Dissert - Ist Part

TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF CONTENT....................................................................................1
Generally, English is a global language, but it has no official status, and it will never
have. (Table 2.3) The reasons for the position of English are the imperialism and
economical and political importance of English-speaking countries. Linguistically,
English is extremely unsuitable for international communication, and the actual wide use
of English tends to polarize the world into Internet users and Internet illiterates. (Table
2.6).....................................................................................................................................25
Masuzawa Tomoko, 2005; The Invention of World Religions Or, How
European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism.
University of Chicago Press, London.......................................................106
Zoltan Dörnyei (2003) Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction,
Administration, and Processing. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.........................................................................................................................111
TABLE OF CONTENT....................................................................................1
Generally, English is a global language, but it has no official status, and it will never
have. (Table 2.3) The reasons for the position of English are the imperialism and
economical and political importance of English-speaking countries. Linguistically,
English is extremely unsuitable for international communication, and the actual wide use
of English tends to polarize the world into Internet users and Internet illiterates. (Table
2.6).....................................................................................................................................25
European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism.
University of Chicago Press, London.......................................................106
Zoltan Dörnyei (2003) Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction,
Administration, and Processing. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.........................................................................................................................111
Abbreviation of Key Terms

ESL: English as a Second Language
1
ELP: English Language Program
TOESL: Test of English as a Foreign Language
IELTS: International English Language Testing System
LEP: Limited English Proficiency
TEFL: Teaching English as Foreign Language
L2: Second Language
ESP: English for Specific Purposes
Abstract
2
Language has been rated as the greatest achievement in the history of
mankind. It has been the medium of culture, identification and
innovation. As the world is growing into a global family, the component
of language has been an element of contention and several scholars
have come up with multiple initiations and developments to make the
unification process a reality.
The globalization of the English Language has set a precedent onto

which a worldwide platform for dialogue and innovation is founded.
English is current widespread than any other language in existence.
The status of English as the global language has important
consequences for all other languages and therefore deserves to be
studied carefully. In addition, an analysis of the impact of the English
language to divergent values of the various communities around the
world has resulted in the domestication and manifestation of the
English language into various dialects.
This study explores the English Language in the Uganda context.

English language learning, teaching and communication has been, and
by all indications will continue to be, an important part of Uganda’s
reform and modernisation. Uganda is also an ethnically and
linguistically diverse country with 5 minority nationalities and over 20
native languages. What does the spread of English mean for Uganda’s
language situation?
In order to contribute empirical data to the English Language

importance by International students in Uganda education, this study
investigates the English language communicative needs of a targeted
group of International students by investigating their targeted needs in
the courses offered at the University.
3
The language situation at two Kampala University Ggaba, Main
Campus and Mutundwe Campus which were the centre of this study,
reflects the need for international students whose first or second
languages is not English, to have a high level of proficiency in the
English language since they study in English when they come to
Uganda.
More than 60% of the students in the respective courses have good
command of English[1]. The hope of this study is to provide empirical
information about the uses of English in the academic atmosphere of
Uganda, in return, can be used as an input to feed the larger structure
of the English language communication context in language training.
INDEX WORDS:
Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, Applied Linguistics, TESOL,
English for Specific Purposes, Language Use, Communicative
Competence, Needs Analysis, Needs Assessment, Target Needs
Analysis.
4
[1]
Kampala University; In-service Evaluation Report, September 2009
CHAPTER I
1.0 Introduction
In 1955, the Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki graduated from Makerere

University with a First Class degree in Economics. He returned home a
hero. He had a successful carrier as the Finance Minister which later
propelled him to take the highest office of the President of Kenya. Four
years after Kibaki, former Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa joined
the same university and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in
English in 1962.
Between them, the two men became precursors to hundreds of

thousands of bright students from their two countries seeking what
was then seen as an elite education in Uganda.
Uganda is currently devouring in the massive demand for education

and it’s currently the largest recipient of East African students and this
is not restricted to tertiary level of education. Although Uganda sends
about 100 students to the rest of East Africa, according to a NCHE
2007 report[2] by the Ministry of Education, that same report shows that
the country actually hosts up to 40,000 East African students in several
schools.
5
The quest for higher education in Uganda has been greatly intensified
by massive applications by International students. Ugandan
Universities have continued to receive foreign students from East
Africa and beyond. This move is attributed to several reasons including
low fees, peace and stability, better facilities and studying in English.
A Rwandese parent, Mrs. Marie Chantal Kwizera, who has three

children at Kampala University, says she opted for Ugandan education
after sensing that her children will have better employment
opportunities
[2] in the current Anglophone Rwanda.
NCHE, 2007. A summary Report on Higher Education Delivery and
Instruction.
She adds that she also finds the cost of education in Uganda lower.
“The charges of some of the high quality Universities in Uganda are
just half what good quality Universities like Universite Nationale Du
Rwanda charge for the same quality education,” Mrs. Marie Chantal
Kwizera said.
Uganda currently boasts of having over 30 Universities [3]

and among
these, several have the majority of the students originating from the
different neighboring countries. Most of these International students
come from backgrounds where English Language is not a Lingua
Franca or language of Education.
1.1 Background of the Study

The English Language has consistently gained momentum as more
countries continue to acquire and integrate it as either an official
Language or a Language of Business and Education. The current
globalization of the English Language has initiated the English
Language in most, even remote, areas of the world. The rise to
independent thinking, crave for democracy and justice, love for
6
creativity and innovation and the drive towards stable politics has been
associated with the acquisition of English Language.
In Africa, countries which have prompted their people to have a good

command of English have probably assimilated other aspects of the
western cultures as well. This is because the process of acquiring the
English Language in Africa has tended to be overwhelmingly through a
formal system of western style of education.
African scholars continue to regard the lack of seriousness about

knowledge
[3] in African Language as perfectly justifiable. The situation at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_Uganda.
the beginning of the new millennium continues to lend credibility to the
claim by Mazrui and Tidy (1984:314) that;
“Recommendation about paying more attention to African
[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_Uganda
Languages, systematically building up their vocabulary for
certain new areas of national life, and integrating them more
fully into the educational system have often encountered either
silent skepticism among black intellectuals and scholars of
outright derision.”
Further study confirms that intellectual and scientific dependency in
Africa is virtually inseparable from linguistic dependency. And since a
major function of culture lies in providing media of communication, the
choice of English as a medium of instruction in ‘Anglophone’ African
academies has had profound cultural consequences for the societies
which are served by those educational institutions.
The English Language was therefore envisaged to become the Trans –

ethnic’s language of Africa. Neither the Pan- African Movement, nor the
African Union has been conceivable without resort to the English
Language. The pressure to formalize the East African Federation has
resulted into changing the Language policies of countries such as
7
Rwanda and Burundi from Francophone to Anglophone. This move is
also juxtaposed with fundamental change in the aspects of social
development, political stability and a promising environment of
democracy.
1.2 Statement of the Problem

Uganda has kept its education standards that were initially introduced
in the 1890s at the advent of colonial rule. The country’s education
system rests on the foundation of the British syllabus. This firm
foundation has prompted the neighbouring countries to marvel at the
consistence and sustainability of this positive colonial trend.
Countries like Kenya and Tanzania, which had similar colonial masters,
had drastic changes during their cessation from colonial rule thus
ushering in other languages such as Kiswahiri. Other sovereigns in the
region, including Rwanda and Burundi, which are in the East African
Federation, tried to keep their colonialist’s languages, such as French,
until recently.
According to the statistical abstract, 2007 (UBOS) many International

students, mainly from neighbouring countries, have joined Uganda’s
Educational Institutions. Though other factors can be sited in the
analysis of this trend, the factor of the English Language as a medium
of communication in Uganda’s Education System intrigues the
researcher and prompts this research.
To date, there has been no empirical investigation of the

communicative needs of International students hailing from countries
where English is not a medium of communication. Therefore, teaching
in English for second and third language learners of the English
language is far from satisfactory in terms of customizing University
8
courses. When the specific language needs are not defined basing on
language use, learners will end up disappointed with the language
proficiency level, regardless of the effort that they put into their
specialized courses. On the other hand, the effort of education
administrators and Ugandan lecturers would lack focus if the English
language needs are not defined in terms of language use.
In order to contribute empirical data to the language learning use and

learning in Uganda education, this study investigates the English
language communicative needs of a targeted group of learners in
higher institution of learning with many International students by
investigating their targeted needs in the learning environment and
future plans.
The language situation in the selected campuses in this study reflects

the need for ESL International students to have a high level of
proficiency in the English language since they deal with a large number
of English speaking lecturers and fellow students at the University.
The hope of this study is to provide empirical information about the

uses of English in the University which, in return, can be used as an
input to feed the larger structure of the ESL International students in
language training and on-study bridge courses to cater for their
language inefficiencies.
1.3 Objectives of Study

The major objective of the study is to investigate the English language
communicative needs for Foreign Students in higher institution of
learning.
Specific objectives of this study include but not exactly limited;
9
a) To examine the values of using English as a language of instruction
b) To evaluate the relevance of the English Language in University
education.
c) To assess the application of English language in the different
University courses; including Business Studies and Information
Technology.
d) To justify the need of studying English while in Uganda for all
International students who have deficiencies in the English Language.
1.4 Research Questions

1- To what extent is the English language used in the courses offered
at Kampala University.
a. What is the perceived percentage of using English at Ggaba

and Mutundwe Campuses?
c. Does communication with other fellow students require the
usage of English?
2- What level of the reading, writing, listening and speaking skills of

the English language are required in the University and for performing
what kind of activities?
a. Which of the skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) is

more emphasized in the University?
b. What kind of activities are these skills used for?
10
3- Do International students feel that they were prepared in terms of
their English language ability to meet their current communication
needs?
a. How do you perceive your English language ability before and

after you joined Kampala University?
b. Do you think it is relevant to take the English language

courses at the University?
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Overview
The most durable and credible institution for the development and
implementation of language is an educational institution. Just as every
individual has the right to be educated, so must it be the general
concern of every democratic community to help develop the
educational potential of every single one of its members (Swain, 1980).
The forms, mechanisms and processes involved are manifold.
Language education is for life. It begins at the latest with the dawning
of consciousness and ends at the earliest with the end of
consciousness.
The reflective and interactive functions of language acquisition and

language education are characterised by longevity. They occur
principally, but not exclusively, in our homes, our institutions, at our
place of work, in privacy and in retirement (Snow, C., 2000).
11
Language education, whether driven by self or by others, is an
indispensable part of any and all human activity. It enables, facilitates
and promotes all spheres of human endeavour, in particular: creativity;
the invention, reception, absorption, transmission, discussion and
development of new concepts; the articulation of ideas, dispositions,
opinions and emotions; expressiveness; social interaction; political
activity; negotiation and transactions; communication (Donato, R.
2000).
It is therefore no mistake that individuals in search of their destiny and

determined to impact their communities, have always sought out
proper instruction in language and communication skills.
Kampala University main campus, Gaba is a cradle of a cosmopolitan

students’ body hence making it a multilingual community. The campus
harbours students of different nationalities including those from Kenya,
Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, DR of Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria and
the native Ugandans. (KU, Management meeting, 2010) Without bias
or favour, all these categories receive the same services and they are
required to fulfill the same obligations depending on their respective
educational levels and course requirements.
Kampala University Mutundwe Campus is well known for Nursing

Training. However it is also a haven to one of the biggest program of
the University which is more known as ‘The Kenyan In-service
Program’. This program accumulates more that 1000 students from
Kenya, (KU. Evaluation Report April 2009), who utilize the holidays to
upgrade their educational status. Most of these students are already
practicing teachers and hope to advance in positions if they upgrade.
Most of the Kenyan Students are more inclined to the Kiswahili
language which is more developed in there country.
12
The language issue in the University reached its climax when the
University managed to attract a considerable number of students from
both Rwanda and Somalia, where the English Language is not a first or
second language.
2.1 The Language situation of Today’s World

Every language, including our own native languages, is the most
important language of the world - to its speakers. Rather than
"important" we shall here, therefore, use the world "influential" in its
stead. Luganda in Uganda is a very influential language to Baganda, no
doubt about it, but is it more so than English? Clearly not. The number
of speakers is relevant but quite insufficient for a meaningful ranking
of languages in order of current world-wide influence, the stress being
on the word "world-wide"(Table 1). There are many other factors to be
taken into account and this is what we shall attempt to do in the
following.
Ranking the world's current top languages is not just an idle past-time.
(Table 2) The world is growing closer and this historical development is
matched by large-scale linguistic adjustments, the most dramatic of
which being the explosive growth of the English language (Table 2.3).
It does matter how major languages stand and evolve in relation to
each other. Like the weather, many developments make sense only if
one looks at the world-wide picture, not just parochial bits of it (George
W., 1995).
What does "influential" mean in this context? Each language carries

considerable cultural, social, historical and psychological baggage.
(Table 2.2) As anyone who has ever had to learn a foreign language
knows, doing so in many ways alters one's attitudes and world view. To
13
what extent, in what form and how deeply such changes actually
manifest themselves in the individual learner depends on many
factors, the circumstances that have led to the decision to learn the
foreign language, the learner's character, intelligence, education and
background.
Table 1. Distribution of languages by area of origin
Living
Area Number of speakers
languages
Percen Percen
Count Count Mean Median
t t
Africa 2,110 30.5 726,453,403 12.2 344,291 25,200
Americas 993 14.4 50,496,321 0.8 50,852 2,300
Asia 2,322 33.6 3,622,771,264 60.8 1,560,194 11,100
Europe 234 3.4 1,553,360,941 26.1 6,638,295 201,500
Pacific 1,250 18.1 6,429,788 0.1 5,144 980
Totals 6,909 100.0 5,959,511,717 100.0 862,572 7,560
Table 2. Distribution of languages by number of first-language

speakers
Population range Living languages Number of speakers

Cou Perc Cumula Percen Cumulat
Count
nt ent tive t ive
100,000,000 to 999, 2,308,548, 38.7372 38.73721
8 0.1 0.1%
999,999 848 1 %
10,000,000 to 99,99 2,346,900, 39.3807 78.11797
77 1.1 1.2%
9,999 757 6 %
1,000,000 to 9,999,9 951,916,4 15.9730 94.09103
304 4.4 5.6%
99 58 6 %
283,116,7 98.84170
100,000 to 999,999 895 13.0 18.6% 4.75067
16 %
1,82 60,780,79 99.86160
10,000 to 99,999 26.4 45.0% 1.01990
4 7 %
2,01 99.99204
1,000 to 9,999 29.2 74.1% 7,773,810 0.13044
4 %
1,03 99.99978
100 to 999 15.0 89.2% 461,250 0.00774
8 %
10 to 99 339 4.9 94.1% 12,560 0.00021 99.99999
14
Population range Living languages Number of speakers
Cou Perc Cumula Percen Cumulat
Count
nt ent tive t ive
%
100.0000
1 to 9 133 1.9 96.0% 521 0.00001
0%
Unknown 277 4.0 100.0%
6,90 5,959,511, 100.000
Totals 100.0
9 717 00
Table 2.2. Languages with at least 3 million first-language

