4.02
4.45
3.90
4.33
3.80
3.87
4.67
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 4.15475 or 4.15
VI= Usually
Rated
Scale
3.99
4.56
4.01
4.55
4.17
4.44
4.15
4.05
4.51
4.69
4.43
4.07
4.53
3.88
3.89
4.17
4.23
4.42
4.10
4.52
3.85
4.47
4.32
4.29
4.08
3.88
3.91
4.03
4.48
4.20
4.41
3.76
2.87
2.39
4.14
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
3.86
4.05
4.41
4.22
4.31
4.27
4.85
4.50
3.95
4.37
4.08
4.54
4.37
4.40
4.13
4.36
4.14
4.33
4.44
4.07
4.81
4.14
3.90
4.79
4.51
4.75
4.49
4.03
4.80
4.52
4.26
4.38
4.46
4.31
4.57
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
4.12
4.35
4.43
4.37
3.98
3.82
4.07
4.38
4.26
4.68
4.35
4.13
3.83
4.15
4.04
4.32
4.75
3.84
4.24
4.61
4.02
3.94
4.58
4.32
4.13
N
200
2. What is the mean level of English Verbal Fluency Rate of the
respondents? Speaking Skills- I have an adequate English vocabulary for
effective speaking
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
3.36
3.18
2.99
1.20
2.42
2.78
4.01
3.06
2.40
2.30
3.01
4.18
2.77
4.16
2.64
2.50
4.03
3.20
2.76
3.84
2.98
4.21
2.75
3.79
2.63
2.55
4.15
3.97
3.10
3.81
2.74
3.48
2.34
2.96
2.79
X = Ex
N
= 618.78
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
61
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
2.93
2.95
4.12
3.73
3.86
2.72
3.45
3.27
3.16
4.11
2.94
4.09
3.71
3.78
2.54
2.68
2.36
2.93
3.19
3.96
4.00
2.67
4.19
2.92
3.75
3.11
3.70
4.22
2.69
4.53
3.89
2.66
4.02
2.65
2.38
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
2.20
3.00
4.28
3.12
3.77
2.49
2.62
4.18
2.91
3.83
3.09
2.14
2.61
1.20
2.58
3.92
2.60
4.05
2.59
4.25
2.58
4.16
2.57
3.04
4.11
2.47
4.09
2.46
4.02
2.45
2.90
4.33
2.80
3.84
2.71
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 3.0939 or 3.09
VI= Occasionally
Rated
Scale
2.69
2.56
4.01
2.55
4.17
2.44
4.15
3.05
2.51
1.20
2.43
4.07
2.53
3.88
2.89
3.17
4.23
2.42
2.10
2.52
3.85
2.47
2.32
4.29
3.08
2.88
3.91
2.03
2.48
4.20
2.41
3.76
2.87
2.39
2.51
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
2.86
4.05
2.41
2.22
4.31
2.27
3.00
2.50
3.95
2.37
2.08
2.54
2.37
2.40
2.13
2.36
4.14
2.33
2.44
4.07
2.81
3.14
3.90
2.79
2.51
1.20
2.49
3.03
2.80
2.52
2.26
2.38
2.46
2.31
2.19
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
2.12
4.35
2.43
2.37
3.98
2.82
3.07
4.38
2.26
2.19
2.35
4.13
2.83
3.15
4.04
2.32
2.06
2.84
4.24
2.16
3.02
3.94
2.85
4.32
3.13
N
200
3. What is the mean level of Confidence of the respondents?
3.1. Situational Confidence - I am a good English speaking student
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
4.26
3.18
2.99
1.20
2.42
2.78
4.01
3.06
2.40
4.30
3.01
4.18
2.77
4.16
2.64
2.50
4.03
3.20
2.76
3.84
2.98
4.21
2.75
3.79
2.63
2.55
4.15
3.97
3.10
3.81
2.74
3.48
4.34
2.96
2.97
X = Ex
N
= 638.53
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
2.93
2.95
4.12
3.73
3.86
2.72
3.45
4.27
3.16
4.11
2.94
4.09
3.71
3.78
2.54
2.68
4.36
2.93
3.19
3.96
4.00
2.67
4.19
2.92
3.75
3.11
3.70
4.22
2.69
4.53
3.89
2.66
4.02
2.65
3.88
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
2.20
3.00
4.28
3.12
3.77
4.49
2.62
4.18
2.91
3.83
3.09
2.14
2.61
1.20
2.58
3.92
2.60
4.05
2.59
4.25
2.58
4.16
2.57
3.04
4.11
2.47
4.09
2.46
4.02
2.45
2.90
4.33
2.80
3.87
4.17
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 3.19265 or 3.19
VI= Occasionally
Rated
Scale
3.93
2.56
4.01
2.55
4.17
2.44
4.15
3.05
2.51
1.20
2.43
4.07
2.53
3.88
2.89
3.17
4.23
2.42
2.10
2.52
3.85
2.47
2.32
4.29
3.08
2.88
3.91
2.03
2.48
4.20
2.41
3.76
2.87
2.39
4.10
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
2.86
4.05
2.41
2.22
4.31
2.27
3.00
2.50
3.95
2.37
2.08
2.54
4.37
2.40
2.13
2.36
4.14
2.33
2.44
4.07
2.81
3.14
3.90
2.79
2.51
1.20
2.49
3.03
4.80
2.52
4.26
2.38
2.46
2.31
4.00
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
2.12
4.35
2.43
2.37
3.98
2.82
3.07
4.38
2.26
2.19
2.35
4.13
2.83
3.15
4.04
2.32
2.06
2.84
4.24
2.16
3.02
3.94
2.85
4.32
3.13
N
200
3. What is the mean level of Confidence of the respondents?
3.1. Situational Confidence - I am a good member of my English class
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
3.26
3.18
2.99
1.20
2.42
2.78
4.01
3.06
2.40
4.30
3.01
4.18
2.77
4.16
2.64
2.50
4.03
3.20
2.76
3.84
2.98
4.21
2.75
3.79
2.63
2.55
4.15
3.97
3.10
3.81
2.74
3.48
4.34
2.96
2.70
X = Ex
N
= 632.44
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
2.37
2.95
4.12
3.73
3.86
2.72
3.45
4.27
3.16
4.11
2.94
4.09
3.71
3.78
2.54
2.68
4.36
2.93
3.19
3.96
4.00
2.67
4.19
2.92
3.75
3.11
3.70
4.22
2.69
4.53
3.89
2.66
4.02
2.65
3.28
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
3.20
3.00
4.28
3.12
3.77
4.49
2.62
4.18
2.91
3.83
3.09
2.14
2.61
1.20
2.58
3.92
2.60
4.05
2.59
4.25
2.58
4.16
2.57
3.04
4.11
2.47
4.09
2.46
4.02
2.45
2.90
4.33
2.80
3.87
2.24
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 3.1622 or 3.16
VI= Occasionally
Rated
Scale
3.99
2.56
4.01
2.55
4.17
2.44
4.15
3.05
2.51
1.20
2.43
4.07
2.53
3.88
2.89
3.17
4.23
2.42
2.10
2.52
3.85
2.47
2.32
4.29
3.08
2.88
3.91
2.03
2.48
4.20
2.41
3.76
2.87
2.39
2.10
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
2.82
4.05
2.41
2.22
4.31
2.27
3.00
2.50
