Thesis Submitted to the Department of Letters and English in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctorat “Es-Sciences” in Applied Linguistics
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH UNIVERSITY “DES FRERES MENTOURI” OF CONSTANTINE FACULTY OF LETTERS AND LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT OF LETTERS AND ENGLISH AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE TESTING MODELS CASE STUDY OF FIRST YEAR LINGUISTICS’ TESTS IN THE ENGLISH BRANCH AT MOHAMED KHIDER UNIVERSITY OF BISKRA Thesis submitted to the Department of Letters and English in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctorat “Es-Sciences” in Applied Linguistics By: Supervised by: Salima RABEHI Prof. Naima HAMLAOUI Board of Examiners: Chairwoman: Prof. Farida ABDERRAHIM University Des Fréres Mentouri, Constantine Supervisor: Prof. Naima HAMLAOUI University Badji Mokhtar, Annaba Member: Prof. Hacéne HAMADA ENS, Constantine Member: Prof. Ahmed MOUMENE University Des Fréres Mentouri, Constantine Member: Prof. Samir LARABA University Des Fréres Mentouri, Constantine Member: Dr. Saliha CHELLI University Mohamed Khider, Biskra 2016 Dedication To my beloved mother, Halima To the memory of my father, Abdelhamid To my brothers and sisters, To my sisters-in-law To my lovely nieces and nephews To my husband, Salah-eddine AYACHE To my in-laws To my Little Angels ‘Amina’ and ‘Ahmed Ziad’ I Acknowledgements This work could not have reached fruition without the unflagging assistance and participation of so many people whom I would never thank enough for the huge contribution that made this work what it is now. First and foremost, heartfelt gratitude and praises go to the Almighty Allah who guided me through and through. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciations to my honorable supervisor Prof. Naima Hamlaoui. She has painstakingly corrected and recorrected draft after draft. My sincere appreciation needs to be addressed to the honorable board of examiners, Prof. Farida ABDERRAHIM, Prof. Ahmed MOUMENE, Prof. Samir LARABA, Prof. Hacéne HAMADA, and Dr. Saliha CHELLI whose insightful remarks during the viva will certainly enrich this work. Most warm gratitude goes to Dr. Naima Boudiaf, head of the English Department when this research started, whose support never failed me. I wish to thank my colleagues who believed in me and my work and who provided me with necessary materials and professional tips: Mrs. Nachoua Hassina, Dr. Ahmed Bashar, Dr. Mustapha Meddour, Dr. Ahmed Chaouki Houadjli, Warda Khouni, Dr. Saliha Chelli and Dr. Hanene Saihi. I would like to express my deep gratitude to Prof. Hamada Hacéne, ENS Constantine, for his precious advice and guidance. Last but not least, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to first year classes of the academic year 2011/2012 for their collaboration. I owe thanks to Prof. Jean Paul Narcy-Combes at Sorbonne Nouvelle University – Paris III- France for providing me with valuable references. Many thanks go to Mr. Brahim Douida for his help in revising and editing the references list. I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to the staff of “Les Fréres Mentouri” University of Constantine for their collaboration. II Abstract Teaching Linguistics for first year classes of the English Branch at Mohamed Khider University of Biskra is a challenging task for most teachers. The majority of students have difficulties in achieving satisfactory results in Linguistics tests. The present study aims at investigating the reliability and validity of the testing models of Linguistics taking the case of first year students of English at Mohamed Khider University of Biskra. The study targets first year classes of the academic year 2011/2012 of the English Branch including 12 groups. The sample concerns 7 groups out of 12 and 8 teachers of Linguistics (7 full-time teachers and 1 part-time teacher). The researcher utilized a triangulated research method encompassing four data collection tools: questionnaires for both teachers of Linguistics and first year students, an interview with teachers, a focus group discussion with students, and a classroom observation. The result those students’ deficiencies in Linguistics do not lie in the reliability and validity of the tests themselves, but rather in the teaching environment/ context, namely the class size and the teaching methods in the first place. Finally, from an insider perspective and after living the experience of teaching Linguistics with the implementation of ICTs (namely the Language Laboratory and the Data Show), the researcher recommends the reduction of the class size and the provision of sufficient ICT tools to permit teaching Linguistics in a new setting which has proved its efficiency and positive impact on students’ achievement/ test results Key Words: Linguistics – Reliability – Testing - Validity III List of Abbreviations %: Percentage 4th CL: Fourth Year Classical BMD: Bachelor Master Doctorate EB: English Branch ECTS: European Credit Transfer System EFL: English as a Foreign Language EHEA: European Higher Education Area EHES: European Higher Education System ESP: English for Specific Purposes ICTs: Information and Communication Technologies L1: First year License L2: Second Year License L3: Third Year License LMD: License Master Doctorate M1: First Year Master M2: Second Year Master MA: Magistére IV MKU: Mohamed Khider University NA: No Answer NT: None of These QI: Question Item TD: Travaux Dirigés UES: Unités d’Enseignements V List of Figures Figure 1.1: Offshoots of Globalization.......................................................................... 09 Figure 1.2: European Credit Transfer System............................................................... 18 Figure 1.3: Divergences between the Classical System and the LMD System Courses………………………………………………………………………………… 24 Figure 2.4: Factors Affecting Language Test Scores………………………………… 45 VI List of Graphs Graph 1.1: Teachers’ Population Growth................................................................. 14 Graph 1.2: Students’ Population Growth.................................................................. 15 Graph 1.3: Staff and Students Populations............................................................... 29 Graph 4.4: Teacher’s Qualifications........................................................................ 112 Graph 4.5: Teacher’s Will to Teach English............................................................. 114 Graph 4.6: Teacher’s Motivation of Teaching Linguistics....................................... 116 Graph 4.7:Teacher’s Opinion about Syllabus Structure/Grading............................. 119 Graph 4.8: Linguistics’ Time Allotment................................................................... 120 Graph 4.9: Linguistics Test Activities/Tasks.......................................................... 134 Graph 5.10: Students’ Gender................................................................................... 163 Graph 5.11: Students’ Level in English.................................................................... 166 Graph 5.12: Students’ Will to Study English……………………………………… 167 Graph 5.13: Students’ BAC Stream.......................................................................... 168 Graph 5.14: Students’ BAC Exam Marks................................................................. 169 Graph 5.15: Students and First Year Debts............................................................... 171 Graph 5.16: Students’ Needs of Sessions per Week................................................. 181 Graph 5.17: Class Size Impact on Linguistics’ Comprehension............................... 18 2 VII Graph 5.18: Students’ Feelings when Taking Tests in General................................ 184 Graph 5.19: Reasons behind Linguistics’ Tests Difficulty....................................... 187 Graph 5.20: Linguistics’ Tests and Time Allotment………………………………. 1 89 Graph 5.21: Linguistics’ Tests Best Time................................................................ 190 Graph 5.22: Tests’ Tasks and Students’ Preferences................................................ 192 Graph 5.23: Linguistics’ Tests Marks Division and Students’ Satisfaction............. 195 Graph 5.24: Students’ Description of Tests’ Classroom Setting………………….. 196 Graph 5.26: Students’ Linguistics’ Grades and Teacher’s Instructions................... 200 Graph 6.27: Teacher’s Knowledge........................................................................... 223 Graph 6.28: Teacher’ Preparation............................................................................. 224 Graph 6.29: Teacher and Students’ Participation..................................................... 225 Graph 6.30: Students’ Attitudes towards Teacher’s Behavior................................ 226 Graph 6.31: Teacher’s Enthusiasm........................................................................... 227 Graph 6.32: The Lesson Pace.................................................................................... 228 Graph 6.33: Teacher and Students’ Questions.......................................................... 229 Graph 6.34: Teacher Understanding of Students’ Questions.................................... 231 Graph 6.35: Teacher’s English and Students’ Understanding.................................. 232 Graph 6.36: Teacher and Learning Student Names.................................................. 233 VIII Graph 6.37: Teacher’s Illustrations........................................................................... 234 Graph 6.38: Teacher’s Alternative Explanations.....................................................