speakers
Total
Speakers
Rank Language Primary Country Countrie
(millions)
s
1 Chinese [zho] China 31 1,213
Chinese, Gan [gan] China 1 20.6
Chinese, Hakka [hak] China 17 30.0
Chinese, Huizhou [czh] China 1 4.6
Chinese, Jinyu [cjy] China 1 45.0
Chinese, Mandarin
China 20 845
[cmn]
Chinese, Min Bei [mnp] China 2 10.3
Chinese, Min Dong
China 7 9.1
[cdo]
Chinese, Min Nan [nan] China 10 47.3
Chinese, Min Zhong
China 1 3.1
[czo]
Chinese, Wu [wuu] China 2 77.2
Chinese, Xiang [hsn] China 2 36.0
Chinese, Yue [yue] China 20 55.5
2 Spanish [spa] Spain 44 329
3 English [eng] United Kingdom 112 328
4 Arabic [ara] Saudi Arabia 57 221
Arabic, Algerian
Algeria 6 22.4
Spoken [arq]
Arabic, Egyptian
Egypt 10 54.0
Spoken [arz]
Arabic, Gulf Spoken
Iraq 10 3.6
[afb]
15
Total
Speakers
(millions)
s
Arabic, Hijazi Spoken
Saudi Arabia 2 6.0
[acw]
Arabic, Libyan Spoken
Libya 3 4.3
[ayl]
Arabic, Mesopotamian
Iraq 5 15.1
Spoken [acm]
Arabic, Moroccan
Morocco 10 21.0
Spoken [ary]
Arabic, Najdi Spoken
Saudi Arabia 7 10.0
[ars]
Arabic, North
Levantine Spoken Syria 16 14.4
[apc]
Arabic, North
Mesopotamian Spoken Iraq 4 6.3
[ayp]
Arabic, Sa'idi Spoken
Egypt 1 19.0
[aec]
Arabic, Sanaani
Yemen 1 7.6
Spoken [ayn]
Arabic, South
Jordan 9 6.2
Levantine Spoken [ajp]
Arabic, Sudanese
Sudan 6 16.8
Spoken [apd]
Arabic, Ta'izzi-Adeni
Yemen 8 7.1
Spoken [acq]
Arabic, Tunisian
Tunisia 5 9.4
Spoken [aeb]
5 Hindi [hin] India 20 182
6 Bengali [ben] Bangladesh 10 181
7 Portuguese [por] Portugal 37 178
8 Russian [rus] Russian Federation 33 144
9 Japanese [jpn] Japan 25 122
German, Standard
10 Germany 43 90.3
[deu]
11 Javanese [jav] Indonesia 5 84.6
12 Lahnda [lah] Pakistan 8 78.3
Panjabi, Western [pnb] Pakistan 7 62.6
Seraiki [skr] Pakistan 3 13.8
13 Telugu [tel] India 10 69.8
16
Total
Speakers
(millions)
s
14 Vietnamese [vie] Viet Nam 23 68.6
15 Marathi [mar] India 5 68.1
16 French [fra] France 60 67.8
17 Korean [kor] Korea, South 33 66.3
18 Tamil [tam] India 17 65.7
19 Italian [ita] Italy 34 61.7
20 Urdu [urd] Pakistan 23 60.6
21 Turkish [tur] Turkey 36 50.8
22 Gujarati [guj] India 20 46.5
23 Polish [pol] Poland 23 40.0
24 Malay [msa] Malaysia 14 39.1
Malay [zlm] Malaysia 7 10.3
25 Bhojpuri [bho] India 3 38.5
26 Awadhi [awa] India 2 38.3
27 Ukrainian [ukr] Ukraine 27 37.0
28 Malayalam [mal] India 11 35.9
29 Kannada [kan] India 3 35.3
30 Maithili [mai] India 2 34.7
31 Sunda [sun] Indonesia 1 34.0
32 Burmese [mya] Myanmar 5 32.3
33 Oriya [ori] India 2 31.7
34 Persian [fas] Iran 29 31.4
Farsi, Eastern [prs] Afghanistan 3 7.6
Farsi, Western [pes] Iran 27 23.9
35 Marwari [mwr] India 3 31.1
Dhundari [dhd] India 1 9.0
Marwari [rwr] India 3 5.6
Merwari [wry] India 1 3.9
Shekhawati [swv] India 1 3.0
36 Panjabi, Eastern [pan] India 12 28.2
37 Filipino [fil] Philippines 1 25.0
38 Hausa [hau] Nigeria 13 25.0
39 Tagalog [tgl] Philippines 8 23.9
40 Romanian [ron] Romania 20 23.4
41 Indonesian [ind] Indonesia 6 23.2
42 Dutch [nld] Netherlands 12 21.7
43 Sindhi [snd] Pakistan 8 21.4
44 Thai [tha] Thailand 5 20.4
45 Pushto [pus] Pakistan 9 20.3
17
Total
Speakers
(millions)
s
Pashto, Central [pst] Pakistan 1 7.9
Pashto, Northern [pbu] Pakistan 7 9.7
46 Uzbek [uzb] Uzbekistan 14 20.3
Uzbek, Northern [uzn] Uzbekistan 12 18.8
47 Rajasthani [raj] India 3 20.0
Hadothi [hoj] India 1 4.7
Malvi [mup] India 1 10.4
48 Yoruba [yor] Nigeria 6 19.4
49 Azerbaijani [aze] Iran 17 19.1
Azerbaijani, North [azj] Azerbaijan 10 7.5
Azerbaijani, South
Iran 8 12.6
[azb]
50 Igbo [ibo] Nigeria 1 18.0
51 Amharic [amh] Ethiopia 6 17.5
52 Chhattisgarhi [hne] India 1 17.5
53 Oromo [orm] Ethiopia 4 17.3
Oromo, Borana-Arsi-
Ethiopia 3 3.8
Guji [gax]
Oromo, Eastern [hae] Ethiopia 1 4.5
Oromo, West Central
Ethiopia 2 8.9
[gaz]
54 Assamese [asm] India 4 16.8
55 Serbo-Croatian [hbs] Serbia 28 16.4
Croatian [hrv] Croatia 14 5.5
Serbian [srp] Serbia 22 7.0
56 Kurdish [kur] Iraq 32 16.0
Kurdish, Central [ckb] Iraq 2 3.7
Kurdish, Northern
Turkey 32 9.3
[kmr]
Kurdish, Southern
Iran 2 3.0
[sdh]
57 Cebuano [ceb] Philippines 2 15.8
58 Sinhala [sin] Sri Lanka 8 15.6
59 Rangpuri [rkt] Bangladesh 2 15.0
60 Thai, Northeastern [tts] Thailand 1 15.0
61 Zhuang [zha] China 2 14.9
62 Malagasy [mlg] Madagascar 4 14.7
Malagasy, Plateau [plt] Madagascar 4 7.5
63 Nepali [nep] Nepal 5 13.9
18
Total
Speakers
(millions)
s
64 Somali [som] Somalia 13 13.9
65 Khmer, Central [khm] Cambodia 7 13.6
66 Madura [mad] Indonesia 2 13.6
67 Bavarian [bar] Austria 4 13.3
68 Greek [ell] Greece 38 13.1
69 Chittagonian [ctg] Bangladesh 1 13.0
70 Haryanvi [bgc] India 1 13.0
71 Magahi [mag] India 1 13.0
72 Deccan [dcc] India 1 12.8
73 Hungarian [hun] Hungary 14 12.5
74 Fulah [ful] Senegal 19 12.3
Pulaar [fuc] Senegal 6 3.7
Catalan-Valencian-
75 Spain 18 11.5
Balear [cat]
76 Shona [sna] Zimbabwe 5 10.8
77 Zulu [zul] South Africa 6 10.3
78 Sylheti [syl] Bangladesh 10 10.3
79 Quechua [que] Peru 6 10.1
Quechua, South
Bolivia 2 3.6
Bolivian [quh]
80 Kanauji [bjj] India 1 9.5
81 Czech [ces] Czech Republic 12 9.5
82 Lombard [lmo] Italy 3 9.1
83 Bulgarian [bul] Bulgaria 16 9.1
84 Uyghur [uig] China 15 8.8
85 Nyanja [nya] Malawi 6 8.7
86 Belarusan [bel] Belarus 16 8.6
87 Kazakh [kaz] Kazakhstan 14 8.3
88 Swedish [swe] Sweden 8 8.3
89 Akan [aka] Ghana 1 8.3
90 Xhosa [xho] South Africa 3 7.8
91 Bagheli [bfy] India 2 7.8
92 Haitian [hat] Haiti 10 7.7
93 Konkani [kok] India 4 7.6
Konkani [knn] India 2 4.0
Konkani, Goan [gom] India 3 3.6
94 Rwanda [kin] Rwanda 4 7.5
95 Gikuyu [kik] Kenya 1 7.2
96 Napoletano-Calabrese Italy 1 7.0
19
Total
Speakers
(millions)
s
[nap]
97 Baluchi [bal] Pakistan 8 7.0
Balochi, Southern [bcc] Pakistan 4 3.4
98 Ilocano [ilo] Philippines 2 7.0
99 Varhadi-Nagpuri [vah] India 1 7.0
100 Turkmen [tuk] Turkmenistan 14 6.6
101 Tatar [tat] Russian Federation 19 6.5
102 German, Swiss [gsw] Switzerland 5 6.5
103 Hmong [hmn] China 10 6.5
104 Armenian [hye] Armenia 30 6.4
Democratic
105 Luba-Kasai [lua] Republic of the 1 6.3
Congo
106 Venetian [vec] Italy 4 6.2
107 Santali [sat] India 4 6.2
108 Vlaams [vls] Belgium 5 6.1
109 Sotho, Southern [sot] Lesotho 4 6.0
110 Thai, Northern [nod] Thailand 2 6.0
111 Lambadi [lmn] India 1 6.0
Democratic
112 Kongo [kon] Republic of the 3 6.0
Congo
Democratic
Koongo [kng] Republic of the 3 5.0
Congo
113 Albanian [sqi] Albania 18 5.8
Albanian, Gheg [aln] Serbia 9 4.2
Albanian, Tosk [als] Albania 10 3.0
114 Tigrigna [tir] Ethiopia 6 5.8
115 Hiligaynon [hil] Philippines 2 5.8
116 Mongolian [mon] Mongolia 6 5.7
Mongolian, Peripheral
China 2 3.4
[mvf]
117 Kashmiri [kas] India 4 5.6
118 Danish [dan] Denmark 8 5.6
119 Minangkabau [min] Indonesia 1 5.5
120 Sukuma [suk] Tanzania 1 5.4
121 Hebrew [heb] Israel 8 5.3
122 Mòoré [mos] Burkina Faso 7 5.1
20
Total
Speakers
(millions)
s
123 Slovak [slk] Slovakia 12 5.0
124 Finnish [fin] Finland 7 5.0
125 Mewati [wtm] India 1 5.0
126 Afrikaans [afr] South Africa 12 4.9
127 Guarani [grn] Paraguay 5 4.9
Guaraní, Paraguayan
Paraguay 2 4.8
[gug]
128 Mainfränkisch [vmf] Germany 1 4.9
129 Rundi [run] Burundi 4 4.9
130 Bikol [bik] Philippines 1 4.8
131 Sicilian [scn] Italy 1 4.8
132 Norwegian [nor] Norway 1 4.6
133 Mandingo [man] Guinea 8 4.5
134 Tswana [tsn] Botswana 4 4.5
135 Thai, Southern [sou] Thailand 1 4.5
136 Tajiki [tgk] Tajikistan 8 4.5
137 Dholuo [luo] Kenya 2 4.4
138 Georgian [kat] Georgia 13 4.3
Democratic
139 Kituba [ktu] Republic of the 1 4.2
Congo
140 Ganda [lug] Uganda 1 4.1
141 Sotho, Northern [nso] South Africa 2 4.1
142 Umbundu [umb] Angola 2 4.0
143 Wolof [wol] Senegal 6 4.0
144 Kamba [kam] Kenya 1 4.0
145 Kanuri [kau] Nigeria 6 4.0
Kanuri, Central [knc] Nigeria 6 3.2
146 Domari [rmt] Iran 14 4.0
147 Musi [mui] Indonesia 1 3.9
148 Dogri [doi] India 1 3.8
149 Mina [myi] India 1 3.8
150 Tsonga [tso] South Africa 4 3.7
151 Bemba [bem] Zambia 4 3.6
152 Banjar [bjn] Indonesia 2 3.5
153 Aceh [ace] Indonesia 1 3.5
154 Bugis [bug] Indonesia 2 3.5
155 Bali [ban] Indonesia 1 3.3
156 Shan [shn] Myanmar 3 3.3
21
Total
Speakers
(millions)
s
157 Gilaki [glk] Iran 1 3.3
158 Mazanderani [mzn] Iran 1 3.3
Jamaican Creole
159 Jamaica 7 3.2
English [jam]
160 Galician [glg] Spain 2 3.2
161 Lao [lao] Laos 7 3.2
162 Lithuanian [lit] Lithuania 19 3.2
Tamazight, Central
163 Morocco 3 3.2
Atlas [tzm]
164 Kabyle [kab] Algeria 3 3.1
165 Hassaniyya [mey] Mauritania 8 3.1
166 Éwé [ewe] Ghana 2 3.1
167 Piemontese [pms] Italy 3 3.1
168 Makhuwa [vmw] Mozambique 1 3.1
169 Godwari [gdx] India 1 3.0
170 Hunsrik [hrx] Brazil 5 3.0
171 Kimbundu [kmb] Angola 1 3.0
172 Tachelhit [shi] Morocco 3 3.0
22
Table 2.3. A hierarchy of Lingua Francas.
23
Table 2.4. Rise and fall of major languages: the historical
dimension.
24
2.2 English as a Global Language
Generally, English is a global language, but it has no official status, and

it will never have. (Table 2.3) The reasons for the position of
English are the imperialism and economical and political
importance of English-speaking countries. Linguistically, English is
extremely unsuitable for international communication, and the
actual wide use of English tends to polarize the world into Internet
users and Internet illiterates. (Table 2.6)
The position of English can only be altered by major world-scale

political and economical changes, such as increasing importance of the
European Union or a coalition between Japan and China. Such powers
might wish and be able to promote a language other than English,
possibly a constructed language, for international communication.
Alternatively, or in addition to this, the technology of machine

translation may allow people to use their own language in international
communication.
2.2.1 The World English Language situation

Professor Suzanne Kemmer of Rice University accounted for the origin
of English Language, but the most important revelation in her book
was the analysis of the English Language as a language that marks
important invention and development in the whole world (Kemmer,
1997). The most important development that has great concern to the
spread of English through out the world was Christianity. (Brown, Peter,
2003).
25
English spread through out the world in the light of redemption and
salvation. Although Africa got its share of this development in the 1st
or early 2nd century AD, the impact of English language, as intensified
by Christianity was realized in the 19th Century. (Masuzawa, 2005).
Many African nations, south of Sahara, embraced the religion and its
medium. However, there was considerable modification of the English
Language brought by the missionaries. This modification was basically
a result of first language influence and culture.
The English spoken as a foreign language by several African countries,

including Uganda has recognizable differences with what can be called
‘original English’. That is why A. Meghani, one of the renowned Kenyan
critic stated that;
“Strictly speaking, English cannot be called English at all, since it is a
universal language belonging to all. It is difficult to understand why it
is still known under that horrible name, it should have another name.’
[4]
Meghani thus sought legitimacy for particularistic varieties of English –

including black ones – by appealing to its universality.
Alexander Crummel, the pioneer Pan-Africanist, saw that African

languages were lacking clear ideas of justice, law, human rights and
governmental order which are prominent and manifest in civilized
countries’ (crumell,1969:20), he proceeds to outline the many
progressive credentials of English. In his words;
“…the English language is characteristically the language of freedom. I
know that there is a sense in which this love of liberty is brought in the
very fibre and substance of the body and blood of all people, but the
flames burn dimly in some races; it is a fitful fire in some others; and in
many inferior people it is the flickering light of a dying candle. But in
26
the English races it is an ardent, healthy vital, irrepressible flame, with
all normal and orderly in its development.” (Crumell, 1969:23)
All African countries that managed to maintain English in there

respective systems, either by making English an official or national
Language, associate
AfricanitStandard.
with several virtues. Crumell 1965).
therefore stated
[4]
The East (Nairobi) Febuary15,
that;
“Once more I remark that the English language is the enshrinement of
those great charters of liberty which are essential elements of free
government and the main guarantees of personality liberty. I refer now
to the right of trial by jury, the peoples’ right to participation in
government, freedom of speech and the press, the right of petition,
freedom of religion and these are special characteristics of the English
language.” (Crumell 1969:25)
Uganda takes pride from its consistence in the use of English as both
an official and national language. This precedent projects Uganda as a
fully Anglophone country in the region. The consistence of the English
Language in Uganda is attributed to the fact that English is the
language of instruction at all levels of education. (MoE&S, 2007). The
outstanding achievements realized in Uganda and the region, over a
period of time, including; the emergency of Africa’s outstanding
political activists such as Milton Obote, Benjamin Mkapa and currently
Yoweri Museveni; in addition to renowned academicians like, Prof.
Mahmood Mamdan, Prof. Ali Mazrui, Okot bitet and Thoban Lo Liyongo
has raised the status of the country’s education system.
27
Chart I.
2.2.2 Foreign Languages in Education