3.95
2.37
2.08
2.54
4.37
2.40
2.13
2.36
4.14
2.33
2.44
4.07
2.81
3.14
3.90
2.79
2.51
1.20
2.49
3.03
4.80
2.52
4.26
2.38
2.46
2.31
3.25
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
2.12
4.35
2.43
2.37
3.98
2.82
3.07
4.38
2.26
2.19
2.35
4.13
2.83
3.15
4.04
2.32
2.06
2.84
4.24
2.16
3.02
3.94
2.85
4.32
3.13
N
200
3. What is the mean level of Confidence of the respondents?
3.1. Situational Confidence - My teacher wants me to participate in my
English class
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
4.39
4.88
4.85
4.70
4.42
4.78
4.91
4.60
4.40
4.90
4.81
4.76
4.87
4.66
4.64
4.50
4.83
4.85
4.76
4.82
4.98
4.61
4.75
4.79
4.63
4.55
4.85
4.97
4.10
4.81
4.74
4.48
4.34
4.96
4.62
X = Ex
N
= 930.66
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
4.66
4.95
4.82
4.73
4.86
4.72
4.45
4.78
4.56
4.71
3.94
4.89
4.71
4.78
4.54
4.68
4.63
3.93
4.91
4.96
4.35
4.67
4.90
4.92
4.75
4.81
4.70
4.92
4.69
4.53
4.89
4.66
4.72
4.65
4.83
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
4.51
4.45
4.84
4.86
4.77
4.49
4.62
4.80
4.91
4.83
4.90
4.94
4.61
4.70
4.58
4.92
4.60
4.76
4.59
4.95
4.58
4.96
4.57
4.84
4.81
4.47
4.89
4.46
4.72
4.45
4.90
4.33
4.80
4.87
4.67
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 4.6533 or 4.65
VI= Usually
Rated
Scale
3.99
4.56
4.81
4.55
4.97
4.44
4.95
4.85
4.51
4.69
4.43
4.87
4.53
4.88
4.96
4.79
4.83
4.42
4.90
4.52
4.85
4.47
4.32
4.29
4.88
4.66
4.91
4.83
4.48
4.92
4.41
4.76
4.87
4.39
4.94
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
4.86
4.95
4.41
4.82
4.66
4.72
4.85
4.50
4.95
4.37
4.88
4.54
4.37
4.40
4.93
4.36
4.84
4.33
4.44
4.97
4.81
4.89
4.92
4.79
4.51
4.75
4.49
4.93
4.80
4.52
4.86
4.38
4.46
4.31
4.57
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
4.92
4.53
4.83
4.79
4.98
4.82
4.97
4.38
4.62
4.68
4.85
4.93
4.85
4.95
4.84
4.92
4.75
4.87
4.74
4.61
4.92
4.80
4.58
4.93
4.79
N
200
3. What is the mean level of Confidence of the respondents?
3.2. Communication Confidence - I don’t feel shy speaking English to my
classmates
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
3.12
3.18
2.99
1.20
2.42
2.78
4.01
3.06
2.40
4.30
3.01
4.18
2.77
4.16
2.64
2.50
4.03
3.20
2.76
3.84
2.98
4.21
2.75
3.79
2.63
2.55
4.15
3.97
3.10
3.81
2.74
3.48
4.34
2.96
2.57
X = Ex
N
= 630.85
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
2.27
2.95
4.12
3.73
3.86
2.72
3.45
4.27
3.16
4.11
2.94
4.09
3.71
3.78
2.54
2.68
4.36
2.93
3.19
3.96
4.00
2.67
4.19
2.92
3.75
3.11
3.70
4.22
2.69
4.53
3.89
2.66
4.02
2.65
3.18
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
3.08
3.00
4.28
3.12
3.77
4.49
2.62
4.18
2.91
3.83
3.09
2.14
2.61
1.20
2.58
3.92
2.60
4.05
2.59
4.25
2.58
4.16
2.57
3.04
4.11
2.47
4.09
2.46
4.02
2.45
2.90
4.33
2.80
3.87
2.20
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 3.15425 or 3.15
VI= Occasionally
Rated
Scale
2.99
2.56
4.01
2.55
4.17
2.44
4.15
3.05
2.51
1.20
2.43
4.07
2.53
3.88
2.89
3.17
4.23
2.42
2.10
2.52
3.85
2.47
2.32
4.29
3.08
2.88
3.91
2.03
2.48
4.20
2.41
3.76
2.87
2.39
3.10
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
2.60
4.05
2.41
2.22
4.31
2.27
3.00
2.50
3.95
2.37
2.08
2.54
4.37
2.40
2.13
2.36
4.14
2.33
2.44
4.07
2.81
3.14
3.90
2.79
2.51
1.20
2.49
3.03
4.80
2.52
4.26
2.38
2.46
2.31
2.85
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
2.12
4.35
2.43
2.37
3.98
2.82
3.07
4.38
2.26
2.19
2.35
4.13
2.83
3.15
4.04
2.32
2.06
2.84
4.24
2.16
3.02
3.94
2.85
4.32
2.67
N
200
3. What is the mean level of Confidence of the respondents?
3.2. Communication Confidence - I don’t feel shy speaking English to my
teacher
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
3.63
3.18
2.99
1.20
2.42
2.78
4.01
3.06
2.40
2.30
3.01
4.18
2.77
4.16
2.64
2.50
4.03
3.20
2.76
3.84
2.98
4.21
2.75
3.79
2.63
2.55
4.15
3.97
3.10
3.81
2.74
3.48
2.34
2.96
3.79
X = Ex
N
= 622.99
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
3.93
2.95
4.12
3.73
3.86
2.72
3.45
3.27
3.16
4.11
2.94
4.09
3.71
3.78
2.54
2.68
2.36
2.93
3.19
3.96
4.00
2.67
4.19
2.92
3.75
3.11
3.70
4.22
2.69
4.53
3.89
2.66
4.02
2.65
3.38
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
2.96
3.00
4.28
3.12
3.77
2.49
2.62
4.18
2.91
3.83
3.09
2.14
2.61
1.20
2.58
3.92
2.60
4.05
2.59
4.25
2.58
4.16
2.57
3.04
4.11
2.47
4.09
2.46
4.02
2.45
2.90
4.33
2.80
3.84
2.81
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 3.11495 or 3.11
VI= Occasionally
Rated
Scale
2.60
2.56
4.01
2.55
4.17
2.44
4.15
3.05
2.51
1.20
2.43
4.07
2.53
3.88
2.89
3.17
4.23
2.42
2.10
2.52
3.85
2.47
2.32
4.29
3.08
2.88
3.91
2.03
2.48
4.20
2.41
3.76
2.87
2.39
2.61
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
2.95
4.05
2.41
2.22
4.31
2.27
3.00
2.50
3.95
2.37
2.08
2.54
2.37
2.40
2.13
2.36
4.14
2.33
2.44
4.07
2.81
3.14
3.90
2.79
2.51
1.20
2.49
3.03
2.80
2.52
2.26
2.38
2.46
2.31
2.93
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
2.12
4.35
2.43
2.37
3.98
2.82
3.07
4.38
2.26
2.19
2.35
4.13
2.83
3.15
4.04
2.32
2.06
2.84
4.24
2.16
3.02
3.94
2.85
4.32
2.39
N
200
3. What is the mean level of Confidence of the respondents?
3.2. Communication Confidence - I don’t feel shy expressing my answers in
