This study looks at the internal reliability of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Oxford, 1 990), using the ESL/EFL version in Japanese translation. The results of the Cronbach’s alpha analysis indicate a high degree of reliability for the overall questionnaire, but less so for the six subsections. Moreover, the test-retest correlations for the two administrations are extremely low with an average shared variance of 1 9.5 percent at the item level and 25.5 percent at the subsection level. In addition, the construct validity of the SILL was examined using exploratory factor analysis. While the SILL claims to be measuring six types of strategies, the two factor analyses include as many as 1 5 factors. Moreover, an attempt to fit the two administrations into a six-factor solution results in a disorganized scattering of the questionnaire items. Finally, interviews with participating students raised questions about the ability of participants to understand the metalanguage used in the questionnaire as well as the appropriateness of some items for a Japanese and EFL setting. The authors conclude that despite the popularity of the SILL, use and interpretation of its results are problematic. 本研究は、Oxford(1990)の外国語学習ストラテジー・インベントリー (SILL)のEFL/ESL用日本語版の内部信頼性及び構成概念妥当性を実験と統計に よって検証したものである。クロンバック・アルファ検定による内部信頼性 については、インベントリーの全項目は全体としては信頼性が高かったが、 6タイプのサブカテゴリーに分類されたストラテジーについては信頼性が低か った。また、インベントリーを用いたテスト・再テストの相関は低く、全項 目では平均寄与率19.5パーセント、サブカテゴリーでは25.5パーセントであっ た。構成概念妥当性検定のための説明的因子分析の結果は、6タイプのストラ テジーが15因子に細分化されたこと、さらに、全項目を6因子に分けた結果、 それぞれの因子が無秩序に分類される結果となった。最後に、インタビュー によって、この実験に参加した被験者学生にインベントリーの各項目の内容 理解について確認した結果、日本語がわかりにくく判断しいくい記述、日本 のEFLの状況では理解しにくい記述があることが明らかになった。以上のす べてから、SILLの実用的評価にもかかわらず、それを用いること、また、そ こから得た結果の解釈には問題が含まれているというのが、本研究の研究者 が得た結論である。
ObjectivesTo identify the learning needs of recently qualified general practitioners (GPs) (First5) in National Health Service (NHS) Scotland concerning GP partnership and the commercial business aspects of general practice. It aimed to identify learning opportunities during General Practice Specialty Training and the first 5 years of work, and to explore their suggestions of additional resources that would improve their sense of preparedness for partnership. A secondary aim was to explore what influenced their current choice of employment model and place of work.DesignQualitative research study using grounded theory methods. Recruitment was stratified to include First5 GPs from a range of NHS boards in Scotland including remote and rural areas. Participants were interviewed in small focus groups or individual interviews in person, or over the telephone depending on their preference. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions were coded and codes developed into themes using Charmazian grounded theory methods. Data saturation was achieved and verified by the researchers.SettingGeneral practice in NHS Scotland. Participant GPs, within the first 5 years of completion of General Practice Specialty Training, who were working in NHS Scotland.ResultsTwenty-seven recently qualified GPs participated in the study. Three main themes were constructed: preparedness for partnership from experiential learning in General Practice Specialty Training; perceived commercial business learning needs and preferred learning styles (with learning needs arranged into five topic areas); considerations that inform decision-making about choice of employment model and of practice. Factors that influenced the decision to enter into specific employment models were identified.ConclusionLengthening the time spent in specialty training may help GP trainees gain more knowledge, skills and confidence about the commercial business aspects of general practice and of GP partnership.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.