The growing internationalisation of human relationships makes the
teaching of foreign languages more and more necessary. But at the
same time it reveals, sometimes in a particularly glaring manner, its
inadequacies.
In order to remedy these, quantitative measures to extend existing

possibilities are essential in many countries. In a general way, the
number of individuals benefiting from foreign language instruction
28
should be increased. This demand concerns countries in the course of
development where this instruction is not always part of the curriculum
teaching and where a considerable quantitative effort must still be
made. (Joachim (2005)
In almost all countries an extension of the hours and the length of the
courses is also desirable, as well as the reduction of the number of
students per class, a simple common sense measure for the teaching
of a subject, one of the principle aims of which is communication.
Table 2.5
Table 2.6.
29
2.2.3 English Language communication in Uganda
The English Language in Uganda is organized both as the language of
education as well as the officially recognized National Language. The
language acquired the symbolic function of representing the unity of
the state in addition to its function of ensuring a mutual and common
communication network within the state.
Unlike in other neighbouring countries, like Tanzania, Uganda’s

language policy does not prohibit the use of non-official languages
from public spheres. Native languages are also encouraged as subject
areas in the curriculum of Uganda’s Education at all levels.
The Uganda Cultural Policy clearly stipulates that the different native
ethnicities in Uganda have the freedom to promote their respective
values and cultures. Since language is the vehicle for cultures through
sensitization and practice, several native languages have managed to
develop and sustain despite of their unofficial state.
30
The Ministry of education and Sports in the Uganda government
recently approved and called for immediate implementation of the
“Thematic curriculum” in all Primary Schools. The thematic curriculum
prescribes the studying of elementary courses in Primary Schools in
native languages. Despite the past stronghold of the English Language
in Uganda’s education sector since colonial time, this practice has
been welcomed, though with mixed feeling from the stakeholders
(teachers, learners and parents).
However, the bottom line significant factor for its implementation and
that is, to ensure that learners study in their first languages for
effective learning could not be challenged by any of the stakeholder.
2.3 Conceptual Frame work.
31
From The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, by David Crystal
The English Language used in communication can best be described by
the geographical orientation of the speakers. The picture above
confirms the magnitude on the spread of English across the world. But
despite the different diversions, all Englishes stem from one source
and that is why it can be studied in schools. English Language learning
encompasses the critical study of the World Standard English in
comparison with the geographical English in our respective areas of
origin.
2.4 Definition of Key Terms.
32
International/ Foreign Students
These are students in the Uganda Education system but not
necessarily natives of Uganda. In others words, they are students
taking their education in Uganda yet their nationalities are not Uganda.
Education
Education in the broadest sense is any act or experience that has a
formative effect on the mind, character or physical ability of an
individual.
Global Language
A world language is a language spoken internationally, which is
learned by many people as a second or third language.
English as a Second Language

This refers to the use or study of English by speakers with a different
native language.
Lingua Franca.
A lingua franca is a language systematically used to communicate
between persons not sharing a mother tongue, distinct from both
people’s mother tongues.
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
33
3.0 Introduction
This chapter presents details about the methodology adopted and

elaborates the chosen research philosophy, approach and strategy
used and the reasons for their selection. Further, this chapter
describes the sample population and how the primary data was
collected and processed. It also describes the secondary data
collection for the literature review. This chapter further explains the
data collection tool and highlights validity, authenticity and reliability
of the data collected.
This chapter is divided into five parts. The first part gives an overview
about different methods in conducting needs analysis. The second part
describes the tools, setting and participants of the study. The third part
describes the process of developing the questionnaire. The fourth part
discusses the piloting and validation process. The last part describes
the data collection process.
3.1 Overview
Robinson (1991) lists a number of different methods for conducting
needs analysis. These include questionnaires, interviews, case studies,
tests, and authentic data collection (e.g. analyzing actual manuals and
written assignments). Jordan (1997) adds to these methods advanced
documentation (e.g. requesting extra information that includes
educational background, previously attended courses, and other
relevant aspects), language tests at home, self-assessment, class
progress tests, direct monitoring, structured interviews, learner diaries,
previous research comparisons, and follow up investigations.
34
In all, the methods that can be used in needs analysis are highly
varied. However, the most widely used methods are case studies,
interviews and questionnaires (West, 1994).
A case study is a thorough method to investigate a learner’s

communication needs. It provides a close examination of what the
learner needs to learn based on his/her personal language ability.
However, the drawback of this approach is that it is not cost effective.
It requires a long period of time and it is not able to produce statistical
and generalizable data.
Interviews are another method to utilize in a language needs

investigation. Interview protocols usually contain open-ended
questions aimed at guiding the subjects’ responses. These give the
researcher a wide variety of different responses that give a sense of
the perceived language needs. However, the disadvantage of this
approach is that the interpretation of the open-ended questions might
not represent the intention of the subject. The subject also might be
influenced in a face to face interview to give answers that satisfy the
researcher. Moreover, in order to achieve a statistical generalization,
the researcher needs to interview a large number of subjects which
can be costly and time consuming.
For these reasons, the majority of studies in needs analysis use

questionnaires as the primary method of data collection. Jordan (1997)
indicates that the use of questionnaires is most convenient when
dealing with large scale of data collection. Questionnaires enable the
researcher to collect data from a large number of subjects in a short
period of time. However, their main drawback is that the subjects
might misinterpret the questions. Thus, it is crucial to pretest
questionnaires before the distribution process. Another drawback is
35
that the response rate can be low, especially when the questionnaire is
mailed to the subjects rather than distributed and collected in person.
In all, Jordan (1997) indicates that there is no single approach to

conduct needs analysis.
Every researcher has different circumstances that influence the choice
of method in conducting his/her investigation. It falls to the researcher
to choose the method that best serves his/her goals and
circumstances.
Questionnaires were determined to be the best means of investigation

in this study. They were selected as the source of data collection for
the following reasons.
1- The number of participants was expected to be fairly large.
2- They require minimal time from participants and provide a flexible
and convenient way to participate in the study.
3- Participants could be assured of a certain degree of anonymity in
their responses and could respond candidly.
3.2 Setting and Participants

As stated earlier, Kampala University admits a good number of
multinational and multilingual students'. According to the Academic
Registrar’s report, Uganda students represent only 38% of students
and 62% for International at Ggaba and Mutundwe. When looking at
the sites where the data was collected, of the 2191 students only 787
(38.7%) were Ugandans. All lecturers and support staff are either
trained in English or hired in part because they are proficient in
English. As a result English comes as a natural choice in
communication. This represents a unique situation where English is
used as a lingua franca.
36
Since the goal of this study is to provide empirical data for the English
language communicative needs of foreign students in Institutions of
Higher Learning in Uganda, the sample population focused on
International students in the Kampala University who were admitted on
different courses including education, Business studies, Informational
Technology, as well as those on Language studies. The sample
population was selected from two campuses in Kampala University in
order to cover a good percentage of International students.
The literature on conducting questionnaires in second language

research indicates that there is no rule in setting the optimal sample
size. However, Dornyei (2003) indicates three major guidelines to
determine an appropriate sample size:
1- Having 1% to 10% of the targeted population is adequate to
represent an accurate sample of the population.
2- The return rate with voluntary questionnaires is between 20% to
50%.
3- L2 studies based on questionnaires need a minimum of 100
respondents to reach statistical significance.
The researcher first obtained data on the number of International

students admitted in Kampala University in order to have an idea
about the complexity of the English Language situation in the
University. The figures indicate that the two campuses collectively
admit approximately 900 students per year.
A letter was sent to the Deputy Academic Registrars offices at these

campuses asking about the number of International students admitted.
The letter also asked about the number of international employees and
the Language that the campuses uses as the tool of communication
when conducting educational activities.
37
The responses indicated that these campuses admit a total of 920
International Students. This figure gave the researcher an indication
that the number of International Students would be adequate to carry
out a reliable study.
To sum up, the sample for this investigation consisted of International

Students registered for different courses (Education, Business Studies
and Information Technology) but also including Language Studies.
Participants were International students from Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia,
Tanzania, Sudan and Burundi at Ggaba and Mutundwe Campuses.
3.2.1: Research Tools

3.2.1.1: Testing
Kampala University made it mandatory for all International Students,
who come from countries where English is not a Lingua Franca, to
undertake a test as one requirement of entry into the University. With
the help of the administration, the researcher formulated and
administered two Aptitude Tests to these special International students
during the August 2009 and February 2010 intakes.
The tests included five sections, four of them examined the four basic
English Language skills of writing, reading, speaking and listening. The
fifth section examined basic grammar. The exercise included reading
extracts, listening to recorded speeches and writing original
compositions among others.
3.2.1.2: Interviews
The researcher selected a sample of compliant International students
whom he used to carry out his extensive interviews. Among these
where the International Students Leaders and students course
38
coordinators. The sample was used to monitor and ascertain oral skills
competence and other general information that would be necessary in
the research. Students’ leaders were very open and cooperative with
hope that they comrades will benefit from this research.
3.2.1.3. Questionnaires
The biggest percentage of the data collected in this research was
collected through questionnaires. The following section gives the
description of the nature of questionnaire employed in this research
3.3 Developing the Questionnaire

Questionnaire design for this study followed common principles of
designing questionnaires in second Language research (e.g. Dornyei,
2003; Jordan, 1997; Brown 1995; Oppenheim, 1992). Previous
literature in needs analysis that has similar goals and purposes was
also consulted (e.g. Al-Gorashi, 1988; Zainol Abidin, 1992; Al-Bazzaz,
1994; and Almulhim, 2001). The questionnaire was designed in four
parts (see Appendix C).
3.3.1 Part one

The first part consisted of participant biographical data. It was
necessary for the purposes of this research to obtain biographical
information about the respondents for two reasons. First, providing
information about course and specialty ensured that participants were
indeed serving within the education community. Any questionnaire
filled out by anyone from outside the domain of the intended
population was disregarded. Second, information about the year of
admission helped to confirm the information.
3.3.2 Part two
39
The second part of the questionnaire was designed to provide data to
answer the first research question:
What percentage of your course is conducted in English?
In order to answer this question, four sub-questions were designed.
The first sub-question sought information about the overall perceived
percentage of using English during the course study. Item 7 of the
questionnaire represented this question.
The second sub-question sought information about the usage of

English at campus. Items 8 and 9 of the questionnaire represented this
question. Item 8 required a yes/no answer and item 9 asked the
respondents to circle the language used.
The third sub-question sought information about usage of English with

other students at campus. Items number 10 and 11 of the
questionnaire represented this sub question. Item number 10 used a
yes/no answer and item number 11 used a Likert-type scale providing
four choices (e.g. “a lot,” “somewhat,” “a little” and “never”).
The last sub-question in this part sought information about the

perceived importance of using English as a tool of communication to
conduct the course. The purpose of this question was to analyze the
relation between participants’ extent of usage and perceived
importance of usage.
Item number 12 of the questionnaire represented this sub-question

which used Likert-type scale providing four choices (e.g. “very
important,” “somewhat important,” “little importance” and “not
important”).
3.3.3 Part three
40
This part of the questionnaire was designed to provide data to answer
the second research question: What level of the reading, writing,
listening and speaking skills of the English language are required in the
University and for performing what kind of activities?
Two sub-questions were designed. The first sub-question sought

information about which of the four English Language skills are
emphasized at the University. Information about the four skills was
important to compare and contrast their usage in the respective
course studies.. Items number 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 presented this
sub-question. The first four items used a Likert-type scale providing
four choices (e.g. “excellent level,” “good level,” “satisfactory level”
and “N/A”). Item 17 of the questionnaire asked the respondents to rank
the importance of the four skills that they evaluated in the previous
questions. This item gives an overall estimate of the emphasized skill
at the University and it is also used as a cross-check question since the
answer to this question should be presumably consistent with the
answers to the previous four questions.
Dornyei (2003) indicates that a good questionnaire uses a cross-check

question to inform the researcher about the reliability of his
respondents. If the answer to this question were not consistent with
the previous four questions, the inconsistency would hint that the
respondents were not paying attention to the questions and they were
answering carelessly.
The second sub-question sought information about the degree of the

perceived importance of each of the four skills (listening, speaking,
reading, and writing) in various course related activities. Choosing
these activities was not an easy task. It was infeasible to ask the
respondents to have or generate a list of their own activities due to
41
time limitations and possible problems with reliability. Since no
previous investigation of educational English needs had been done in
any University, the researcher generated a list of possible activities.
The list was then presented to the two campuses for feedback. All
activities were perceived as relevant to the educational field and one
new activity was added to the list. To account for any other
unanticipated activities, the researcher left a blank at the end of the
activities and asked respondents to write down any additional activity
that they thought was relevant. Item 18 of the questionnaire
represented these activities. To rank the importance of the language
skills in each activity, a scale from 1 to 5 was used, with 1 representing
most important and 5 represented least important. It would have been
more logical for 5 to represent the most important value, but since all
the Likert-type scales used throughout the questionnaire started with
the highest value, reversing the order might have confused the
respondents.
3.3.4 Part four

The last part of the questionnaire was designed to provide data to
answer the third research question:
Do International students feel that they were prepared in terms of their
English language ability to meet their current communication needs?
This research question had two sub-questions. The first one sought
information about perceived English language ability before and after
University. Items 19 and 22 represented this sub-question. Both items
used a Likert-type scale providing four choices; “very good,”
“satisfactory,” “poor” and “very poor.” Choosing the values for the
Likert-type scale presented a concern. The original idea was to use
“excellent” as the highest value.
42
However, previous studies in Uganda indicate that most students
graduate from high school with a poor knowledge of English (Ministry
of Education and Sports, 1994). Therefore, “very good” was assigned
as the highest value to maximize the scale of responses.
The last sub-question sought information about the relevance of the

University English language courses taken by ESL Foreign students.
This sub-question is represented by item number 21 which also used a
Likert-type scale providing four choices; “a lot,” “somewhat,” “a little”
and “not relevant at all.”
Table 3.1 summarizes the research questions with their sub-questions

and their related Questionnaire items.
Table 3.1
Chart of research questions, sub-questions, and questionnaire items
Research questions Sub-questions with

questionnaire items
1- What is the perceived
percentage of using English
in your course? (item 7 in
the questionnaire)
2- Does your stay at campus
1- To what extent is English require the usage of
language used in the course English? (item 8 and 9 in
offered at Kampala University? the questionnaire)
3- Does communication with
other students require the
usage of English? (items 10
and 11 in the
questionnaire)
4- Does your course perceive
English as an important tool
of communication?
(item 12 in the
questionnaire)
1- Which of the skills (reading,
43
writing, listening and
2- What level of the reading, speaking) is more
writing, listening and speaking emphasized in your course?
skills of the English Language are (items 13,14, 15, 16, 17 in
required and for performing what the questionnaire)
kind of activities? 2- What kind of activities are
the four skills used for?
(item 18 in the
questionnaire)
1- How do you perceive your
English language ability
before and after you joined
3- Do International students feel Kampala University?
that they were prepared in terms
of their English language ability to a. Do you think it is relevant to
meet their current communication take the English language
needs? courses at the University?
(item 21 in the
questionnaire)
3.4 Piloting and Validation