English to the teachers’ questions
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
2.36
3.18
1.99
1.20
2.42
2.78
2.01
2.06
2.40
2.30
3.01
2.18
2.77
2.16
2.64
2.50
2.03
1.20
2.76
1.84
1.98
2.21
2.75
1.79
2.63
2.55
2.15
1.97
3.10
1.81
2.74
1.48
2.34
1.96
1.79
X = Ex
N
= 440.45
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
1.93
1.95
2.12
1.73
1.86
2.72
1.45
1.27
2.16
2.11
1.94
2.09
1.71
2.78
2.54
1.68
2.36
1.93
1.20
1.96
2.00
1.67
2.19
1.92
1.75
2.11
1.70
2.22
1.69
2.53
1.89
1.66
2.02
1.65
1.38
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
2.20
3.00
2.28
2.12
1.77
2.49
1.62
2.18
1.91
1.83
2.09
2.14
2.61
1.20
2.58
1.92
2.60
2.05
2.59
2.25
2.58
2.16
2.57
2.04
2.11
2.47
2.09
2.46
2.02
2.45
1.90
2.33
2.80
3.84
2.71
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 2.20225 or 2.20
VI= Rarely
Rated
Scale
2.69
2.56
2.01
2.55
2.17
2.44
2.15
2.05
2.51
1.20
2.43
2.07
2.53
1.88
1.89
2.17
2.23
2.42
2.10
2.52
1.85
2.47
2.32
2.29
2.08
1.88
1.91
2.03
2.48
2.20
2.41
1.76
1.87
2.39
2.51
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
1.86
2.05
2.41
2.22
2.31
2.27
2.00
2.50
1.95
2.37
2.08
2.54
2.37
2.40
2.13
2.36
2.14
2.33
2.44
2.07
1.81
2.14
1.90
2.79
2.51
1.20
2.49
2.03
2.80
2.52
2.26
2.38
2.46
2.31
2.19
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
2.12
2.35
2.43
2.37
1.98
2.82
3.07
2.38
2.26
2.19
2.35
2.13
2.83
2.15
2.04
2.32
2.06
2.84
2.24
2.16
3.02
2.94
2.85
2.32
2.13
N
200
3. What is the mean level of Confidence of the respondents?
3.3. Language Potential Confidence - I think that I will get a high score in
my English class
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
2.62
3.18
2.99
1.20
2.42
2.78
4.01
3.06
2.40
2.30
3.01
4.18
2.77
4.16
2.64
2.50
4.03
3.20
2.76
3.84
2.98
4.21
2.75
3.79
2.63
2.55
4.15
3.97
3.10
3.81
2.74
3.48
2.34
2.96
2.85
X = Ex
N
= 610.32
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
2.39
2.95
4.12
3.73
3.86
2.72
3.45
3.27
3.16
4.11
2.94
4.09
3.71
3.78
2.54
2.68
2.36
2.93
3.19
3.96
4.00
2.67
4.19
2.92
3.75
3.11
3.70
4.22
2.69
2.53
3.89
2.66
4.02
2.65
2.38
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
1.80
3.00
2.88
3.12
3.77
2.49
2.62
4.18
2.91
3.83
3.09
2.14
2.61
1.20
2.58
3.92
2.60
4.05
2.59
4.25
2.58
4.16
2.57
3.04
4.11
2.47
4.09
2.46
4.02
2.45
2.90
4.33
2.80
3.84
2.71
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 3.0516 or 3.05
VI= Occasionally
Rated
Scale
2.96
2.56
4.01
2.55
4.17
2.44
4.15
3.05
2.51
1.20
2.43
4.07
2.53
3.88
2.89
3.17
4.23
2.42
2.10
2.52
3.85
2.47
2.32
4.29
3.08
2.88
3.91
2.03
2.48
4.20
2.41
3.76
2.87
2.39
2.15
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
2.68
4.05
2.41
2.22
4.31
2.27
3.00
2.50
3.95
2.37
2.08
2.54
2.37
2.40
2.13
2.36
4.14
2.33
2.44
4.07
2.81
3.14
3.90
2.79
2.51
1.20
2.49
3.03
2.80
2.52
2.26
2.38
2.46
2.31
2.19
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
3.12
2.35
2.43
2.37
3.98
2.82
3.07
2.38
2.26
2.19
2.35
4.13
2.83
3.15
4.04
2.32
2.06
2.84
4.16
2.16
3.02
3.94
2.85
2.32
3.13
N
200
3. What is the mean level of Confidence of the respondents?
3.3. Language Potential Confidence – I think that I will speak perfect
English someday
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
3.96
3.18
2.99
1.20
2.42
2.78
4.01
3.06
2.40
2.30
3.01
4.18
2.77
4.16
2.64
2.50
4.03
3.20
2.76
3.84
2.98
4.21
2.75
3.79
2.63
2.55
4.15
3.97
3.10
3.81
2.74
3.48
2.34
2.96
3.52
X = Ex
N
= 624.55
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
3.39
2.95
4.12
3.73
3.86
2.72
3.45
3.27
3.16
4.11
2.94
4.09
3.71
3.78
2.54
2.68
2.36
2.93
3.19
3.96
4.00
2.67
4.19
2.92
3.75
3.11
3.70
4.22
2.69
4.53
3.89
2.66
4.02
2.65
3.83
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
2.69
3.00
4.28
3.12
3.77
2.49
2.62
4.18
2.91
3.83
3.09
2.14
2.61
1.20
2.58
3.92
2.60
4.05
2.59
4.25
2.58
4.16
2.57
3.04
4.11
2.47
4.09
2.46
4.02
2.45
2.90
4.33
2.80
3.84
3.81
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 3.12275 or 3.12
VI= Occasionally
Rated
Scale
2.44
2.56
4.01
2.55
4.17
2.44
4.15
3.05
2.51
1.20
2.43
4.07
2.53
3.88
2.89
3.17
4.23
2.42
2.10
2.52
3.85
2.47
2.32
4.29
3.08
2.88
3.91
2.03
2.48
4.20
2.41
3.76
2.87
2.39
3.61
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
2.97
4.05
2.41
2.22
4.31
2.27
3.00
2.50
3.95
2.37
2.08
2.54
2.37
2.40
2.13
2.36
4.14
2.33
2.44
4.07
2.81
3.14
3.90
2.79
2.51
1.20
2.49
3.03
2.80
2.52
2.26
2.38
2.46
2.31
2.93
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
2.12
4.35
2.43
2.37
3.98
2.82
3.07
4.38
2.26
2.19
2.35
4.13
2.83
3.15
4.04
2.32
2.06
2.84
4.24
2.16
3.02
3.94
2.85
4.32
2.39
N
200
3. What is the mean level of Confidence of the respondents?
3.3. Language Potential Confidence – I know that I can manage speaking
English publicly
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
2.26
3.18
2.99
1.20
2.42
2.78
4.01
3.06
2.40
2.30
3.01
4.18
2.77
4.16
2.64
2.50
4.03
3.20
2.76
3.84
2.98
4.21
2.75
3.79
2.63
2.55
4.15
3.97
3.10
3.81
2.74
3.48
2.34
2.96
1.85
X = Ex
N
= 602.39
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
2.19
2.95
4.12
3.73
3.86
2.72
3.45
3.27
3.16
4.11
2.94
4.09
3.71
3.78
2.54
2.68
