The questionnaire

Informed by previous research, both Swiss census surveys (Lüdi & Werlen, 2005) and questionnaire studies on language learning motivation (for a collection, see Dörnyei &

Ushioda, 2009), the three-part questionnaire was developed and translated into French with the particularities of the target population of Geneva university students in mind. The final online version consisted of a total of 102 items and took on average 20 minutes to complete. The questionnaire was divided into three parts, the first of which contained questions on students’

demographic and linguistic background. The second section, composed of ten of the eleven attitudinal scales, asked participants to rate various statements about English on five-point Likert scales, indicating how strongly they agreed or disagreed with them. In the third part, consisting of one scale, direct contact, students were to choose one of five options based on how often they used English during different activities. Let us now consider the different items in more detail.

3.3.1 Part I: Demographics

The first nine items in the questionnaire were designed to gather basic demographic information about the respondents. This information would play an important role in the

analysis, rendering sorting participants according to certain criteria and grouping them based on their responses possible. Secondly, thanks to these questions, a more complete description of the participants could be gained, which was essential to situating their group against the larger population. This aspect of the data will be explored in 3.7.1 Sample and target population.

One item each focused on their age and gender and whether they currently pursued any professional activity. Three additional questions asked about the faculty, major and level of instruction at which they were currently enrolled. The last item under this heading interrogated participants about the place where they completed their secondary education.

While some of the questions were open ended, allowing respondents to type in their own responses, others offered a predetermined selection of options. One of the most notable items in the latter category is the one concerning the faculties at which students were enrolled. The options for this item included only the four faculties included in the study, namely that of Law and Medicine, Science and Economic and Social Sciences (SES). Participants were also offered the possibility of choosing multiple answers, and 7 of them did so. As regards the level of the degree programs in which students participated at the time of enquiry, the five options offered ranged from bachelor to master, to Master of Advanced Studies (MAS) to PhD, with the possibility to input any other answer. It bears noting that none of the participants chose to do so.

Similarly, the three items on the place of participants’ secondary education offered them a set of options to choose from, based on their answer to the first question. This item asked respondents if they had completed their secondary studies in Switzerland. In case of a positive answer, item number 8 appeared, containing a list of the Swiss cantons for students to choose from. However, if the answer to the first question was negative, participants were only asked the next question, where they were offered a list of the rest of the countries of the world.

Although participants’ answers to the demographic items will be discussed in 3.7 Participants, it is worth highlighting here the difficulties related to item number 5, which asked students to input their major(s). A good number of the responses (56) could not be analyzed, since they contained either comments on the item or unanalyzable text. In addition, 15 participants indicated ‘bachelor’ as their major and two of them wrote ‘master’ as a reply.

3.3.2 Part II: Language skills and use

In this section of the questionnaire, 20 items in total aimed to gauge what languages students were proficient in and to what extent. Moreover, in addition to proficiency, participants were asked about the languages they studied at the time of enquiry and the languages they used in different situations. Thus, it was possible to measure not only the reported language skills of the respondents but also the frequency with which students made use of these skills.

First of all, students were asked about their mother tongues, which were defined in a footnote as “a language or languages that you learned as a child and that you still understand” (see Appendix 1). Participants were offered the choice of French and German, Italian and English as well as an open-ended option for other languages. Taking into account the aims of the study and the particular case of diglossia presented by Standard German and the Swiss dialects, the latter were considered part of the option for German. Similarly, participants who marked their L1 as Swiss German in the other category were also regrouped under this option (cf. 3.8.1). It is important to note that multiple answers were enabled so that respondents could express their plurilingualism, which, indeed, proved to be of a large scale (see 4.3).

In addition, the same selection was offered to students in item 12, which asked them to choose the additional languages they spoke. Multiple answers were accepted, though no distinction was made between languages learned in different settings, be it during childhood, through schooling or outside of the educational context. Interestingly, since the platform allowed it, a number of participants named their L1 among their additional languages. For the purposes of the study, as explained in section 3.8.1, such answers were disregarded and the choice of mother tongues prevailed. Nevertheless, the issue, along with other, more noteworthy, discrepancies will be discussed in 3.7.8.

The item on languages learned at the time of enquiry also contained the same five options.

These included the three Swiss official languages, English and an open choice. Again, multiple answers were enabled and similarly to the previous item, participants’ mother tongues were not excluded. However, inconsistencies in the data in this case might indicate more intriguing underlying patterns, which will be explored later.