The questionnaire was designed in English and translated into French
and Kiswahiri before piloting. The participants answered the Kiswahiri
and French version of the questionnaire only. The questionnaire
consisted of four pages and was designed to be answered within
twenty minutes. Dornyei (2003) indicates that the optimal length of a
questionnaire in second language research is three to four pages. It
should not exceed a 30-minute completion limit.
While designing the questionnaire, the researcher paid special

attention to the layout of the questionnaire in terms of fonts, spacing,
and paper quality. Oppenheim (1992) argues that the professional
quality of the layout can give a good impression about the
questionnaire, which in turn affects the quality of the responses.
Dornyei (2003) indicates that respondents can be reluctant to give

honest answers about opinions and perceptions. However, respondent
44
confidentiality can encourage honesty and willingness to disclose.
Therefore, the questionnaire was designed to avoid individually
identifiable information. The respondents were not required to write
their names. Moreover, the cover page (see Appendix A) told
participants that the data was to be used for research and academic
publication purposes only and that all responses would be held
confidential. The cover page also included the researcher’s email in
case respondents wished to provide additional feedback.
The cover page of the questionnaire was used as an implied consent

form. The researcher requested the Academic Registrar’s Office at
Kampala University to waive the requirement of having the
respondents sign their names. This request was for the following
reasons:
1- The cover page of the questionnaire clearly stated “Please note that
by completing this questionnaire you agree that the researcher is
allowed and permitted to use the information that you provide for
research and publication purposes only.”
2- The study was designed to be anonymous. Respondents’ signed
names would have eliminated the anonymity of the questionnaire.
3- All the respondents were adults and participation was voluntary. The
questionnaire did not ask about sensitive data. Therefore, the
information elicited from the data reflected minimal risk on the
respondents.
4- Data collection was conducted in Kampala University, Uganda. From
a cultural point of view, participants might have been reluctant to
respond if they had been asked to sign their names.
After translating the first draft of the questionnaire, it was sent to three
Kishwahiri and French linguists (Institute of Language, Makerere
45
University). They looked at the Kiswahiri, French and English versions
of the questionnaire and provided feedback in terms of clarity and
translation.
Next the questionnaire was piloted to check its validity, reliability, and
applicability.
Piloting ensured that:
1- The questions were related to the respondents’ field of study.
2- The activities were related to their course activities.
3- The questions were clear and easy to read.
4- The time taken to answer the questionnaire was reasonable.
5- All items were easy to understand.
6- The researcher also elicited other comments from pilot respondents
on the general design of the questionnaire.
The researcher designed a page of evaluative questions for pilot

respondents based on the above criteria. The Kiswahiri and French
version of the questionnaire along with the evaluation page was sent
to five different Linguists in the education field. These professionals
were asked to respond to the questionnaire and then complete the
evaluation page (Table 3.1).
Responses to the evaluative questions went as follows:
1- All respondents indicated that the questions were related to their

field of study.
2- One respondent added additional activities to the comment section.
3- All respondents indicated that the questions were clear and easy to
read.
4- Four respondents answered the questionnaire within 20 minutes and
only one respondent answered the questionnaire in 26 minutes.
Dornyei (2003) and Oppenheim (1992) indicate that 20 minutes is a
46
suitable time for a successful questionnaire. Since the average time
taken to answer the questionnaire among all respondents was within a
time frame of twenty minutes, the length of the questionnaire was
deemed acceptable.
5- All respondents indicated that they understood all items.
6- In the comment section of the evaluation, no one respondent
commented on the questionnaire.
After the completion of the pilot study, all necessary modifications

were made in order to meet the requirements of a reasonable and
sound design.
Table 3.2
Evaluation chart for the pretesting phase of the questionnaire
Responde Responde Responde Responde Responde

nt # nt # 2 nt # 3 nt # 4 nt # 5
Do you think Yes Yes Yes Yes (very yes
all the much)
questions are
relevant to
your field of
study?
Do you think Yes Yes Yes Yes and I yes
the activities added other
in part 3 are ones
related to
your course
activities?
Are the Yes Yes Yes yes yes
questions
clear and
easy to read?
How long did 8 minutes 15 minutes 15 minutes 26 minutes 17 minutes
it take you to
finish the
questionnaire
Is there any No No No no no
item that you
47
did not
understand?
Do you have No I wish you No No Good luck
any other good luck with your
observations dissertation.
about the
questionnaire
?
3.5 Data Collection
Data was collected from the following campuses in Kampala University:
Ggaba (Main) Campus and Mutundwe Campus.
In August, 2009, the researcher contacted the selected campuses to

ask their permission to distribute the questionnaire and the protocol to
do so. The officials asked the researcher to write a letter of request
containing the nature and purpose of the study along with a copy of
the questionnaire. After doing so, the campuses sent the researcher
letters of permission to distribute the questionnaires (see Appendix B).
On September 14th, 2009, the researcher made 787 copies visited both
campuses and explained the nature of the study to the acting Deputy
academic Registrars at both campuses. The researcher gave
clarifications that the questionnaires were to be given to the respective
student leaders. They played the role of distributing them among their
peers. The cover page of the questionnaire also contained written
explanation about the nature of the study. (Appendix A)
The researcher made a daily follow up to each campus in order to

ensure the maximum possible response rate. The researcher went to
each campus to collect questionnaires from the campuses at the
beginning of December, 2009. The researcher received the
questionnaires back on December 17, 2009. A total of 787
questionnaires were distributed. Out of these 787 questionnaires, 259
48
came back which represents a response rate of 32.9%. Out of the 259
received questionnaires, 34 were disregarded due to incomplete
answers or non qualified respondents (e.g. respondents who were
lecturers or support staff). This brought the total number of usable
forms to 225 questionnaires or 28.5% of ESL international Students at
the study sites.
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present and analyze the collected
data from the sample population. The chapter is divided into four
parts. The first part introduces the method used in data analysis. It
also gives an idea about each group of respondents in terms of the
countries they come from and the educational fields that they belong
to. The second part of this chapter presents the results of the first
research question, the third part presents the results of the second
research question, and the last part presents the results of the third
research question. For each research question, the frequencies and
percentages of the responses are tabulated at the end of each related
part.
4.1 Results
The questionnaire used in collecting data in this study contained 22
items. Some of the items were subdivided into different attributes. In
analyzing the data, first the responses for each questionnaire item
were manually coded in a Microsoft Excel document. Then, a statistical
package (SPSS) was used to generate the frequencies and percentages
for each coded item.
Frequencies and percentages were calculated for each group of

respondents (Kenyans and Rwandans) and for the entire sample
population.
49
The usable questionnaires were filled out by 225 respondents. 202
respondents were from Kenya, 7 respondents were from Tanzania, 14
respondents were from Rwanda, and 2 respondents who did not
indicate any country. The vast majority of the respondents were from
Kenya 89.7 % of the sample population. This result was expected since
the study coincided with the Kenyan In-service program at Mutundwe.
In regard to the education fields of the respondents, 131 respondents
were doing education, 44 respondents were taking Business studies,
36 Information Technology, 12 respondents were doing Language
education, and 2 respondents did not indicate their specialty.
Education courses (apart from Language education) represented more
than half of the sample population (58.2 %) followed by Business
Studies (19.5 %), Information Technology (16 %), and Language
Education (5.3 %).
Chart 2.1 represents the percentages of each profession in the sample
population.
Given the proportion of these fields in retrospect to the number of

students from Kampala University in the school academic of 2006-
2007, it appears that education students were somewhat under-
represented. Business studies and Information Technology were
somewhat over-represented and the proportion of Language students’
was relatively similar to their proportion among recent admissions of
the University. Chart 2.2 represents these numbers and percentages.
Chart 2.1
Distribution of professions in the sample population
50
60
50 Education Stdts
58.2%
40
Business Stdts
30 19.5%
IT Stdts 16%
20
10 Language Stdts
5.3%
0
Chart 2.1 Admission Kampala University’ two Campuses
45
40
35 Education Stdts
30 (204 students
41.2%)
Business Stdts (130
25 students 26.2%)
20 IT (102 students
15 20.6%)
Language (59
10 students 11.9%)
5
0
4.1.1 Results of the First Research Question

The results of the data from item 7 to item 12 of the questionnaire
provide answers to the first research question:
To what extent is the English language used in the courses offered at
Kampala University?
51
Table 4.1 represents an overview of the first research question along
with its sub questions and questionnaire items.
In regard to item 7 of the questionnaire, the respondents were asked
to provide a percentage of using English at the University. The
participants’ perceptions were varied. Their perceived percentage of
English use was as low as 20% (perceived by one respondent
representing less than 1 % of the sample population) and as much as
100% (perceived by 10 respondents representing 4.5 % of the sample
population). The perceived percentage of the majority of respondents
was in the range of 50% to 95% (perceived by 190 respondent
representing 70.3 % of the sample population). Table 4.2 represents
these percentages.
However, the mean value of using English at the University among all
participants was 77.3%. When looking at the average percentage for
each profession separately, Education students’ average perception
was 87.8 % (from 131 respondents), Business students average
perception was 70.2 % (from 36 respondents), IT students average
perception was 67.09 % (from 44 participants), and Language students
average perception was 84.8 % (from 12 participants). These results
show that while the perceived perception of English use varies
somewhat by profession, there is an agreement among all respondents
that the English language is used extensively in the University and
plays an important role in all of the respondents’ area of specialization.
The data indicate that University students in all fields use the English
language extensively and therefore they need a high command of the
English language to perform their course.
In item 8 of the questionnaire (Table 4.3), the respondents were asked

to indicate the Language used in University training. Out of the 47
respondents, indicated that the Language used is English. Only five
respondents indicated that the Kiswahiri language is used and four
52
respondents indicated that French language is used. This shows that
the majority (80.4%) of these respondents use the English language as
the tool of communication when taking University training.
The next two items of the questionnaire were related. Item 10 sought
information to point out a certain group of respondents in order to
elicit certain information through item 11 regarding the nature of their
course. The purpose of these two questions was to compare their
results with the previous results to determine the use of the English
Language in the campuses.
Accordingly, Item 10 of the questionnaire (Table 4.4) asked about

whether the respondents have coursements who communicate only in
the English Language. 161 respondents (71.6%) reported that their
campuses include coursements who only communicate in English.
Based on that, Item 11 of the questionnaire (Table 4.5) asked how
often the nature of the course requires the respondent to communicate
with coursements who only communicate in English.
This question implemented a Likert scale with the following values: “a

lot,” “somewhat,” “a little” and “never.” In their response to this
question, 99 (61.9%) of the 161 respondents who indicated that their
campuses includes coursements who only communicate in English,
reported that they communicate “a lot” with these coursements. 52
respondents (32.5 %) reported that they communicate “somewhat”
with their English-only coursements. 8 respondents (5.0 %) reported
that they communicate a little and only one respondent (0.6 %)
reported that he/she never communicate with coursement who speak
English only. This shows that the majority of the respondents
communicate heavily with coursements using the English language.
53
Item 12 of the questionnaire (Table 4.6) asked how important is it to
have a high level of English proficiency to perform the course. In their
response to this question, 164 (72.9 %) reported that English is “very
important” to perform the course effectively. 51 respondents (22.7%)
reported that English is “somewhat important” and nine respondents
(4.0%) reported that English is “of little importance”. Only one
respondent (0.4%) reported that English is “not important” to perform
the course effectively.
In conclusion, when comparing the previous results, it is obvious that

the English Language is not only used extensively at the campus, but
also plays an important role in the professional study life of the
respondents.
Table 4.1
First research question and its sub-questions
Research question Sub questions with

questionnaire items
1- What is the perceived
percentage of using English
in your course? (item 7 in
the questionnaire)
2- Do you use English at the
To what extent is the English University? (item 8 and 9 in
Language used in the course you the questionnaire)
were offered at Kampala 3- Do your coursements
University? include students who
communicate in English
only? (items 10 and 11 in
the questionnaire)
4- Do course requirements
perceive English as an
important tool of
communication?
(item 12 in the
questionnaire)
54
Table 4.2
Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the perceived
percentage of using English on the course.
Perceived frequenc %
percentag y
e
20% 1 0.4
25% 2 0.9
30% 4 1.8
40% 8 3.6
45% 1 0.4
50% 10 4.5
55% 2 0.9
60% 9 4.0
65% 3 1.3
70% 25 11.2
73% 1 0.4
75% 19 8.5
77% 1 0.4
78% 1 0.4
80% 37 16.5
81% 1 0.4
85% 31 13.8
87% 1 0.4
88% 2 0.9
89% 1 0.4
90% 32 14.3
93% 1 0.4
94% 1 0.4
95% 12 5.4
97% 1 0.4
98% 2 0.9
99% 4 1.8
99.99% 1 0.4
100% 10 4.5
Mean = 77.35
Total responses = 224
Missing = 1
Table 4.3
Distribution of frequencies and percentages languages used at the
University by ESL students.
55
Language Frequencies %
Kiswahiri 5 10.86
English 37 80.43
both 4 8.69
Missing = 1
Table 4.4
Distribution of frequencies and percentages of having people on the
course who communicate in English only
responses frequency %
yes 161 71.6
no 64 28.4

Missing = 0
Table 4.5
Distribution of frequencies and percentages of communicating with
people on the course who communicate in English only
responses frequency %
A lot 99 61.9
Some what 52 32.5
A little 8 5.0
Never 1 0.6

Missing = 1
Table 4.6
Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the importance of
having a high a level of English proficiency to perform the course
effectively
Responses frequency %
Very important 164 72.9
Somewhat 51 22.7
important
Little importance 9 4.0
Not important 1 0.4
56
Missing = 0
4.1.2 Results of the Second Research Question

provide answers to the second research question (Table 4.7):
What level of English Language reading, writing, listening and speaking
skills of the English language are required in the course, and for
performing what kind of activities?
Items 13,14,15,16 and 17 of the questionnaire sought information

about which of the Language skills (reading, writing, listening, and
speaking) is more emphasized in the course.
Item 18 of the questionnaire sought information about the kind of
activities that the four skills are used for.
Items 13 to 16 are concerned with the listening skills, speaking skills,
reading skills, and writing skills respectively. The respondents were
asked about the level of proficiency of each skill that would enable
them to perform their course effectively. These four questions about
the language skills implemented a Likert scale with the following
values “excellent level,” “good level,” “satisfactory level”, and “N/A.”
In item 13 concerned with listening skills (Table 4.8), 141 (62.7 %) of

the respondents indicated that they need an “excellent level” of
listening skills to perform their courses effectively.
Many others reported that they need a “good level” of listening skills
(68 respondents, 30.2 %).
The rest of the respondents (15 participants, 6.7 %) indicated that a

“satisfactory level” is required. Only one respondent reported that
listening skills in English were not required at all.
57
These results for listening skills were also broken down by profession.
For Language students (Table 4.9), 61 % indicated that they need an
“excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course effectively.
33.5 % indicated that they need a “good level” and 4.5 % indicated
that they need a “satisfactory level.” Only one indicated that listening
skills were not required at all.
For Education students (Table 4.10), 80 % indicated that they need an

“excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course effectively
and 25 % indicated that they need a “good level.”
For Business (Table 4.11), 58.3 % indicated that they need an

that they need a “satisfactory level.”
For IT Students (Table 4.12), 68.1% indicated that they need an

In item 14 concerned with speaking skills (Table 4.13), 132 (58.7%)

indicated that they need an “excellent level” of speaking skills to
perform their course effectively (58.7%). 68 respondents (30.3%)
indicated that a “good level” is needed. The rest of the respondents
indicated that a “satisfactory level” is required (23 participants, 10.2
%) and only two respondents reported that English speaking skills are
not required (less than 1.0 %).
58
These results for speaking skills were also broken down by profession.
For education Students (Table 4.15), 52.6 % indicated that they need
an “excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course
effectively. 35.1 % indicated that they need a “good level” and 11.4 %
indicated that they need a “satisfactory level.” Only one respondent
indicated that listening skills were not required at all.
For Business studies (Table 4.16), 50 % indicated that they need an