2.36
2.93
3.19
3.96
4.00
2.67
4.19
2.92
3.75
3.11
3.70
2.67
2.69
2.53
3.89
2.66
4.02
2.65
2.83
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
2.80
3.00
2.88
3.12
3.77
2.49
2.62
4.18
2.91
3.83
3.09
2.14
2.61
1.20
2.58
3.92
2.60
4.05
2.59
4.25
2.58
4.16
2.57
3.04
4.11
2.47
4.09
2.46
4.02
2.45
2.90
2.33
2.80
3.84
2.17
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 3.01195 or 3.01
VI= Occasionally
Rated
Scale
1.96
2.56
4.01
2.55
4.17
2.44
4.15
3.05
2.51
1.20
2.43
4.07
2.53
3.88
2.89
3.17
4.23
2.42
2.10
2.52
3.85
2.47
2.32
4.29
3.08
2.88
3.91
2.03
2.48
2.20
2.41
3.76
2.87
2.39
2.52
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
2.86
4.05
2.41
2.22
4.31
2.27
3.00
2.50
3.95
2.37
2.08
2.54
2.37
2.40
2.13
2.36
4.14
2.33
2.44
4.07
2.81
3.14
3.90
2.79
2.51
1.20
2.49
3.03
2.80
2.52
2.26
2.38
2.46
2.31
2.91
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
2.12
2.35
2.43
2.37
3.98
2.82
3.07
2.38
2.26
2.19
2.35
4.13
2.83
3.15
4.04
2.32
2.06
2.84
4.16
2.16
3.02
3.94
2.85
2.32
2.13
N
200
3. What is the mean level of Confidence of the respondents?
3.4. Language Ability Confidence - I can learn to speak English fluently
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
4.63
4.18
3.99
4.20
4.42
3.78
4.01
4.60
4.40
4.30
4.01
4.18
3.77
4.16
4.64
4.50
4.03
4.20
4.76
3.84
3.98
4.21
4.57
3.79
4.63
3.55
4.15
3.97
4.10
3.81
3.74
4.98
4.34
3.96
4.25
X = Ex
N
= 838.69
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
4.20
3.95
4.12
3.73
3.86
4.72
4.45
4.27
4.16
4.11
3.94
4.09
3.71
3.78
4.54
4.68
4.36
3.93
4.19
3.96
4.00
3.67
4.19
3.92
3.75
4.11
3.70
4.22
3.69
4.53
3.89
4.66
4.02
3.65
4.38
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
4.15
4.45
4.28
4.12
3.77
4.49
4.62
4.18
3.91
3.83
4.09
4.14
4.61
4.20
3.58
3.92
4.60
4.05
4.59
4.25
4.58
4.16
4.57
4.04
4.11
4.47
4.09
4.46
4.02
4.45
3.90
4.33
3.80
3.87
4.76
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 4.19345 or 4.19
VI= Usually
Rated
Scale
4.26
4.56
4.01
4.55
4.17
4.44
4.15
4.05
4.51
4.69
4.43
4.07
4.53
3.88
3.89
4.17
4.23
4.42
4.10
4.52
3.85
4.47
4.32
4.29
4.08
3.88
3.91
4.03
4.48
4.20
4.41
3.76
2.87
2.39
4.54
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
4.54
4.05
4.41
4.22
4.31
4.27
4.85
4.50
3.95
4.37
4.08
4.54
4.37
4.40
4.13
4.36
4.14
4.33
4.44
4.07
4.81
4.14
3.90
4.79
4.51
4.75
4.49
4.03
4.80
4.52
4.26
4.38
4.46
4.31
4.75
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
4.12
4.35
4.43
4.37
3.98
3.82
4.07
4.38
4.26
4.68
4.35
4.13
3.83
4.15
4.04
4.32
4.75
3.84
4.24
4.37
4.02
3.94
4.58
4.32
4.61
N
200
3. What is the mean level of Confidence of the respondents?
3.4. Language Ability Confidence – I speak English effortlessly in front of
other people
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
3.26
3.18
2.99
1.20
2.42
2.78
4.01
3.06
2.40
4.30
3.01
4.18
2.77
4.16
2.64
2.50
4.03
3.20
2.76
3.84
2.98
4.21
2.75
3.79
2.63
2.55
4.15
3.97
3.10
3.81
2.74
3.48
4.34
2.96
3.59
X = Ex
N
= 634.99
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
2.39
2.95
4.12
3.73
3.86
2.72
3.45
4.27
3.16
4.11
2.94
4.09
3.71
3.78
2.54
2.68
4.36
2.93
3.19
3.96
4.00
2.67
4.19
2.92
3.75
3.11
3.70
4.22
2.69
4.53
3.89
2.66
4.02
2.65
2.88
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
2.35
3.00
4.28
3.12
3.77
4.49
2.62
4.18
2.91
3.83
3.09
2.14
2.61
1.20
2.58
3.92
2.60
4.05
2.59
4.25
2.58
4.16
2.57
3.04
4.11
2.47
4.09
2.46
4.02
2.45
2.90
4.33
2.80
3.87
3.64
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 3.17495 or 3.17
VI= Occasionally
Rated
Scale
4.54
2.56
4.01
2.55
4.17
2.44
4.15
3.05
2.51
1.20
2.43
4.07
2.53
3.88
2.89
3.17
4.23
2.42
2.10
2.52
3.85
2.47
2.32
4.29
3.08
2.88
3.91
2.03
2.48
4.20
2.41
3.76
2.87
2.39
3.51
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
3.86
4.05
2.41
2.22
4.31
2.27
3.00
2.50
3.95
2.37
2.08
2.54
4.37
2.40
2.13
2.36
4.14
2.33
2.44
4.07
2.81
3.14
3.90
2.79
2.51
1.20
2.49
3.03
4.80
2.52
4.26
2.38
2.46
2.31
4.49
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
3.72
4.35
2.43
2.37
3.98
2.82
3.07
4.38
2.26
2.19
2.35
4.13
2.83
3.15
4.04
2.32
2.06
2.84
4.24
2.16
3.02
3.94
2.85
4.32
3.13
N
200
3. What is the mean level of Confidence of the respondents?
3.4. Language Ability Confidence – I am a good English speaker now
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
2.16
3.18
2.99
1.20
2.42
2.78
4.01
3.06
2.40
2.30
3.01
4.18
2.77
4.16
2.64
2.50
4.03
3.20
2.76
3.84
2.98
4.21
2.75
3.79
2.63
2.55
4.15
3.97
3.10
3.81
2.74
3.48
2.34
2.96
2.70
X = Ex
N
= 600.11
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
2.19
2.95
4.12
3.73
3.86
2.72
3.45
3.27
3.16
4.11
2.94
4.09
3.71
3.78
2.54
2.68
2.36
2.93
3.19
3.96
4.00
2.67
4.19
2.92
3.75
3.11
3.70
2.67
2.69
2.53
3.89
2.66
4.02
2.65
2.83
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
2.80
3.00
2.88
3.12
3.77
2.49
2.62
4.18
2.91
3.83
3.09
2.14
2.61
1.20
2.58
3.92
2.60
4.05
2.59
4.25
2.58
4.16
2.57
3.04
4.11
2.47
4.09
2.46
4.02
2.45
2.90
2.33
2.80
3.84
2.16
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 3.00225 or 3.00
VI= Occasionally
Rated
Scale
1.96
2.56
4.01
2.55
4.17
2.44
4.15