Four items investigated the level of participants’ language skills in four languages, which only appeared to respondents who marked French or German, Italian or English as other than their mother tongue, that is, who either spoke or studied any of these languages as a second language.

The six options offered to participants in each case were the same, and they were developed

based on the short descriptors issued by the Council of Europe (2001). It is important to highlight an interesting aspect of the Swiss context that played an important role in designing this scale. It is indeed a unique feature of Swiss language education that the levels set forth and described by the Framework of Reference are part of everyday metalanguage and students are continuously made aware of their progress on the scale. As a result of participants’ familiarity with the descriptors, the options used in the final questionnaire could remain very precise and concise. Consequently, they ranged from A1 to C2 and were listed as follows (for the French original, see Appendix 1).

1. A1 (production/comprehension: familiar and everyday expressions, simple language) 2. A2 (production/comprehension: frequent expressions, simple descriptions and arguments) 3. B1 (production/comprehension: clear language, can manage in most situations)

4. B2 (production/comprehension: the gist of even complex messages, spontaneous and easy communication)

5. C1 (production/comprehension: long and complicated texts and conversations, spontaneous and complex communication)

6. C2 (production/comprehension: practically all forms of communication, fine nuances, precision)

The last set of questions in this section of the questionnaire measured how often students used the languages they speak in different settings. Similarly to the previous group of items, the questions focused on the same four languages and conditions were set so that they only appeared if participants reported proficiency in the given language. The settings investigated in the four items per language were home, with friends and acquaintances, for respondents’

studies and at work. The five options provided ranged from never or almost never to very often or always. In order to facilitate selection and decrease the influence of subjective interpretation, some included short specifications.

1. Never or almost never.

2. Rarely (at least once a year).

3. Sometimes (monthly).

4. Often (weekly).

5. Very often or always (daily).

3.3.3 Part III: Language attitudes

The rest of the questions belonged to eleven multi-item scales that composed Part III of the questionnaire. Ten of the scales investigated aspects of participants’ attitudes toward English and the role the language plays in their aspirations, identity and sense of self. The direct contact scale, which somewhat resembled the items in Part II, is treated as part of this category, since from a thematic perspective it bears some important similarities to the other ten.

The first of these lies in the development process that led to the final form of the scales, as they were used in the questionnaire. All eleven of them were developed based on scales used in previous studies on foreign language learning motivation and tested through my MA research in Hungary. Reworked, translated and adapted to the Geneva context, they retained the essential elements of the original item sets and, therefore, a strong link to established constructs in L2 motivation research.

Secondly, and so as to preserve that link, the study followed a construct-based approach. Thus, the eleven scales were each based on a well-defined concept and the items were formulated so as to investigate different but related aspects of the construct. Below, I provide further details on each of the scales and the original sources as well as the items included and the tests that were run to measure their efficiency. In addition, in order to further probe the accuracy of this approach, the final data was subjected to factor-based tests. The results of these analyses are also discussed below.

One feature, however, clearly differentiates the items of the direct contact scale from the rest of the questions in Part III. For while the former focus on the frequency of contact in various situations and through different channels and activities, the latter measure the extent of participants’ agreement with certain statements. Consequently, the options presented to students were of a different nature in each part of the questionnaire as well.

Thus, the choice of answers for the 21 items in the scale on direct contact corresponded to the frequency options offered for the final items on language use in Part I (see previous subsection).

By contrast, the other ten attitudinal scales presented participants with a set of statements each, with which respondents could signal their agreement by selecting one of five options.

Therefore, each item in these sets could be answered on a five-point Likert-type scale containing the following labels.

1. Completely disagree.

2. Disagree.

3. Neither agree nor disagree.

4. Agree.

5. Completely agree.

In the next section, I explain the construction of the eleven attitudinal scales in more detail.

However, I would like to discuss one last item in the questionnaire, which was not designed as a part of any of the multi-item scales. As a final question, participants were asked whether they would like to further comment on the theme of the study and were allowed complete freedom in doing so. Since the answers to this item do not constitute an integral part of the analysis, I would like to draw attention to some of the more relevant ones here.

3.3.4 Comments

As a last, optional, question, participants were offered the possibility to voice their comments.

The item was worded as to assure respondents of the value of their contribution and the complete anonymity of their comments. This option was added in order to allow students to add any extra information they wished to share. In addition, it provided an opportunity for respondents to comment on the questionnaire, its items or its theme. Last but not least, this little personal touch, emphasizing the value of each response, aimed to raise students’ interest and warm the tone of the closing message.