For Information Technology (Table 4.17), 77.7 % indicated that they

need an “excellent level” of listening skills to perform their course
effectively. 19.4 % indicated that they need a “good level” and only
one respondent indicated that a “satisfactory level” is needed.
For Language students (Table 4.18), 63.6 % indicated that they need
indicated that reading skills were not required at all.
In item 15 concerned with reading skills (Table 4.19), 156 (69.3%)

indicated that they need an “excellent level” of reading skills to
perform their course effectively. 50 respondents (22.2%) indicated that
a “good level” is needed. The rest of the respondents indicated that a
“satisfactory level” is required (16 participants, 7.1 %) and three
respondents reported that this skill is not required (1.3 %).
These results for reading skills were also broken down by profession.
For Education students (Table 4.20), 72.5 % indicated that they need
59
indicated that listening skills were not required at all.
For Business students (Table 4.21), 75 % indicated that they need an

For IT students (Table 4.22), 63.8 % indicated that they need an

indicated that they need a “satisfactory level.” Only two respondents
In item 16 concerned with writing skills (Table 4.24), 131 (58.2%) of

the respondents indicated that they need an “excellent level” of
writing skills to perform their course effectively. 72 respondents
(32.0%) indicated that a “good level” is needed. The rest of the
respondents indicated that a “satisfactory level” is required (18
participants, 8.0%) and four respondents reported that this skill is not
required (1.8%).
These results for writing skills were also broken down by profession.
For Education students (Table 4.25), 51.9% indicated that they need an
60
38.9 % indicated that they need a “good level” and 8.3% indicated that
they need a “satisfactory level.” Only one respondent indicated that
listening skills were not required at all.
For Business students (Table 4.26), 50% indicated that they need an
For IT students (Table 4.27), 80.5% indicated that they need an

“excellent level” of listening skills to perform their job effectively. 16.6
% indicated that they need a “good level” and only one respondent
indicated that a “satisfactory level” is needed.
indicated that they need a “satisfactory level.” Only three respondents
Overall, the data show that the majority of participants believe that an
“excellent level” of all four skills is required to perform the course.
Reading skills were most frequently ranked as the skill that requires an
excellent level to perform the job (69.3 %). Listening skills were very
close with 62.7 %. Speaking skills and writing skills had a marginal
difference, with speaking skill receiving 58.7 % and writing 58.2 %.
These results show that a high command of English is needed in all
four skill areas. When breaking down the results by profession, the
results reflected the over all view in which a high command of all skills
is required.
61
Item 17 of the questionnaire (Table 4.29) was designed to cross check
the previous four items. In this item, the respondents were asked to
rank the four language skills in terms of their importance to conduct
their courses. 65 respondents (29.3 %) ranked listening skills as the
most important, 77 respondents (34.7 %) ranked it as the second most
important, 57 respondents (25.7%) ranked it third and 23 respondents
(10.4 %) ranked it fourth. 42 respondents (19.4 %) ranked speaking
skills as the most important, 65 respondents (30.1 %) ranked it as the
second most important, 58 respondents (26.9 %) ranked it third and 51
respondents (23.6 %) ranked it fourth.
In regard to reading skills, 110 respondents (49.5 %) ranked it as the

important, 35 respondents (15.8 %) ranked it third and 24 respondents
(10.8 %) ranked it fourth. The final skill in this item was writing skills.
Nine respondents (4.2 %) ranked it as the most important, 31

respondents (14.5 %) ranked it as the second most important, 63
respondents (29.4 %) ranked it third and 111 respondents (51.9 %)
ranked it fourth. The results here showed that reading skills were
ranked first followed by listening skills. Speaking skills were ranked
third and writing skills were ranked fourth. These results are consistent
with the results of the previous question.
These results from item 17 of the questionnaire were also broken down
by profession.
For Language students (Table 4.30), 39 respondents (30 %) ranked
listening skills as the most important, 47 respondents (36.1 %) ranked
it as the second most important, 35 respondents (26.9 %) ranked it
third and nine respondents (6.9 %) ranked it fourth. 51 respondents
(39.2 %) ranked speaking skills as the most important, 33 respondents
62
(25.3 %) rank it as the second most important, 26 respondents (20 %)
ranked it third and 20 respondents (15.3 %) ranked it fourth.
In regard to the reading skill, 35 respondents (27.1 %) ranked it as the

(20.1 %) ranked it fourth. The final skill in this item was writing skills.
46 respondents (36.2 %) ranked it as the most important, 17
respondents (13.3 %) ranked it as the second most important, 35
respondents (27.5 %) ranked it third and 29 respondents (22.8 %)
ranked it fourth.
For Education students (Table 4.31), six respondents (54.5 %) ranked

listening skills as the most important, two respondents (18.1 %) ranked
it as the second most important and three respondents (27.3 %)
ranked it fourth. five respondents (45.4 %) ranked speaking skills as
the most important, four respondents (36.3 %) rank it as the second
most important, one respondent (9 %) ranked it third and one
respondent (9 %) ranked it fourth. In regard to the reading skill, two
respondents (33.3 %) ranked it as the second most important, two
respondents (33.3 %) ranked it third and two respondents (33.3 %)
ranked it fourth. The final skill in this item was writing skills. One
respondent (16.6 %) ranked it as the second most important, three
respondents (50 %) ranked it third and two respondents (33.3 %)
ranked it fourth.
For Business Students (Table 4.32), ten respondents (27.7 %) ranked

it as the second most important, 12 respondents (33.3 %) ranked it
third and two respondents (5.5 %) ranked it fourth. 20 respondents
(55.5 %) ranked speaking skills as the most important, eight
63
respondents (22.2 %) rank it as the second most important, six
respondents (16.6 %) ranked it third and two respondents (5.5 %)
ranked it fourth.
In regard to the reading skill, six respondents (16.6 %) ranked it as the

most important, eight respondents (22.2 %) ranked it as the second
most important, eight respondents (22.2 %) ranked it third and 14
respondents (38.8 %) ranked it fourth. The final skill in this item was
writing skills. Eleven respondents (30.5 %) ranked it as the second
most important, nine respondents (25%) ranked it third and 16
respondents (44.4 %) ranked it fourth.
For IT students (Table 4.33), nine respondents (20.9 %) ranked

it as the second most important, ten respondents (23.2 %) ranked it
third and nine respondents (20.9 %) ranked it fourth. 32 respondents
(74.4 %) ranked speaking skills as the most important, eight
respondents (18.6 %) rank it as the second most important, two
respondents (4.6 %) ranked it third and one respondent (2.3 %) ranked
it fourth. In regard to the reading skill, one respondent (2.3 %) ranked
it as the most important, 19 respondents (44.1 %) ranked it as the
second most important, 14 respondents (32.5 %) ranked it third and
nine respondents (20.9 %) ranked it fourth. The final skill in this item
was writing skills. Two respondents (4.6 %) ranked it as the most
important, two respondents (4.6 %) ranked it as the second most
(53.4 %) ranked it fourth.
Question 18 of the questionnaire sought information about the

importance of English proficiency when performing some selected
activities. The participants were given thirteen activities, and they
64
were asked to rank the importance of having a high level of English
proficiency when using the language skills involved in each activity.
The activities were presented in a table format with Likert scales for
each relevant skill.
Item A (Table 4.34) of question 18 asked about the importance of

having a high level of proficiency in listening and speaking skills when
“dealing with lecturers.” In regard to listening skills, 30 respondents
(13.4 %) ranked it as the most (extremely) important, 17 respondents
(7.6 %) ranked it as the second most important, 26 respondents (11.6
%) ranked it third, 68 respondents (30.4 %) ranked it fourth and 83
respondents (37.1 %) ranked it fifth. For speaking skills, 24
respondents (10.8 %) ranked it as the most important, 16 respondents
respondents (46.2 %) ranked it fifth.
Item B (Table 4.35) of question 18 asked about the importance of

having a high level of proficiency in listening and speaking skills when
“dealing with coursements.” In regard to listening skills, 41
respondents (3.1 %) ranked it fifth. For speaking skills, 52 respondents
(23.4 %) ranked it as the most important, 53 respondents (23.9 %)
ranked it as the second most important, 81 respondents (36.5 %)
ranked it third, 27 respondents (12.2 %) ranked it fourth and 9
(Table 4.36) of question 18 asked about the importance of having a

high level of proficiency in listening and speaking skills when having a
65
“phone conversation.” In regard to listening skill, 44 respondents (19.8
%) ranked it as the most important, 62 respondents (27.9 %) ranked it
as the second most important, 60 respondents (27.0 %) ranked it third,
44 respondents (19.8 %) ranked it fourth and 12 respondents (5.4 %)
ranked it fifth. For speaking skills, 47 respondents (21.4 %) ranked it as
the most important, 56 respondents (25.5 %) ranked it as the second
most important, 64 respondents (29.1 %) ranked it third, 44
respondents (20.0 %) ranked it fourth and 9 respondents (4.1 %)
ranked it fifth.
Item C (Table 4.37) of question 18 asked about the importance of

having a high level of proficiency in reading and writing skills when
dealing with “letters.” In regard to reading skills, 66 respondents (29.5
ranked it fifth. For writing skills, 60 respondents (26.8%) ranked it as
ranked it fifth.
Item D (Table 4.38) of question 18 asked about the importance of

dealing with “emails and faxes.” In regard to reading skills, 65
respondents (5.4 %) ranked it fifth. For writing skills, 63 respondents
66
Item E (Table 4.39) of question 18 asked about the importance of

dealing with “research.” In regard to reading skills, 116 respondents

high level of proficiency in reading and writing skills when dealing with
“forms and applications.” In regard to reading skills, 74 respondents
Item F (Table 4.41) of question 18 asked about the importance of

“using computers.” In regard to reading skills, 66 respondents (29.5 %)
ranked it as the most important, 86 respondents (38.4 %) ranked it as
67
the second most important, 48 respondents (21.4 %) ranked it third,
ranked it fifth. For writing skills, 70 respondents (31.4 %) ranked it as
respondents (9.4 %) ranked it fourth and 7 respondents (3.1 %) ranked
it fifth.

high level of proficiency in the four language skills when dealing with
“instructions and explanations.” In regard to listening skills, 83
respondents (1.9 %) ranked it fifth. For speaking skills, 80 respondents
respondents (1.9 %) ranked it fifth. In regard to reading skills, 77

high level of proficiency in the four language skills when participating
in “presentations.” In regard to listening skills, 101 respondents (46.5
68
ranked it fifth. For speaking skills, 84 respondents (39.1 %) ranked it as
respondents (7.0 %) ranked it fourth and 8 respondents (3.7 %) ranked
it fifth. In regard to reading skills, 87 respondents (39.2 %) ranked it as
ranked it fifth. For writing skills, 75 respondents (33.8 %) ranked it as
ranked it fifth.
Item G of question 18 asked the respondents to write down any other

activity that they thought was important to conduct their course and to
evaluate the Language skills involved in that activity in terms of the
importance of having a high level of language proficiency. Only four
participants responded to this question. Two of the four mentioned that
they participate in “tests.” One of them ranked writing first, reading
second, speaking third, and listening fourth.
The other one ranked listening first, reading second, speaking third
and writing fourth. The third participant mentioned that he/she
participates in “continuous Language education.” This participant
indicated that he/she needs a high level of proficiency in the four skills.
The fourth participant mentioned that he/she participates in “advanced
studies.” This participant also indicated that he/she needs a high level
69
of proficiency in the four skills. However, since the number of
respondents who participated in this item of the questionnaire was
very limited, no generalizations can be made regarding the activities
that they mentioned.
It was expected that a limited number will answer item G of the

questionnaire since it requires the participants to put extra time and
effort to think of an activity that they conduct. As mentioned
previously, Dornyei (2003) and Oppenheim (1992) indicate that
participants in questionnaires tend to ignore questions that require
them to generate ideas especially when exceeding a 30-minute
completion limit.
Table 4.8
Second research question and its sub-questions
Research question Sub question with
questionnaire items
1- Which of the skills
(reading, writing,
What level of the reading, listening and speaking)
writing, listening and is more emphasized in
speaking skills of the English your course? (items 13,
language are required in the 14, 15, 16 and 17 in the
workplace and performing questionnaire)
what kind of activities?
2- What kind of activities
are the four skills used
for?
(item 18 in the
questionnaire)
Table 4.9
Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the required level of
proficiency in listening skills to perform the course effectively as
perceived by all respondents
frequency %
Excellent level 141 62.7
70
Good level 68 30.2
Satisfactory level 15 6.7
N/A 1 0.4

Missing = 0
Table 4.10
perceived by Language students
Frequency %
Good level 44 33.5
N/A 1 0.7

Missing = 0
Table 4.11
perceived by Education Students.
Frequency %
Excellent level 9 75
Good level 3 25
Satisfactory level 0 0
N/A 0 0
Missing = 0
Table 4.12
perceived by Business Students
Frequency %
Good level 12 33.3
N/A 0 0
Missing = 0
71
Table 4.13
perceived by IT Students
frequency %
Good level 8 18.1
N/A 0 0
Missing = 0
Table 4.14
proficiency in speaking skills to perform effectively as perceived by all
respondents
frequency %
Good level 68 30.2
N/A 2 0.9

Missing = 0
Table 4.15
proficiency in speaking skills to perform the course effectively as
perceived by Language Students
Frequency %
Good level 46 35.1
N/A 1 0.7

Missing = 0
Table 4.16
perceived by Education Students
Frequency %
72
Good level 6 50
N/A 0 0
Missing = 0
Table 4.17
Frequency %
Good level 7 19.4
N/A 0 0
Missing = 0
Table 4.18
Distribution of frequencies percentages of the required level of
perceived by IT students
Frequency %
Good level 8 18.1
N/A 1 2.2
Missing = 0
Table 4.19
proficiency in reading skills to perform the course effectively as
perceived by all respondents.
frequency %
Good level 50 22.2
N/A 3 1.3
73
Missing = 0
Table 4.20
perceived by Language Students
frequency %
Good level 28 21.3
N/A 1 0.7

Missing = 0
Table 4.21
frequency %
Good level 3 25
N/A 0 0
Missing = 0
Table 4.22
frequency %
Good level 3 25
N/A 0 0
Tatol responses = 36
Missing = 0
Table 4.23
74
perceived by all respondents.
frequency %
Good level 8 18.1
N/A 2 4.5
Missing = 0
Table 4.24
proficiency in writing skills to perform the course effectively as
perceived by all respondents
frequency %
Good level 72 32.0
N/A 4 1.8

Missing = 0
Table 4.25
perceived by Language Students.
frequency %
Good level 51 38.9
N/A 1 0.7