3.05
2.51
1.20
2.43
4.07
2.53
3.88
2.89
3.17
4.23
2.42
2.10
2.52
3.85
2.47
2.32
4.29
3.08
2.88
3.91
2.03
2.48
2.20
2.41
3.76
2.87
2.39
2.52
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
2.86
4.05
2.41
2.22
4.31
2.27
3.00
2.50
3.95
2.37
2.08
2.54
2.37
2.40
2.13
2.36
4.14
2.33
2.44
4.07
2.81
3.14
3.90
2.79
2.51
1.20
2.49
3.03
2.80
2.52
2.26
2.38
2.46
2.31
2.79
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
2.12
2.35
2.43
2.37
3.98
2.82
3.07
2.38
2.26
2.19
2.35
3.13
2.83
3.15
4.04
2.32
2.06
2.84
3.16
2.16
3.02
3.94
2.85
2.32
2.13
N
200
4. What is the mean level of Assertiveness of the respondents?
4.1. Directness - I am open and frank about my feelings
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
5.97
5.88
5.85
5.70
5.92
5.78
5.91
5.96
5.90
5.90
5.81
5.76
5.87
5.96
5.84
5.95
5.83
5.85
5.76
5.82
5.98
5.91
5.75
5.79
5.93
5.75
5.85
5.97
5.85
5.81
5.74
5.98
5.84
5.96
5.88
X = Ex
N
= 1150.39
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
5.96
5.95
5.82
5.73
5.86
5.72
5.95
5.78
5.96
5.71
5.94
5.89
5.71
5.78
5.95
5.86
5.83
5.93
5.91
5.96
5.89
5.97
5.90
5.92
5.75
5.81
5.70
5.92
5.96
5.93
5.89
5.99
5.72
5.97
5.83
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
5.51
5.45
5.84
5.86
5.77
5.99
5.92
5.80
5.91
5.83
5.90
5.94
5.61
5.70
5.98
5.92
5.70
5.76
5.95
5.89
5.85
5.96
5.97
5.84
5.81
5.94
5.89
5.96
5.72
5.95
5.90
5.93
5.80
5.96
5.87
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Rated
Scale
5.99
5.56
5.81
5.55
5.97
5.99
5.95
5.85
5.91
5.96
5.93
5.87
5.83
5.88
5.96
5.97
5.83
5.92
5.90
5.95
5.85
5.97
5.83
5.92
5.88
5.96
5.91
5.83
5.84
5.92
5.91
5.76
5.87
5.99
5.94
X = 5.75195 or 5.75
VI= Extremely Descriptive
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
5.86
5.95
5.41
5.82
5.86
5.72
5.85
5.90
5.95
5.73
5.88
5.94
5.87
5.91
5.93
4.96
5.84
4.97
5.78
4.97
5.81
5.89
5.92
5.79
5.91
5.75
5.94
5.93
5.80
5.92
5.86
5.83
5.96
5.81
5.75
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
5.92
5.53
5.83
5.79
5.98
5.82
5.97
5.85
5.92
5.68
5.85
5.93
5.85
5.95
5.84
5.92
5.75
5.87
5.74
5.91
5.92
5.80
5.58
5.93
5.79
N
200
4. What is the mean level of Assertiveness of the respondents?
4.1. Directness - I am quick to express an opinion
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
4.97
5.88
4.85
5.70
4.92
5.78
4.91
4.96
4.90
5.90
4.81
5.76
5.87
4.96
5.84
4.95
5.83
4.85
5.76
5.82
4.98
4.91
5.75
5.79
4.93
5.75
5.85
4.97
4.85
5.81
5.74
4.98
5.84
4.96
5.88
X = Ex
N
= 1096.51
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
4.96
4.95
5.82
5.73
5.86
5.72
4.95
5.78
4.96
5.71
4.94
5.89
5.71
5.78
4.95
5.86
5.83
5.93
5.91
4.96
5.89
4.97
5.90
4.92
5.75
5.81
5.70
5.92
4.96
5.93
5.89
4.99
5.72
4.97
5.83
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
5.51
5.45
5.84
5.86
5.77
4.99
5.92
5.80
5.91
5.83
5.90
4.94
5.61
5.70
4.98
5.92
5.70
5.76
4.95
5.89
5.85
4.96
4.97
5.84
5.81
5.94
5.89
4.96
5.72
4.95
5.90
5.93
5.80
4.96
5.87
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Rated
Scale
4.99
5.56
5.81
5.55
4.97
4.99
4.95
5.85
5.91
4.96
5.93
5.87
5.83
5.88
4.96
4.97
5.83
5.92
5.90
4.95
5.85
4.97
5.83
5.92
5.88
4.96
5.91
5.83
5.84
5.92
5.91
5.76
5.87
4.99
5.94
X = 5.48255 or 5.48
VI= Extremely Descriptive
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
5.86
4.95
5.41
5.82
5.86
5.72
5.85
5.90
5.95
5.73
5.88
5.94
5.87
5.91
5.93
5.96
5.84
5.97
5.78
5.97
5.81
5.89
5.92
5.79
5.91
5.75
5.94
5.93
5.80
5.92
5.86
5.83
5.46
5.81
5.75
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
5.92
5.53
5.83
5.79
5.60
5.82
5.97
5.85
5.92
5.68
5.85
5.93
5.85
5.95
5.84
5.92
5.75
5.87
5.74
5.91
5.92
5.80
5.58
5.93
5.79
N
200
4. What is the mean level of Assertiveness of the respondents?
4.1. Directness - I often talk nonchantly and seek attention from others
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
5.06
5.18
4.99
3.20
3.42
3.78
4.01
4.06
4.40
4.30
4.01
4.18
3.77
4.16
3.64
3.50
4.03
4.20
3.76
3.84
3.98
4.21
3.75
3.79
3.63
3.55
4.15
3.97
4.10
3.81
3.74
3.48
4.34
3.96
3.97
X = Ex
N
= 720.35
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
3.93
4.95
4.12
3.73
3.86
3.72
4.45
4.27
4.16
4.11
4.94
4.09
4.71
4.78
3.54
3.68
4.36
3.93
4.19
3.96
4.00
3.67
4.19
3.92
4.75
4.11
3.70
4.22
4.69
4.53
3.89
3.66
4.02
3.65
4.08
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
4.20
3.00
4.28
4.12
4.77
4.49
4.62
4.18
4.91
4.83
4.09
4.14
4.61
3.20
4.58
4.92
4.60
4.05
3.59
4.25
3.58
4.16
3.57
3.04
4.11
3.47
4.09
3.46
4.02
2.45
2.90
4.33
2.80
3.87
4.17
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Rated
Scale
3.99
2.56
4.01
2.55
4.17
2.44
4.15
3.05
2.51
1.20
2.43
4.07
2.53
3.88
2.89
3.17
4.23
2.42
2.96
2.52
3.85
2.47
2.32
4.29
3.08
2.88
3.91
2.03
2.48
4.20
2.41
3.76
2.87
2.39
4.10
X = 3.60175 or 3.60
VI= Slightly Descriptive
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
2.86
4.05
2.41
2.22
4.31
2.27
3.00
2.50
3.95
2.37
2.08
2.54
4.37
2.40
2.13
2.36
4.14
2.33
2.44
4.07
2.81
3.14
3.90
2.79
2.51
1.20
2.49
3.03
4.80
2.52
4.26
2.38
2.46
2.31
4.00
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
2.12
4.35
2.43
2.37
3.98
2.82
3.07
4.38