Missing = 0
Table 4.26
frequency %
75
Good level 6 50
N/A 0 0
Missing = 0
Table 4.27
frequency %
Good level 6 16.6
N/A 0 0
Missing = 0
Table 4.28
proficiency in writing skills to perform the courses effectively as
perceived by IT students.
frequency %
Good level 8 18.1
N/A 3 6.8
Missing = 0
Table 4.29
Distribution of frequencies percentages of ranking the importance of
the four Language skills as perceived by all respondents
Listening skill
1st rank 2nd rank 3rd rank 4th rank
freq % freq % freq % freq %
65 29.3 77 34.7 57 25.7 23 10.4
Missing = 3
Speaking skill
76
42 19.4 65 30.1 58 26.9 51 23.6
Missing = 9
Reading skill
110 49.5 53 23.9 35 15.8 24 10.8
Missing = 3
Writing skill
9 4.2 31 14.5 63 29.4 111 51.9
Missing =11
Table 4.30
Distribution of frequencies and percentages of ranking the importance
of the four Language skills as perceived by Language Students
Listening skill
39 30 47 36.1 35 26.9 9 6.9
Total responses =131
Missing = 1
Speaking skill
51 39.2 33 25.3 26 20 20 15.3
Missing = 1
Reading skill
35 27.1 36 27.9 32 24.8 26 20.1
Missing = 2
77
Writing skill
46 36.2 17 13.3 35 27.5 29 22.8
Total responses =131
Missing =4
Table 4.31
of the four language skills as perceived by Education Students
Listening skill
6 54.5 2 18.1 0 0 3 27.2
Missing = 1
Speaking skill
5 45.4 4 36.3 1 9 1 9
Missing = 1
Reading skill
0 0 2 33.3 2 33.3 2 33.3
Missing = 6
Writing skill
9 4.2 31 14.5 63 29.4 111 51.9
Missing =6
Table 4.32
of the four language skills as perceived by Business Students.
78
Listening skill
10 27.2 12 33.3 12 33.3 2 5.5
Missing = 0
Speaking skill
20 55.5 8 22.2 6 16.6 2 5.5
Missing = 0
Reading skill
6 16.6 8 22.2 8 22.2 14 38.8
Missing = 0
Writing skill
0 0 11 30.5 9 25 16 44.4
Missing =0
Table 4.33
of the four language skills as perceived by IT students
Listening skill
9 20.9 15 34.8 10 23.2 9 20.9
Missing = 1
Speaking skill
32 74.4 8 18.6 2 4.6 1 2.3
Missing = 1
79
Reading skill
1 2.3 19 44.1 14 32.5 9 20.9
Missing = 1
Writing skill
2 4.6 2 4.6 16 37.2 23 53.4
Total responses =44
Missing =1
Table 4.34
Dealing with lecturers
listening speaking
frequenc % frequency %
y
Most important 30 13.4 24 10.8
Second most 17 7.6 16 7.2
Third 26 11.6 27 12.1
Fourth 68 3.4 53 23.8
Least important 83 37.1 103 46.2
Table 4.35
Dealing with course ments
listening speaking
y
Second most 68 30.4 53 23.9
Third 80 35.7 81 36.5
Fourth 28 12.5 27 12.2
Table 4.36
Phone conversation
listening speaking
y
Second most 62 27.9 56 25.5
Third 60 29.0 64 29.1
80
Fourth 44 19.8 44 20.0
Table 4.37
Letters
Reading writing
y
Second most 96 42.9 85 37.9
third 37 16.5 45 20.1
Fourth 17 7.6 23 10.3
Table 4.38
Emails and faxes
Reading writing
y
Second most 83 37.2 76 34.2
third 50 22.4 51 23.0
Fourth 13 5.8 18 8.1
Table 4.39
Dealing with Research.
reading writing
y
Second most 58 25.8 65 29.3
third 32 14.2 36 16.2
Fourth 10 4.4 10 4.5
Table 4.40
Forms and applications
Reading Writing
y
Second most 82 36.6 81 36.2
third 48 21.4 49 21.9
Fourth 12 5.4 10 4.5
81
Table 4.41
Using computer
Reading Writing
y
Second most 86 38.4 71 31.8
third 48 21.4 54 24.2
Fourth 16 7.1 21 9.4
Table 4.42
Instructions and explanations
listening speaking reading writing
Most 83 38.4 80 37.2 77 34. 66 29.
important 7 7
Second 77 35.6 69 32.1 75 33. 78 35.
most 8 2
third 31 14.4 43 20.0 37 16. 39 17.
7 6
fourth 21 9.7 19 8.8 26 11. 25 11.
7 3
Least 4 1.9 4 1.9 7 3.2 14 6.3
important
Table 4.43
Presentations
listening speaking reading Writing
Most 101 46.5 84 39.1 87 39. 75 33.
important 2 8
Second 69 31.8 75 34.9 71 32. 83 37.
most 0 4
third 21 9.7 33 15.3 34 15. 26 11.
3 7
fourth 17 7.8 15 7.0 19 8.6 26 11.
7
Least 9 4.1 8 3.7 11 5.0 12 5.4
important
4.1.3 Results of the Third Research Question
82
provide answers to the third research question:
Do International students feel that they were prepared in terms of their
English Language ability to meet their current communication needs?
The questions in this part asked about participants’ language

experiences with the English language before they joined the course.
Table 4.44 represents an overview of the first research question along
with its sub-questions and questionnaire items.
Item 19 (Table 4.45) of the questionnaire asked the respondents to

rate their knowledge of the English language before they started
University. This question used a Likert scale with the following values:
“very good,” “satisfactory,” “poor”, and “very poor.” In their response
to this question, 42 respondents (18.7 %) reported that their
knowledge of English before they began University was “very good,”
131 respondents (58.2%) reported that their knowledge of English was
“satisfactory.” 42 respondents (18.7%) reported that their knowledge
of English was “poor” and 10 respondents (4.4 %) reported that their
knowledge of English was “very poor.”
Item 20 of the questionnaire asked the respondents how the English

language courses that they take in the University helped them in
different tasks. They were asked to rate six different tasks on a Likert
scale with the following values: “a lot,” “somewhat,” “a little”, and “did
not help at all.”
In regard to the first task (Table 4.45), 61 respondents (27.4 %)

reported that the English courses helped them “a lot” to “speak about
course related topics in English.” 113 respondents (50.7 %) reported
that the English courses helped them “somewhat.” 43 respondents
83
(19.3 %) reported that the English courses helped them “a little” and 6
respondents (2.7 %) reported that the English courses “did not help at
all.”
For the second task (Table 4.46), 50 respondents (22.3 %) reported

that the English courses helped them “a lot” to “write about their
course related topics in English.” 88 respondents (39.3 %) reported
that the courses helped them “somewhat.” 74 respondents (33.0 %)
reported that the courses helped them “a little” and 12 respondents
(5.4 %) reported that the courses “did not help at all.”
In the third task (Table 4.47), 53 respondents (23.8 %) reported that

the English courses helped them “a lot” to “read course related books,
articles, and magazines.” 91 respondents (40.8 %) reported that the
courses helped them “somewhat.” 65 respondents (29.1 %) reported
that the courses helped them “a little” and 14 respondents (6.3 %)
reported that the courses “did not help at all.”
In the fourth task (Table 4.48), 53 respondents (23.8 %) reported that

the English courses helped them “a lot” to “understand course related
instructions, lectures, and homework”. 100 respondents (44.8 %)
reported that the courses helped them “somewhat.” 61 respondents
(27.4 %) reported that the courses helped them “a little” and 9
respondents (4.0 %) reported that the courses “did not help at all.”
In the fifth task (Table 4.49), 34 respondents (15.3 %) reported that

the English courses helped them “a lot” to “translate course related
materials.” 84 respondents (37.8 %) reported that the courses helped
them “somewhat.” 83 respondents (37.4 %) reported that the courses
helped them “a little” and 21 respondents (9.5 %) reported that the
courses “did not help at all.”
84
In the last task (Table 4.50), 34 respondents (15.3 %) reported that the
English courses helped them “a lot” to “pass English language
examination.” 93 respondents (41.9 %) reported that the courses
helped them “somewhat.” 78 respondents (35.1 %) reported that the
courses helped them “a little” and 17 respondents (7.7 %) reported
that the courses “did not help at all.”
Item 21 of the questionnaire (Table 4.51) asked the respondents how

relevant the English Language courses that they took in University
were to their course needs. This question implemented a Likert scale
with the following values: “a lot,” “somewhat,” “a little,” and “not
relevant at all.” In their response to this question, 52 respondents
representing 23.9 % of the sample population reported that the
courses that they took at University were relevant “a lot” to their
course needs. 116 respondents (53.2%) reported that the courses were
“somewhat” relevant. 40 respondents (18.3%) reported that the
courses were “a little” relevant and only 10 respondents (4.6 %)
reported that the courses were “not relevant at all.”
Item 22 of the questionnaire (Table 4.52) asked the respondents to

rate their knowledge of the English language before they joined the
University. This question implemented a Likertscale with the following
values: “very good,” “satisfactory,” “poor,” and “very poor.” In their
response to this question, 104 respondent representing 47.5 % of the
sample population reported that their knowledge of English before they
joined University was “very good.” 108 respondents (49.3 %) reported
that their knowledge of English was “satisfactory.” 6 respondents (2.7
%) reported that their knowledge of English was “poor” and only 1
respondent (0.5 %) reported that his/her knowledge of English was
“very poor.”
85
In conclusion, the results for this part of the questionnaire revealed the
respondents’ perception of their English language experience before
they joined University and during their University study. The aim was
to get their overall perception of their experience with the English
language before joining the University. All these results along with the
other results from the previous research questions will be discussed in
the following chapter.
Table 4.44
Third research question and its sub-questions
Research question Sub question with
questionnaire items
1. How do you perceive their
English language ability
Do Foreign students feel that before and while at
they were prepared in terms of University? (items 19 and
their English language ability to 22 in the questionnaire)
meet their current 2. Are the English language
communication needs? courses at the University
relevant to the activities
performed in the
workplace? (Item 20 in the
questionnaire)
Table 4.45
Distribution of frequencies and percentages of rating the knowledge of
English before starting University.
Frequency %
Very good 42 18.7
Satisfactory 131 58.2
Poor 42 18.7
Very poor 10 4.4

Missing = 0
Table 4.46
86
Distribution of frequencies and percentages of the help gained from
English Language courses at the University to “speak about course
related topics in English”
Frequency %
A lot 61 27.4
Some what 113 50.7
A little 43 19.3
Did not help at all 6 2.7
Missing = 2
Table 4.47
English language courses at the University to “write about course related
topics in English”
Frequency %
A lot 50 22.3
Some what 88 39.3
A little 74 33.0

Missing =1
Table 4.48
English Language courses at the University to “read course related books,
articles, and magazines”
Frequency %
A lot 53 23.8
Some what 91 40.8
A little 65 29.1

Missing = 2
Table 4.49
Distribution of Frequencies and Percentages of the Help Gained from
English Language Courses at the University to “understand course
related instructions, lectures, and homework”
Frequency %
A lot 53 23.8
Some what 100 44.8
A little 61 27.4
87

Missing = 2
Table 4.50
English Language Courses at the University to “translate course related
materials”
Frequency %
A lot 34 15.3
Some what 84 37.8
A little 83 37.4

Missing = 3
Table 4.51
English Language Courses at the University to “pass English Language
examination”
Frequency %
A lot 34 15.3
Some what 93 41.9
A little 78 35.1

Missing = 3
Table 4.52
Distribution of Frequencies and Percentages of the Relevancy between
the English Language Courses at the University and Course Needs
Frequency %
A lot 52 23.9
Some what 116 53.2
A little 40 18.3

Missing = 3
88
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction
This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part discusses the
findings of the research questions and draws implications. The second
part presents recommendations based on the results and provides
suggestions for future research.
5.1 Discussion and conclusions

5.1.1 First Research Question;
To what extent is the English language used in the course offered at
Kampala University?
The respondents were asked about their perceived percentage of using

English in the University and about their perceived importance of
having a high level of English proficiency to perform their courses
Most respondents reported that they used English a high percentage of

the time to communicate in the course. The average estimate was
77.3%. It is obvious that the English Language plays an important role
in their education life. An important question in this regard is whether
English use varies in the different fields of the participants. The data
indicate that Language students’ average estimate was 87.8 %,
Education students’ estimate was 70.2 %, Business students’ estimate
was 67.09 %, and IT students’ estimate was 84.8 % (chart 3.1). In
other words, Language students and Education students believe they
89
use English more often than Business students and IT students.
Therefore, this difference in the amount of English used by students
should be reflected in Language courses at the University level.
The extent of English Language use is also reflected in the

respondents’ specialized courses (chart 3.2). In this highly specialized
situation, 80.4% of the respondents indicated as they study their
specialized courses, English is the only Language used. This indicates
that English is not only extensively used while they are communicating
with fellow students on campus, but is also crucial to the continuing
development of their education skills.
When respondents were asked whether they have coursements who

communicate in English only, 71.6% said “yes” which is a good
indication that English is used extensively. When these respondents
were asked how often the nature of the course requires them to
communicate with English speaking coursements, the majority of
respondents chose the highest available choice in the questionnaire “a
lot” representing 94.4 % (chart 3.3). This shows that the majority of
the respondents communicate heavily with coursements using the
English Language.
From this conclusion, the researcher can safely predict that

International students in Higher Institutions of Learning in Uganda find
themselves studying in a multilingual environment where English is
used extensively. This will require them to use the English Language as
their tool of communication in order to conduct their courses. Thus,
these data suggest that University English Language courses for
International students need to focus more on fluency and
understanding rather than accuracy and structure. Since this
environment also represents many multicultural as well as multilingual
90
situations with coursements from all around the world, cultural
interaction ought to be considered when designing a curriculum.
Finally, when respondents were asked about the importance of having

a high level of English proficiency to perform the courses (chart 5.4),
the majority of the respondents asserted that it is very important to
have a high level of English proficiency to perform the course. Only one
respondent indicated that English is not important at all. This
respondent was an IT student. While the respondent did not indicate
his/her exact specialty, one way of explaining his/her response is that
he/she might be performing a mechanical course that requires little
verbal communication.
When looking at responses in terms of professions, the majority of

respondents in all professions indicted that English is very important.
Nevertheless, 88.8% of Language students (chart 3.5) perceived
English as very important, 83.3% of Education students (chart 3.6)
perceived English as very important, 67.9% of Business students (chart
3.7) perceived English as very important, and 75.0% of IT students
(chart 3.8) perceived English as very important. This confirms the
previous discussion that Language students and Education students
use English more than in other courses at the University.
In conclusion, the results were consistent in pointing out heavy usage

of the English language in Ugandan University Education. This implies
that effective English language instruction is greatly needed to perform
the course effectively.
The following charts show these percentages.
91
Chart 3.1
The perceived percentage of using English in the specialized courses
90
80
70 Physicians 87.8%
60
Dentists 84.8%
50
40
Pharmacists 70.2%
30
20 Applied medical
10 specialists 67.9%
Chart 3.3
Communicating with other students in English
92
100
90
80
70 94.4% communicate
with other students
60 in English
50
40 5.6%do not
communicate with
30 other in English
20
10
0
Chart 3.4
The importance of English Language as perceived by all participants
100
90
80
164 (72.9) "very important"
70 (75.0%)
60 51 (22.7%) " somewhat
Important"
50
9 (4.0%) "little importance"
40
30 1(0.4%)"not important"
20
10
0
93
Chart 3.5
The importance of the English Language as perceived by Language
Students
90
80
70
60 very im portant (88.8%)
50 som ew hat im portant

(8.3%)
40
little im portance (2.7%)
30
20
10
0
Chart 3.6
The importance of the English Language as perceived by Education
Students
90
80
70
60 very important
(83.3%)
50
40
somewhat important
30 (16.6%)
20
10
0
Chart 3.7
94
The importance of the English Language as perceived by Business
Students
70
60
50
very important (67.9%)
40
somewhat important
(29.7%)
30 little importance (2.2%)
20
10
Chart 3.8
The importance of the English Language as perceived by IT Students
100
90
80
very im portant (75.0%)
70
60 som ew hat im portant
(15.9%)
50
little im portant (6.8%)
40
30 not im portant ( 2.2%)
20
10
0
5.1.2 Second Research Question:
95
What level of the reading, writing, listening and speaking skills of the
English Language are required in the course and for performing what
kind of activities?
The data show that there is considerable agreement among the

respondents about the relative importance of proficiency in English
reading, writing, speaking, and listening. For each of the four skills, an
“excellent level” received the majority of responses. This indicates that
a high command is needed in all skills. However, reading skills were
most often viewed as requiring an excellent level to perform the
course (69.3 %). Listening skills were very close at 62.7 %. Speaking
and writing skills were marginal lower (58.7 % and 58.2 %
respectively). Thus, receptive skills were perceived as a bit more
important than the productive skills to perform the course effectively.
Chart 3.9 illustrates these percentages of the perceived perception
towards the importance of the four skills.
The cross check question (item 17 of the questionnaire) where the

respondents were asked to rank the four skills in terms of their
importance, received similar responses. Reading was ranked as the
most important skill by 49.5 % of respondents followed by listening at
29.3 % and speaking at 19.4 %. Writing received 4.2 % as the least
important skill. Chart 3.10 represents these percentages of the cross
check question.
Since reading and listening are ranked more highly across items, it can
be concluded that proficiency in English receptive skills (reading and
listening) are perceived as more important than productive skills
(speaking and writing).
96
The study also looked at the English skill level needed to perform
specific course activities. These can be divided into three groups. The
first group is associated with the listening and speaking skills, the
second with reading and writing skills, and the third is associated with
all four language skills.
In regard to listening and speaking skills, three activities were

examined. The first was “dealing with lecturers.” Approximately two
thirds of the respondents placed a low value of importance in using the
listening and speaking skills to conduct this activity (67.5%
representing the lowest two degrees of the scale). In other words, the
respondents did not consider having a high level of English knowledge
to be important when dealing with lecturers. Some lecturers are
Kenyans who sometimes use Kiswahiri.
The second and third activities dealt with “dealing with colleagues”
and “phone conversations.” In these two activities, most of the
respondents placed a high degree of importance on listening (48.2 %)
and speaking (47.1 %) when dealing with colleagues or when having
phone conversations.
Chart 3.11 represents these percentages of the perceived perception

of these two activities. This implies that these two activities frequently
involve other speakers so require a high level of proficiency in English
listening and speaking. Thus, it suggests the potential importance of a
listening and speaking course at the University that contains dialogues
representing interaction with colleagues. Such dialogue should also
cover the particular demands of phone conversations when there are
no visual clues to aid comprehension instead of traditional courses in
listening and speaking that focus on pronouncing individual words.
97
In the group of activities associated with reading and writing skills, six
activities were examined. They were concerned with “letters,”
“memos,” “email and faxes,” “research,” “forms and applications” and
“using computers.” The vast majority of the respondents felt it was
important to have a high level of proficiency in reading and writing
skills to conduct these activities. This suggests that students at
University need to acquire a high level of the reading and writing skills
to be prepared for their professional lives. A point of consideration
when discussing these activities is the degree of importance that the
respondents placed on the reading and the writing skills of these
activities. Except for the activity of “dealing with forms and
applications”, the respondents always placed a higher level of
importance on reading skill.
This point is better illustrated when calculating the highest two values
in these seven activities where reading was perceived more important
and received 71.1 % of the respondents’ perception, while writing
received 67.6 %. Chart 3.12 represents these percentages after
calculating the highest two values of the respondents’ perception
towards reading and writing skills.
The data suggest that the respondents consider reading skills to be

more important than writing skills. This is consistent with the earlier
discussion of placing a higher value on receptive skills than productive
skills. Though this would suggest that English programs designed to
prepare University students need to intensify the focus on receptive
skills, the differences in percentages between receptive and productive
skills are so close that it is hard to make a strong judgment in this
regard.
The last group of activities is associated with all four English language
skills. The activities in this group were concerned with “instructions
98
and explanations,” and “presentations.” Results for this group of
activities were less clear cut. The vast majority of respondents highly
ranked the importance of having a high level of proficiency in the four
skills to conduct these activities. However, in these activities
comparing receptive skills with productive skills was not entirely
consistent. Listening skills received the highest ranking among the four
English language skills in all three activities. The other three skills were
highly rated but had no considerable difference in importance when
compared to each other.
Chart 3.13 represents the percentages of the three activities after

calculating the two highest values chosen by the respondents.
In conclusion, respondents considered all English language skills to be

important to conduct their course effectively. Though receptive skills
were viewed as more important than productive skills, the percentages
were so close that it is hard to prioritize any skill area over others. Not
all activities require a high knowledge of the English language,
however. Therefore, activities in an English program should reflect
situations similar to what the University students will encounter in their
courses.
Chart 3.9
Percentages of the perceived perception towards the importance of the
four skills.
99
100
80
Reading (69.3%)
60
Listening (62.7%)
Speak ing (58.7%)
40
Writing (58.2%)
20
Chart 3.10 Percentages of the cross check questions
100
90
80
70
60 Reading (49.5%)
Listening (29.3%)
50
Speaking (19.4%)
40 Writing (4.2%)
30
20
10
0
Chart 3.11
Percentages of the perceived perception of the two activities
100
100
90
80
70
60
Listening (48.2%)
50
Spe aking (47.1%)
40
30
20
10
0
Chart 3.12
Percentages after calculating the highest two values of the
respondents perception towards reading and writing skills.
100
80
Reading (71.1%)
60
40 Writing (67.6%)
20
Chart 3.13
101
Percentages of the three activities after calculating the highest two
values chosen by the respondents
100
90
80
70
60 Reading (69.7%)
Listening (76.9%)
50
Speaking (72.0%)
40 Writing (68.0%)
30
20
10
0
5.1.3 Third Research Question:

Do ESL students feel that they were prepared in terms of their English
Language ability to meet their current communication needs?
In discussing the results of this research question, the focus will be on

three points:
(1) The respondents’ experience with the English Language before
they began University and
(2) The respondents’ experience with the English language during their
University studies.
The data reveal that most respondents felt that their English Language
proficiency before they began University was average but not
outstanding. It is worth mentioning here that the Kenyan respondents
studied English for three years at the intermediate level and another
four years at the secondary level of public education. Yet 18.7% of the
102
respondents felt that their English was “very good.” Most of the
respondents (58.2 %) felt it was “satisfactory.”
Respondents of the Rwandan origin had average scores due to the fact
that their country has recently introduced the English Language as one
of the official language. In such a trilingual country, that is,
Kinyarwanda, French and English, most students had encountered only
Kinyarwanda and French in their education experience.
In conclusion, the participants appreciated the English Language

courses offered at Kampala University; including the Pre- University’s
English Language and Communication skills (ELS 1101); and the
Language Skills Development program which offers short courses in
English Language Communication (ELC) to students whose first/and
second languages is not English. The majority reported that they
began the University with an average level of English proficiency but
has realized remarkable improvement from the course mentioned
above.
5.2 Recommendations for Further Research

The following suggestions and recommendations can be incorporated
in any English as a Foreign Language course for educational purposes.
1- This study suggests that English Language is used extensively in the

University studies in EFL and lingua franca contexts. It plays a crucial
role as the main tool of communication to conduct a variety of different
activities. Therefore, the criteria to define English Language courses for
course purposes should be based on the target communicative
situations representing the communicative use of language rather than
formal linguistic categories representing the grammatical rules of
language.
103
2- The relative emphasis of the four English Language skills in the
introductory courses should be based on activities driven by the actual
communicative situations demanded by the course.
3- Though this study suggests that receptive skills are perceived as
more important than productive skills in a wide range of activities in
the University, it is hard to recommend that English courses for
University studies purposes should emphasize reading and listening
skills over writing and speaking skills because the differences in
percentages between receptive and productive skills are very close.
Further research in this regard is needed to support such claim.
4- The findings of the first research question suggest that English
Language students and Education students use English more than
Business students and IT students. Therefore, it is not enough to
design only one generic curriculum for English Language students.
English Language courses for students in other professions should be
designed to cater for ESL International students.
5- Complementary courses in English should be available on an
ongoing basis in the University and ESL International students who feel
that their English Language communication was not adequate.
5.2.1: Directions for Further Research

Finally, this study has provided empirical data on International
students who have no or less English Language use before they joined
Kampala University. Most of them come from countries where English
is rarely used as a Lingua Franca. Though the aim is to have a clear
picture of their English Language needs to enhance the English
Language courses at the University, the picture does not yet cover the
entire wide spectrum of learning English as a Foreign Language.
1- This study identified the English Language communicative needs as

perceived by ESL International students at the Kampala University.
104
However, it is important to investigate the same needs as perceived by
native students to see how these perceptions reconcile with the
findings of this study.
2- A related research project in this regard is to investigate the
required English Language skills of lecturers who handle this category
of International students to determine the needed level of English
Language competence in terms of how much specialized knowledge
the lecturers need and how they get it.
4- Further research is needed in regard to the importance of receptive
skills versus productive skills in the University education.
5- This study provided information regarding the specific language
situation at Kampala University. Since this environment presents a
lingua franca, it would be interesting to investigate how interaction
unfolds at the micro level. The following are few examples:
a) Looking at how ESL students communicate with Ugandan

Lecturers.
b) Examining how communicative strategies are used when ESL
students and natives communicate on campus.
c) Researching potential communicative differences in day-to-day
activities between Language, Education, Business, and IT
students.
105
5.3 REFERENCES
UBOS, (2009). Statistical Abstract. Uganda Bureau of Statistics,
Kampala, 2009.
NCHE, (2007). The State of Higher Education and Training in Uganda,

2007.A Summary Report on Higher Education Delivery and Institutions.
National Council forHigher Education.
Aguti J., (2008). Education for National Development: The Makerere

University Dual Mode Experience. Department of Distance Education,
Makerere University
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and

resource book for teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, C., & Jones, S. P. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and

bilingual education.Clevedon ; Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.

European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of
Pluralism. University of Chicago Press, London
Oppenheim, A. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude

measurement. Guildford, UK: Printer.
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A

systematic approach to program development. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
106
Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge,
U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press. 157
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development.

Clevedon, UK ; Buffalo N.Y.: Multilingual Matters.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge,

UK; New York, N.Y.:Cambridge University Press.
Dean, R. A. (1989). English language needs and preparation for non-

native English speaking Army personnel (No. ED304943).
Dèornyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research:

Construction, administration, and processing. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Dovring, K. (1997). English as lingua franca: Double talk in global

persuasion. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M.-J. (1998). Developments in ESP: A

multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge, U.K.: New York.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford ; New York:

Oxford University Press.
Graddol, D., Leith, D., & Swann, J. (1996). English : History, diversity,
and change. Milton Keynes England, London ; New York: Open
University; Routledge.
107
Hall, J. K. (2001). Methods for teaching foreign languages: Creating a
community of learners in the classroom. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1992). English for specific purposes : A

learning centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johns, A. M. (1981). Necessary English: a faculty Survey. TESOL

Quarterly, 15(1), 51-57.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and

resource book for teachers. Cambridge England; New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the

foreign and second language classroom. In J. Lantolf (Ed.),
Socioculturaltheory and second language learning. Oxford, England:
OxfordUniversity Press.
Ngugi wa, Thiongo. o. (1986). Decolonising the mind : The politics of

language in African literature. London Portsmouth, N.H.: J. Currey ;
Heinemann.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity

and educational change. Harlow, England: New York.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum : A study in second

language teaching. Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge
University Press.
108
Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing, and
attitude measurement (New ed.). London ; New York New York: Pinter
Publishers ; Distributed exclusively in the USA and Canada by St.
Martin's Press.
Ostler, S. E. (1980). A survey of academic needs for advanced ESL.

TESOL Quarterly, 14(4), 489-502.
Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning.

TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9-31.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching.

Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richerich, R. (1973). A model for the definitions of adult language

needs. In J. Trim, R. Ritcherich, J. Van Ek & D. Wilkins (Eds.), Systems
development in adult language learning (pp. 31-62). Strasbourg:
Council of Europe.
Richterich, R., & Chancerel, J.-L. (1978). Identifying the needs of adults
learning a foreign language. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Richterich, R., & Council of Europe. (1983). Case studies in identifying

language needs (1st ed.). Oxford; New York: Published for and on behalf
of the Council by Pergamon Press.
Seferoglu, G. (2001). English skills needed for graduate study in the

US: multiple perspectives. iral, 39(2), 161-170.
109
Mazrui, A. A. and M. Tidy, (1984); Nationalism and New States in
Africa. Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers Ltd.
Kemmer, S (1997) Chronology of the events in the History of English,

Words in English public website Ling/Engl 215 course information; Rice
University.
Smith, L. E., & East-West Center. (1987). Discourse across culture:

Strategies in world Englishes. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Smith, L. E., Forman, M. L., & International Association for World

Englishes. International Conference. (1997). World Englishes 2000.
Honolulu: College of Languages Linguistics and Literature University of
Hawai°i and the East-West Center.
Soriano, F. I., & University of Michigan. School of Social Work. (1995).

Conducting needs assessments: A multidisciplinary approach.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Wahle, Kathleen O'Mara. (1968): "Alexander Crummell: Black

Evangelist and Pan-Negro Nationalist." Phylon.
Bean, R. M. (2004). Promoting effective literacy instruction: The

challenge for literacy coaches. The California Reader, 37, 58–63.
Dembele, M., & Mairo, B., II. (2003, December 3-6). Pedagogical
Renewal and Teacher Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Thematic
Synthesis. Proceedings of the Association for the Development of
Education in Africa Biennial Meeting, Grand Baie, Mauritius, 32-36.
110
Weddel, K. S., & Van, D. C. (1997). Needs assessment for adult ESL
learners. ERIC Digest (No. ED407882).
West, R. (1994). Needs analysis in language teaching. Language

teaching, 27(1), 1-19.
West, R. (1997). Needs analysis: state of the art. In R. Howard & G.

Brown (Eds.), Teacher education for language for specific purposes (pp.
68-79). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD.
Zoltan Dörnyei (2003) Questionnaires in Second Language Research:

Construction, Administration, and Processing. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs

assessments : A practical guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Feldman, J. (2001-2007). Language Experience Approach Charts. In

Literacy Connections: Promoting Literacy and a Love of Reading.
Retrieved January4, 2006,
from http://literacyconnections.com/DrJeanLECharts. html
Gordon, R. G., Jr. (Ed.). (2005). Ethnologue: Languages of the world,

(15th edition). Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Retrieved October 11,
2005,
from http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Uganda.
MoES Education Planning Department, June 2004; Education Sector

Strategic Plan 2004-2015. Ministry of Education and Sports, National
Curriculum Development Centre.
111
Josephine Maseruka, “Uganda to earn $60m from foreign students
annually” The New Vision, Monday, 27th September, 2010.
State Of Uganda Population Report 2007“Planned Urbanization for

Uganda’s Growing Population. Uganda Bureau of Statistics.
THE UGANDA NATIONAL CULTURE POLICY, 2006; A Culturally vibrant,

cohesive and Progressive Nation. Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social
Development
112
APPENDIX A
Language Skills Development Program

Kampala University
Needs Identification Questionnaire
Designed by: Wasajja James
Supervised by Dr. Ayoub Ssekitto
18th August 2009
Questionnaire Consent Form

The attached questionnaire was developed as part of my Masters
Dissertation. It intends to analyse the English Language
communicative needs for International Students in Kampala University.
Your contribution will help in enhancing Language programs and
courses in Kampala University, designed to teach English to
International students whose first and second language is not English.
You have been selected as the best source of information to contribute

to this study by responding to the attached questionnaire.
The questionnaire is divided into four parts and consists of four pages.
It is designed to be answered within twenty minutes. Please answer all
questions as accurately as you can. Instructions are provided for each
question.
Please note that you do not have to write your name. The information
that you provide will be used for research and publication purposes
only.
That by completing this questionnaire you agree that the researcher is
allowed and permitted to use the information you provided for
research and publication purposes only.
Your participation in this research study is completely voluntary and

you may skip any questions that you feel uncomfortable answering.
The researcher will answer any further questions about the research,
now or during the course of the project, and can be reached by
telephone at: 0772695995 or email at: nzewasajja@gmail.com.
I am grateful for your time and effort in completing the questionnaire.
Thank you
113
Wasajja James
Additional questions or problems regarding your rights as a research participant
APPENDIX B
should be addressed to Haroon Ganatusanga, Ph.D., Director, Kampala University
Graduate Studies Center, Mutundwe; Telephone (256) 791388578; E-Mail Address
kugraduateschool@gmail.com
13th September 2009
To: Heads of Departments and Lecturers
This is to inform you that the researcher Mr. Wasajja James from the
English Department at Kampala University is permitted to distribute his
questionnaires in our Campus (Gaba) in regard to his Master’s
Research concerning the English Language Communicative Needs for
International Students.
Any help rendered to him will be appreciated.
Yours Sincerely,
Ms. Kateregga Rashidah