2.26
2.19
2.35
4.13
2.83
3.15
4.04
2.32
2.06
2.84
4.24
2.16
3.02
3.94
2.85
4.32
3.13
N
200
4. What is the mean level of Assertiveness of the respondents?
4.2. Social Assertiveness - When the food served at a restaurant is not done
to my satisfaction, I complain about it to the waiter/waitress
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
4.39
4.18
4.99
4.20
4.42
4.78
4.01
4.60
4.40
4.30
4.01
4.18
4.77
4.16
4.64
4.50
4.53
4.70
4.76
4.84
4.98
4.71
4.75
4.79
4.63
4.55
4.65
4.97
4.60
4.81
4.74
4.98
4.84
4.96
4.47
X = Ex
N
= 896.85
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
4.66
4.95
4.12
4.73
4.86
4.72
4.45
4.27
4.16
4.11
4.94
4.09
4.71
4.78
4.54
4.68
4.36
4.93
4.19
4.96
4.00
4.67
4.19
4.92
4.75
4.11
4.70
4.22
4.69
4.53
4.89
4.66
4.02
4.65
4.38
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
4.51
4.45
4.28
4.12
4.77
4.49
4.62
4.18
4.91
4.83
4.09
4.14
4.61
4.20
4.58
4.92
4.60
4.05
4.59
4.25
4.58
4.16
4.57
4.04
4.11
4.47
4.09
4.46
4.02
4.45
4.90
4.33
4.80
4.87
4.67
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 4.48425 or 4.48
VI= Quite Descriptive
Rated
Scale
4.99
4.56
4.01
4.55
4.17
4.44
4.15
4.05
4.51
4.69
4.43
4.07
4.53
4.88
4.89
4.17
4.23
4.42
4.10
4.52
4.85
4.47
4.32
4.29
4.08
4.88
4.91
4.03
4.48
4.20
4.41
4.76
4.87
4.39
4.14
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
4.86
4.05
4.41
4.22
4.31
4.27
4.85
4.50
4.95
4.37
4.08
4.54
4.37
4.40
4.13
4.36
4.14
4.33
4.44
4.07
4.81
4.14
4.90
4.79
4.51
4.75
4.49
4.03
4.80
4.52
4.26
4.38
4.46
4.31
4.57
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
4.12
4.35
4.43
4.37
4.98
4.82
4.07
4.38
4.26
4.68
4.35
4.13
4.83
4.15
4.04
4.32
4.75
4.84
4.24
4.61
4.02
4.94
4.58
4.32
4.13
N
200
4. What is the mean level of Assertiveness of the respondents?
4.2. Social Assertiveness - I enjoy starting conversations with new
acquaintance and strangers
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
4.97
4.88
4.85
4.70
4.92
4.78
4.91
4.96
4.90
4.90
4.81
4.76
4.87
4.96
4.84
4.95
4.83
4.85
4.76
4.82
4.98
4.91
4.75
4.79
4.93
4.75
4.85
4.97
4.85
4.81
4.74
4.98
4.84
4.96
4.88
X = Ex
N
= 1052.65
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
4.96
4.95
4.82
4.73
4.86
4.72
4.95
4.78
4.96
5.71
4.94
4.89
5.71
5.78
4.95
4.86
4.83
4.93
4.91
4.96
4.89
4.97
4.90
4.92
5.75
5.81
5.70
4.92
4.96
4.93
4.89
4.99
5.72
4.97
4.83
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
5.51
5.45
4.84
4.86
5.77
4.99
4.92
5.80
4.91
5.83
4.90
4.94
5.61
5.70
4.98
4.92
5.70
5.76
4.95
4.89
5.85
4.96
4.97
4.84
5.81
4.94
5.89
4.96
5.72
4.95
5.54
5.43
5.80
4.96
5.87
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Rated
Scale
4.99
5.56
5.81
5.55
4.97
4.99
4.95
5.85
5.91
4.96
5.93
5.87
5.83
5.88
4.96
4.97
5.83
5.92
5.90
4.95
5.85
4.97
5.83
5.92
5.88
4.96
5.91
5.83
5.84
5.92
5.91
5.76
5.87
4.99
5.94
X = 5.26325 or 5.26
VI= Extremely Descriptive
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
5.86
4.95
5.41
5.82
5.86
5.72
5.85
5.90
5.95
5.73
5.88
5.94
5.87
5.91
5.93
5.96
5.84
5.97
5.78
5.97
5.81
5.89
5.92
5.79
5.91
5.75
5.94
5.93
5.80
5.92
5.86
5.83
5.46
5.81
5.75
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
5.92
5.53
5.83
5.79
5.60
5.82
5.97
5.85
5.92
5.68
5.85
5.93
5.85
5.95
5.84
5.92
5.75
5.87
5.74
5.91
5.92
5.80
5.58
5.93
5.79
N
200
4. What is the mean level of Assertiveness of the respondents?
4.2. Social Assertiveness - I can easily mingle with different kinds of people
without fear of being denied
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
5.39
4.88
4.85
4.70
5.42
4.78
4.91
5.60
5.40
4.90
4.81
4.76
4.87
4.66
4.64
5.50
4.83
4.85
4.76
4.82
4.98
5.61
4.75
4.79
5.63
5.55
4.85
4.97
5.10
4.81
4.74
5.48
5.34
4.96
5.62
X = Ex
N
= 986.69
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
5.66
4.95
4.82
4.73
4.86
4.72
5.45
4.78
5.56
4.71
4.94
4.89
4.71
4.78
5.54
4.68
5.63
4.93
4.91
4.96
5.35
5.67
4.90
4.92
4.75
4.81
4.70
4.92
5.69
5.53
4.89
5.66
4.72
5.65
4.83
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
5.51
5.45
4.84
4.86
4.77
5.49
5.62
4.80
4.91
4.83
4.90
4.94
5.61
4.70
5.58
4.92
5.60
4.76
5.59
4.95
5.58
4.96
5.57
4.84
4.81
5.47
4.89
5.46
4.72
5.45
4.90
5.33
4.80
4.87
4.67
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 4.93345 or 4.93
VI= Quite Descriptive
Rated
Scale
5.99
5.56
4.81
5.55
4.97
5.44
4.95
4.85
5.51
5.69
5.43
4.87
5.53
4.88
4.96
4.79
4.83
5.42
4.90
5.52
4.85
5.47
5.32
5.29
4.88
5.66
4.91
4.83
5.48
4.92
5.41
4.76
4.87
5.39
4.94
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
4.86
4.95
4.41
4.82
4.66
4.72
4.85
4.53
4.95
4.37
4.88
4.54
4.37
4.40
4.93
4.36
4.84
4.33
4.44
4.97
4.81
4.89
4.92
4.79
4.51
4.75
4.49
4.93
4.80
4.52
4.86
4.38
4.46
4.31
4.57
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
4.92
4.53
4.83
4.79
4.98
4.82
4.97
4.38
4.62
4.68
4.85
4.93
4.85
4.95
4.84
4.92
4.75
4.87
4.74
4.61
4.92
4.80
4.58
4.93
4.79
N
200
4. What is the mean level of Assertiveness of the respondents?
4.3. Defence of One's Interests - If someone has been spreading false and
bad stories about me, I see him/her as soon as possible to have a talk about
it.