Deputy Academic Registrar
13 SEP
2010
114
24th, August 2010
To: Heads of Departments and Lecturers.
This is to inform you that the researcher Mr. Wasajja James from the
English Department at Kampala University is permitted to distribute his
questionnaires in our Campus (Mutundwe) in regard to his Master’s
Research concerning the English Language Communicative Needs for
International Students.
Any help rendered to him will be appreciated.
Yours Sincerely,
Mr. Jacob Onyango

24 AUG
Coordinator, Kenyan In-service Program.
2010
115
APPENDIX C
SURVEY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING NEEDS BY

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT KAMPALA UNIVERSITY
PART ONE.
1. Which country do you come from?
……………………………………………………..................................................
2. Which language did you study in before you joined Kampala
University?
……………………………………………………..................................................
3. What is your first language?
……………………………………………………..................................................
4. Name of college/high school you came from:
…………………………………………………….................................................
5. Year you finished college/high school:
……………………………………………………................................................
6. Name of course you were admitted for in Kampala University:
……………………………………………………................................................
PART TWO
7. What percentage of your course is conducted in English? Please
write down a percentage in the space below.
……………………………………………………………………………………………...
8. Do you use English at campus? Please circle one answer.
Yes No
116
9. If you answered No, which language do you use at campus? Please
circle one answer.
Arabic English Kinyarwanda French Others
10. Do your coursements include students who communicate in English

only? Please circle one answer.
Yes No
11. If you answered yes, how often does your course require you to
communicate with them? Please circle one answer.
A lot Somewhat A little Never
12. How important is it to have a high level of English proficiency to

perform your course effectively? Please circle one answer.
Very important Somewhat important Little importance Not
important
PART THREE
13. Which level of the listening English language skill enables you to
Excellent level Good level Satisfactory level N/A
14. Which level of the speaking English language skill enables you to
15. Which level of the reading English language skill enables you to
16. Which level of the writing English language skill enables you to
perform your course course effectively? Please circle one answer.
117
17. Rank the following English language skills in terms of importance in

conducting your course? Please rank using numbers from 1 to 4, with 1
being most important and 4 being least important.
Listening ……….. Speaking………… Reading…………. Writing…………..

18. How important is it to have a high level of English proficiency when
performing the following activities? Please circle one number with 1
being most important and 5 being least important.
Listening Speaking Readin Writing

g
A Understanding the 1 2 3 4 5 12345
Lectures
B Communicating 12345 12345
with coursements
C Application Letters 12345 12345
D Emails/ Chat 12345 12345
E Research 12345 12345
F Using Computers 12345 12345 12345 12345
G Others, 12345 12345 12345 12345

please specify
PART FOUR
19. How would you rate your knowledge of English before you began
Kampala University? Please circle one answer.
Very good Satisfactory Poor Very poor
118
20. How did the intensive English language courses that you studied at
Kampala University help you in the following tasks? Please look at the
scale below and circle the appropriate number accordingly.
1 = alot 2 = somewhat 3 = a little 4 =did not help

all
Speak about your course in English

Write about your course in English
Read your course related books,
articles, and magazines
Understand your course related
instructions, lectures and coursework
Pass the English aptitude test
21. How are the English Language courses you studied at Kampala
University relevant to your educational needs? Please circle one
answer.
A lot somewhat A little Not relevant at all
22. How would you rate your knowledge of English since you joined
Kampala University? Please circle one answer.
Very good Satisfactory Poor Very poor
Thank you for your participation
119
APPENDIX D
UCHUNGUZI WA UMUHIMU WA KIJIFUNYA LUGHA YA

KIINGEREZA KWA WANAFUNZI WAKIMATAIFA KATIKA CHUO
KIKUU CHA KAMPALA
SEHEMU YA KWANZA.
1. Unatoka nchi gani?
…………………………………………………..................................................
2. Ni lugha gani ulizojifunza kabla ya kujiuga na chuo kikuu cha
Kampala?
……………………………………………………..................................................
3. Lugha yako ya kwanza ni hipi?
……………………………………………………..................................................
4. Jina la chuo au shule ya upili uliyotoka:
…………………………………………………….................................................
5. Mwaka uliomaliza chuo au shule ya upili:
……………………………………………………................................................
6. Jina la kitivo ulichojiunga nacho katika chuo kikuu cha kampala :
……………………………………………………................................................
SEHEMU YA PILI.
7. Ni asilimia gani ya masomo katika kitivo jako yanayofanywa katika
kingereza andika asilimia kwa nafasi iliyoachwa.
……………………………………………………………………………………………...
8. Je, mnatumia kingereza chuoni? Tia sufuri kwa ndio au la.
Yes No
9. Kama umejibu la mnatumia lugha gani chuoni?: tafadhali itaje.
Kiarabu Kingereza Kirwanda Kifaranza Zingine
120
10. Je kosi yenu inajumuisha wanafunzi wanoongea kingereza pekee
yake? Tafadhali jibu.
La au ndio
11. Kama umejibu ndio ni muda gani kosi yenu inawabidi kuongea
nao? Tafadhali tia jibu moja tu.
Sana Si Sana Kidoga Hapana
12. Ni umihimu gani uliopo kuwa na ujuzi wa kiwango cha juu katika
kingereza hili muweze kufanya vizuri katika kosi yenu bila tabu?
Tafadhali jibu.
Kuna umuhimu Sana kunaumuhimu umuhimu kidogo
hakuna umuhimu
SEHEMU YA TATU
13. Ni kiwango kipi cha kusikiza kingereza kinachowawezesha kufanya
vizuri katika kosi yenu bila tabu.
Kizuri kabisa kizuri cha kutoshelesha hakuna N/A
14. Ni kiwango kipi cha kuongea kingereza kinachowawezesha kufanya

15. Ni kiwango kipi cha kusoma kingereza kinachowawezesha kufanya

16. Ni kiwango kipi cha kuandika kingereza kinachowawezesha

kufanya vizuri katika kosi yenu bila tabu.
121
17. Orodhesha mbinu za kingereza zilizopo hapo chini kulingana na
jinsi ziliniyo muhimu katika kufanya kosi yako? Orodhesha nambari
moja hadi nne. Nambari moja kuwa muhimu na nambari ya nne kuwa
ya mwisho kwa umuhimu.
Kusikiza ……….. Kuongea………… Kusoma…………. Kuandika…………..

18. Ni umuhimo gain uliopo kuwa na kiwango cha juu cha kingereza
wakati unapofanya mambo yafuatayo? Tafadhali jibu nambari moja
kuwa muhimu na nambari tano ya mwisho kwa umuhimu.
Kuandik
Kusikiza Kuongea Kusoma a
A Kuelewa vipindi 12345 12345
B Kujadili na 1 2 3 4 5 12345
wenzako
C Application Letters 12345 12345
D Emails/ Chat 12345 12345
E Ujunguzi 12345 12345
F Using Computers 12345 12345 12345 12345
G Zingine, 12345 12345 12345 12345

tafadhali zitaye
SEHEMU YA INNE
19. Je ungeupimaje ufahamu wako wa kingereza kabla ya kujiunga na
chuo kikuu cha Kampala. Tafadhali weka sufuri Kwa jibu moja tu.
Vizuri Sana vizuri vibaya vibaya Sana
122
20. Je lugha ya kingereza uliyosoma Kwa undani katika chuo kikuu cha
Kampala inakusaidiaje katika majukumu yafuatayo?
Tafadhali angalia vipimo vifuatavyo na uweke alama ya sufuri kwa jibu
sahili
1 = zaidi 2 = kiasi 3 = kidogo 4 =haijanisaidia
Zungumzia juu ya kosi yako kwa

kingereza
Andika kuhusu kosi yako kwa
kingereza
Soma vitabu, magazeti
yanayohusiana na kosi yako
Elewa maelezo, mafunzo na kazi zote
zinazohusiana na kosi yako
Faulu mtihani wa ujuzi wa kingereza
21. Je mafunzo ya lugha ya kingereza unayosoma katika chuo kikuu

cha Kampala yanaumuhimu gain katika mahitaji yako ya kielimu?
Tafadhali piga mzunguko jibu moja.
Sana kiasi kidogo simuhimu
22. Wawezaje kupima ufahamu wako wa kingereza tangu ulipojiunga

na chuo kikuu cha Kampala. Tafadhali weka alama ya mzunguko Kwa
jibu moja tu.
Vizuri Sana kiasi/kidogo vibaya vibaya zaidi
Asante Kwa shughulika kwako
123
APPENDIX E
ENQUÊTE DE LANGUE ANGLAISE BESOINS D'APPRENTISSAGE

PAR
ÉTUDIANTS ÉTRANGERS À L'UNIVERSITÉ KAMPALA
PREMIÈRE PARTIE
1. Quel pays venez-vous
...........................................................................................................
2. Quelle langue avez-vous étudié en avant de rejoindre l'université
de Kampala.?
...........................................................................................................
3. Quelle est votre langue maternelle?
...........................................................................................................
4. Nom du collège venez-vous?
...........................................................................................................
5. Année où vous avez fini le collège ou à l'école hjgh.
...........................................................................................................
6. Le nom du cours vous avez été admis à l'unjversity Kampala?

...........................................................................................................
DEUXIÈME PARTIE.
7. Quel pourcentage de votre cours est donné en anglais? s'il vous
plaît écrire un i en pourcentage l'espace ci-dessous.
...........................................................................................................
8. Attendez-vous à utiliser l'anglais après le campus? s'il vous plaît
cercle d'une réponse.
oui non
9. Si vous avez répondu oui, quelle langue est utilisée à votre futur
emploi? s'il vous plaît cercle d'une réponse.
Arabic English Kinyarwanda French others
10. Voulez-vous que votre coursements pour inclure les élèves qui
communiquent en anglais seulement? S'il vous plaît cercle
d'une réponse.
oui non
11. Si vous avez répondu oui, combien de fois votre cours vous
obliger à communiquer avec eux? s'il vous plaît cercle d'une
réponse.
Beaucoup assez alittle jamais
12. Comment est-il important d'avoir un haut niveau de
compétence en anglais pour effectuer vos cours de manière
efficace? s'il vous plaît cercle d'une réponse.
très importante des ce important peu important pas
important.
124
TROISIÈME PARTIE.
13. Quel niveau de l'écoute des compétences linguistiques en
anglais vous permet d'effectuer efficacement vos cours? s'il
vous plaît cercle d'une réponse.
Eexcellent niveau Bon niveau Niveau satisfaisant N/A
14. Quel niveau de la lecture en anglais compétences linguistiques

vous permet d'effectuer efficacement vos cours? s'il vous plaît
Excellent niveau Bon niveau Niveau satisfaisant N/A
15. Quel niveau de l'écriture de l'anglais la langue de compétences

vous permet d'effectuer efficacement vos cours?
16. Quel niveau de la compétence linguistique en anglais écrit vous

permet d'effectuer votre travail efficacement? s'il vous plaît
17. Classer les suivants Anglais compétences linguistiques en termes

d'importance dans la conduite de votre cours? s'il vous plaît rang
des nombres en utilisant 1 à 4, 1 étant le plus important et le
moins d'être important.
Musique........ Parler......... Lecture........... D'écriture
18. Comment est-il important d'avoir un niveau élevé de maîtrise de

l'anglais lors de la réalisation des activités suivantes? S'il vous
plaît encercler un chiffre 1 étant le plus important et 5 étant les
moins importants.
125
Écoute Parler Lecture Rédactio
n
A Comprendre les 1 2 3 4 5 12345
conférences
B Communiquer 12345 12345
avec coursements
C La lettre de 12345 12345
candidature
D Emails / Chat 12345 12345
E Recherche 12345 12345
F Utilisation des 1 2 3 4 5 12345 12345 12345

ordinateurs
G D'autres, 12345 12345 12345 12345
s'il vous plaît
spécifier
QUATRIÈME PARTIE
19. Comment évalueriez-vous votre connaissance de l'anglais
avant de commencer à Kampala Université? S'il vous plaît cercle
d'une réponse.
Trans’ eleve
20. Comment les cours intensifs de langue anglaise que vous
avez étudié à l'Université de Kampala vous aider dans les tâches
suivantes? S'il vous plaît regardez à l'échelle ci-dessous et
encercler le numéro approprié en conséquence.
1 = beaucoup 2 = peu 3 = a little 4 =n'a pas aidé

tous les
126
Parlez de vos cours en anglais
Donnez de votre cours en anglais
Lisez vos livres de cours, les objets,
et les magazines
Comprendre les instructions de votre
cours connexe, des conférences et
des cours
Passez le test d'aptitude en anglais
21. Comment sont les cours d'anglais langue vous avez étudié à
l'Université de Kampala à vos besoins d'enseignement? S'il vous plaît
Un grand nombre peu Un peu Non pertinent à tous les
22. Comment évalueriez-vous votre connaissance de l'anglais depuis
que vous avez rejoint l'Université de Kampala? S'il vous plaît cercle
une réponse.
Très bon Satisfaisante Pauvre Très pauvres
Je vous remercie pour votre participation
127

Dissert - Ist Part

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissert - Ist Part

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissert - Ist Part

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TABLE OF CONTENT

Abbreviation of Key Terms

The globalization of the English Language has set a precedent onto

This study explores the English Language in the Uganda context.

In order to contribute empirical data to the English Language

In 1955, the Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki graduated from Makerere

Between them, the two men became precursors to hundreds of

Uganda is currently devouring in the massive demand for education

A Rwandese parent, Mrs. Marie Chantal Kwizera, who has three

Uganda currently boasts of having over 30 Universities [3]

1.1 Background of the Study

In Africa, countries which have prompted their people to have a good

African scholars continue to regard the lack of seriousness about

The English Language was therefore envisaged to become the Trans –

1.2 Statement of the Problem

According to the statistical abstract, 2007 (UBOS) many International

To date, there has been no empirical investigation of the

In order to contribute empirical data to the language learning use and

The language situation in the selected campuses in this study reflects

The hope of this study is to provide empirical information about the

1.3 Objectives of Study

Specific objectives of this study include but not exactly limited;

1.4 Research Questions

a. What is the perceived percentage of using English at Ggaba

2- What level of the reading, writing, listening and speaking skills of

a. Which of the skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) is

b. What kind of activities are these skills used for?

a. How do you perceive your English language ability before and

b. Do you think it is relevant to take the English language

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

The reflective and interactive functions of language acquisition and

It is therefore no mistake that individuals in search of their destiny and

Kampala University main campus, Gaba is a cradle of a cosmopolitan

Kampala University Mutundwe Campus is well known for Nursing

2.1 The Language situation of Today’s World

What does "influential" mean in this context? Each language carries

Table 1. Distribution of languages by area of origin

Totals 6,909 100.0 5,959,511,717 100.0 862,572 7,560

Table 2. Distribution of languages by number of first-language

Population range Living languages Number of speakers

Table 2.2. Languages with at least 3 million first-language

Generally, English is a global language, but it has no official status, and

The position of English can only be altered by major world-scale

Alternatively, or in addition to this, the technology of machine

2.2.1 The World English Language situation

The English spoken as a foreign language by several African countries,

Meghani thus sought legitimacy for particularistic varieties of English –

Alexander Crummel, the pioneer Pan-Africanist, saw that African

All African countries that managed to maintain English in there

2.2.2 Foreign Languages in Education

In order to remedy these, quantitative measures to extend existing

Unlike in other neighbouring countries, like Tanzania, Uganda’s

2.3 Conceptual Frame work.

2.4 Definition of Key Terms.

English as a Second Language

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents details about the methodology adopted and

A case study is a thorough method to investigate a learner’s

Interviews are another method to utilize in a language needs