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
3.97
4.88
4.85
4.70
3.92
4.78
4.91
3.96
4.90
4.90
4.81
4.76
4.87
3.96
4.84
3.95
4.83
4.85
4.76
4.82
3.98
4.91
4.75
4.79
3.93
4.75
4.85
3.97
4.85
4.81
4.74
3.98
4.84
3.96
4.88
X = Ex
N
= 1036.77
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
4.96
4.95
4.82
4.73
4.86
4.72
4.95
4.78
3.96
4.71
4.94
4.89
5.71
4.78
4.95
4.86
4.83
4.93
4.91
4.96
4.89
4.97
4.90
4.92
5.75
5.81
5.70
4.92
4.96
4.93
4.89
4.99
5.72
4.97
4.83
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
5.51
5.45
4.84
4.86
5.77
4.99
4.92
5.80
4.91
5.83
4.90
4.94
5.61
5.70
4.98
4.92
5.70
5.76
4.95
4.89
5.85
4.96
4.97
4.84
5.81
4.94
5.89
4.96
5.72
4.95
5.54
5.43
5.80
4.96
5.87
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Rated
Scale
3.99
5.56
5.81
5.55
4.97
3.99
4.95
5.85
4.91
4.96
4.93
5.87
5.83
5.88
4.96
4.97
5.83
5.92
5.90
4.95
5.85
4.97
5.83
4.92
5.88
4.96
5.91
5.83
5.84
5.92
5.91
5.76
5.87
4.99
5.94
X = 5.18385 or 5.18
VI= Extremely Descriptive
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
5.86
4.95
5.41
5.82
5.86
5.72
5.85
5.40
5.57
5.73
5.88
5.94
5.87
5.91
5.93
5.96
5.84
5.97
5.78
5.97
5.81
5.89
4.92
5.79
5.91
5.75
5.94
5.93
5.80
5.92
5.86
5.83
5.46
5.81
5.75
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
5.92
5.53
5.83
5.79
5.60
5.82
5.97
5.85
5.92
5.68
5.85
5.93
5.85
5.95
5.84
5.92
5.75
5.87
5.74
5.91
5.92
5.80
5.58
5.93
5.79
N
200
4. What is the mean level of Assertiveness of the respondents?
4.3. Defence of One's Interests - If a couple near me in a theatre or at a
lecture were conversing rather loudly, I would ask them to take their
conversation elsewhere
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
3.97
4.88
4.85
4.70
3.92
4.78
4.91
3.96
4.90
4.90
4.81
4.76
4.87
3.96
4.84
3.95
4.83
4.85
4.76
4.82
3.98
4.91
4.75
4.79
3.93
4.75
4.85
3.97
4.85
4.81
4.74
3.98
4.84
3.96
4.88
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
X = Ex
N
= 1008.55
200
-28.22
Rated
Scale
4.96
4.95
4.82
4.73
4.86
4.72
4.95
4.78
3.96
4.71
4.94
4.89
4.71
4.78
4.95
4.86
4.83
4.93
4.91
4.96
4.89
4.97
4.90
4.92
4.75
4.81
4.70
4.92
4.96
4.93
4.89
4.99
4.72
4.97
4.83
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
5.51
5.45
4.84
4.86
4.77
4.99
4.92
4.80
4.91
4.83
4.90
4.94
5.61
5.70
4.98
4.92
5.70
4.76
4.95
4.89
4.85
4.96
4.97
4.84
4.81
4.94
4.89
4.96
5.72
4.95
5.54
5.43
4.80
4.96
4.87
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Rated
Scale
3.99
5.56
4.81
5.55
4.97
3.99
4.95
4.85
4.91
4.96
4.93
4.87
4.83
4.88
4.96
4.97
4.83
4.92
4.90
4.95
4.85
4.97
4.83
4.92
4.88
4.96
4.91
5.83
5.84
4.92
4.91
5.76
5.87
4.99
5.94
X = 5.04275 or 5.04
VI= Extremely Descriptive
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
5.86
4.95
5.41
5.82
5.86
5.72
5.85
5.40
5.57
5.73
5.88
5.94
5.87
5.91
5.93
5.96
5.84
5.75
5.78
5.97
5.81
5.89
4.92
5.79
5.91
5.75
5.94
5.93
5.80
5.92
5.86
5.83
5.46
5.81
5.75
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
5.92
5.53
5.83
5.79
5.60
5.82
5.97
5.85
5.92
5.68
5.85
5.93
5.85
5.95
5.84
5.92
5.75
5.87
5.74
5.91
5.92
5.80
5.58
5.93
5.79
N
200
4. What is the mean level of Assertiveness of the respondents?
4.3. Defence of One's Interests – If a famed and respected lecturer makes a
statement which I think is incorrect, I will have the audience hear my point of
view
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
5.39
4.88
4.85
4.70
5.42
4.78
3.91
5.60
5.40
3.90
4.81
4.76
4.87
4.66
4.64
5.50
4.83
4.85
4.76
4.82
3.98
5.61
4.75
4.79
5.63
5.55
4.85
3.97
5.10
4.81
4.74
5.48
5.34
3.96
5.62
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
X = Ex
N
= 962.85
200 - 23.84
Rated
Scale
5.66
3.95
4.82
4.73
4.86
4.72
5.45
4.78
5.56
4.71
3.94
4.89
4.71
4.78
5.54
4.68
5.63
3.93
4.91
3.96
5.35
5.67
3.90
3.92
4.75
4.81
4.70
3.92
5.69
5.53
4.89
5.66
4.72
5.65
4.83
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
5.51
5.45
4.84
4.86
4.77
5.49
5.62
4.80
3.91
4.83
3.90
3.94
5.61
4.70
5.58
4.92
5.60
4.76
5.59
3.95
5.58
3.96
5.57
4.84
4.81
5.47
4.89
5.46
4.72
5.45
3.90
5.33
4.80
4.87
4.67
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 4.81425 or 4.81
VI= Quite Descriptive
Rated
Scale
4.99
5.56
4.81
5.55
3.97
5.44
3.95
4.85
5.51
5.69
5.43
4.87
5.53
4.88
3.96
4.79
4.83
5.42
4.90
5.52
4.85
5.47
5.32
5.29
4.88
5.66
3.91
4.83
5.48
3.92
5.41
4.76
4.87
5.39
4.94
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
4.86
3.95
4.41
4.82
4.66
4.72
4.85
5.53
4.95
5.37
4.88
4.54
4.37
4.40
4.93
4.36
4.84
4.33
4.44
4.97
4.81
4.89
4.92
4.79
4.51
4.75
4.49
4.50
4.80
4.52
4.86
4.38
4.46
4.31
4.57
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
4.92
4.53
4.83
4.79
4.98
4.82
4.97
4.38
4.62
4.68
4.85
4.93
4.85
4.54
4.84
4.92
4.75
4.87
4.74
4.61
4.92
4.80
4.58
4.93
4.79
N
200
4. What is the mean level of Assertiveness of the respondents?
4.4. Independence - There are times when I looked for a good and vigorous
argument
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
3.97
4.88
4.85
4.70
3.92
4.78
4.91
3.96
4.90
3.90
4.81
4.76
4.87
3.96
4.84
3.95
4.83
4.85
4.76
4.82
3.98
4.91
4.75
4.79
3.93
4.75
4.85
3.97
4.85
4.81
4.74
3.98
4.84
3.96
4.88
X = Ex
N
= 1002.99
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
3.96
4.95
3.82
4.73
4.86
4.72
3.95
4.78
3.96
4.71
3.94
4.89
4.71
4.78
4.95
4.86
4.83
4.93
4.91
4.40
4.89
4.97
4.90
4.92
4.75
4.81
4.70
4.92
4.96
4.93
4.89
4.99
4.72
4.97
4.83
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
5.51
5.45
4.84
4.86
4.77
4.99
4.92
4.80
4.91
4.83
4.90
4.94
5.61
5.70
4.98
4.92
5.70
4.76
4.95
4.89
4.85
4.96
4.97
4.84
4.81
4.94
4.89
4.96
5.72
4.95
5.54
5.43
4.80
4.96
4.87
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Rated
Scale
3.99
5.56
4.81
5.55
4.97
3.99
4.95
4.85
4.91
4.96
4.93
4.87
4.83
4.88
4.96
4.97
4.83
4.92
4.90
4.95
4.85
4.97
4.83
4.92
4.88
4.96
4.91
5.83
5.84
4.92
4.91
5.76
5.87
4.99
5.94
X = 5.01495 or 5.01
VI= Extremely Descriptive
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
5.86
4.95
5.41
5.82
5.86
5.72
5.85
5.40
5.57
5.73
5.88
5.94
5.87
5.91
5.93
5.96
5.84
5.75
5.78
5.97
5.81
5.89
4.92
5.79
5.91
5.75
5.94
5.93
5.80
5.92
5.86
5.83
5.46
5.81
5.75
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
5.92
5.53
5.83
5.79
5.60
5.82
5.97
5.85
5.92
5.68
5.85
5.93
5.85
5.95
5.84
5.92
5.75
5.87
5.74
5.91
5.92
5.80
5.58
5.93
5.79
N
200
4. What is the mean level of Assertiveness of the respondents?
4.4. Independence – I strive to get ahead as well as most people in my
position
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
4.97
4.88
4.85
5.70
3.92
5.78
4.91
4.96
4.90
4.90
4.81
5.76
5.87
4.96
5.84
4.95
5.83
4.85
5.76
5.82
3.98
4.91
5.75
5.79
3.93
5.75
5.85
3.97
4.85
5.81
5.74
3.98
5.84
4.96
5.88
X = Ex
N
= 1078.65
200
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Rated
Scale
4.96
4.95
4.82
5.73
4.86
5.72
4.95
5.78
3.96
5.71
3.94
5.89
5.71
5.78
3.95
5.86
4.83
3.93
4.91
3.96
4.89
3.97
4.90
4.92
5.75
5.81
5.70
4.92
3.96
4.93
5.89
3.99
5.72
4.97
5.83
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
5.51
5.45
5.84
5.86
5.77
4.99
4.92
5.80
4.91
5.83
4.90
3.94
5.61
5.70
4.98
4.92
5.70
5.76
4.95
5.89
5.85
4.96
3.97
5.84
5.81
4.94
5.89
4.96
5.72
4.95
4.90
5.93
5.80
4.96
5.87
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Rated
Scale
4.99
5.56
5.81
5.55
4.97
4.53
4.95
5.85
5.91
4.96
5.93
5.87
5.83
5.88
4.96
4.97
5.83
5.92
5.90
4.95
5.85
4.97
5.83
5.92
5.88
4.96
5.91
5.83
5.84
5.92
5.91
5.76
5.87
4.99
5.94
X = 5.39325 or 5.39
VI= Extremely Descriptive
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
5.86
4.95
5.41
5.82
5.86
5.72
5.85
5.90
5.95
5.73
5.88
5.94
5.87
5.91
5.93
5.96
5.84
5.57
5.78
5.97
5.81
5.89
5.92
5.79
5.91
5.75
5.94
5.93
5.80
5.92
5.86
5.83
5.46
5.81
5.75
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
5.92
5.53
5.83
5.79
5.60
5.82
5.97
5.85
5.92
5.68
5.85
5.93
5.85
5.95
5.84
5.92
5.75
5.87
5.74
5.91
5.92
5.80
5.58
5.93
5.79
N
200
4. What is the mean level of Assertiveness of the respondents?
4.4. Independence – To be honest some people takes advantage of me
Resp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rated
Scale
4.39
4.18
3.99
4.20
4.42
4.78
4.01
4.60
4.40
4.30
4.01
4.18
3.77
4.16
4.64
4.50
4.03
4.20
4.76
3.84
3.98
4.21
3.75
3.79
4.63
4.55
4.15
3.97
4.10
4.81
3.74
4.48
4.34
3.96
4.02
Resp
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
X = Ex
N
= 850.49
200
+ 19.54
Rated
Scale
4.66
3.95
4.12
4.73
4.86
4.72
4.45
4.27
4.16
4.11
3.94
4.09
4.71
4.78
4.54
4.68
4.36
3.93
4.19
3.96
4.00
4.67
4.19
3.92
3.75
4.11
4.70
4.22
4.69
4.53
3.89
4.66
4.02
4.65
4.38
Resp
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Rated
Scale
4.51
4.45
4.28
4.12
3.77
4.49
4.62
4.18
3.91
3.83
4.09
4.14
3.61
4.20
3.58
3.92
4.60
4.05
4.59
4.25
4.58
4.16
4.57
4.04
4.11
4.47
4.09
4.46
4.02
4.45
3.90
4.33
3.80
3.87
4.67
Resp
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
X = 4.25245 or 4.25
VI= Quite Descriptive
Rated
Scale
3.99
4.56
4.01
4.55
4.17
4.44
4.15
4.05
4.51
4.69
4.43
4.07
4.53
3.88
3.89
4.17
4.23
4.42
4.10
4.52
3.85
4.47
4.32
4.29
4.08
3.88
3.91
4.03
4.48
4.20
4.41
3.76
3.87
2.93
4.14
Resp
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Rated
Scale
3.86
4.05
4.41
4.22
4.31
4.27
4.85
4.50
3.95
4.37
4.08
4.54
4.37
4.40
4.13
4.36
4.14
4.33
4.44
4.07
4.81
4.14
3.90
4.79
4.51
4.75
4.49
4.03
4.80
4.52
4.26
4.38
4.46
4.31
4.57
Resp
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Rated
Scale
4.12
4.35
4.43
4.37
3.98
3.82
4.07
4.38
4.26
4.68
4.35
4.13
3.83
4.15
4.04
4.32
4.75
3.84
4.24
4.61
4.02
3.94
4.58
4.32
4.13
N
200
APPENDIX C
5.1 Computation of the significant relationship between English Verbal
Fluency Rate and Confidence Level
Computation of Pearson Correlation Coefficient
Formula:
∑XY = (3.20)(3.19) + (4.15)(4.65) + (3.09)(3.16) = 10.20+ 19.30 + 9.75 =
39.25
∑X = 3.20 + 4.15 + 3.09 = 10.44
∑Y = 3.19 + 4.65 + 3.16 = 11
∑X2 = 3.202 + 4.152 + 3.092 = 10.24 + 17.22 + 9.55 = 37.01
∑Y2 = 3.192 + 4.652 + 3.162 = 10.18 + 21.62 + 9.98 = 41.78
39.25 – (10.44)(11)/3
r=
√
(37.01 – (10.44)2)/3 (41.78 – (11)2/3)
39.25 – 38.28
r=
√
(37.01 – 36.33) (41.78 – 40.33)
.97
√
(.68) (1.45)
r=
.97/.9929753
r=
.9768621
5.2 Computation of the significant relationship between English Verbal
Fluency Rate and Assertiveness Level
Computation of Pearson Correlation Coefficient
Formula:
∑XY = (3.20)(5.75) + (4.15)(5.48) + (3.09)(3.60 = 18.40 + 22.74 + 11.12 =
52.26
∑X = 3.20 + 4.15 + 3.09 = 10.44
∑Y = 5.75 + 5.48 + 3.60 = 14.83
∑X2 = 3.202 + 4.152 + 3.092 = 10.24 + 17.22 + 9.55 = 37.01
∑Y2 = 5.752 + 5.482 + 3.602 = 33.06 + 30.03 + 12.96 = 76.05
52.26 – (10.44)(14.83)/3
r=
√
(37.01 – (10.44)2)/3 (76.05 – (14.83)2/3)
52.26 – 51.61
r=
√
(37.01 – 36.33) (76.05 – 73.31)
.65
√
(.68) (2.74)
r=
.65/1.3649908
r=
.4761936