Principal Component Factors: Factor Analysis Of The WTCS
4.1.1 Factor Analysis of the WTCS
A principal component factor analysis was conducted on the 25 items with varimax rotation. Because the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure verified that the whole WTC scale was .832 (>.8 is applicable for factor analysis according to Kaiser), it gave me the confidence that the sample size of the research was adequate for factor analysis. The scree plot for WTC scale showed the inflexions that the scale is not unidimensional. Consequently, I retained the five factors to keep all the items for the following analyses.
That is, factor analysis with Principal Components scale and Rotated Matrix for the WTC yielded five factors. All together explained 71.79% of the total variance. Table 2 shows the factor loading …show more content…
As the Table 3 describes, the WTC in level three is merely a bit more than level one in the experiment. This difference is not significant with the t-value is -1.67, df is 80 and the two-tailed value of p is 0.10, which is greater than 0.05. Details could be also read in the Table 8 (See Appendix II for specific information). It could be concluded that there is no difference between the means of the level one and level three students’ WTC. That is, it could be inferred that the WTC of level three is almost equal to the level one.
Typically, in terms of the WTC in class dimension, from the Table 4, according to the data of Table 4, it could be revealed that the level three students perform more willing to communicate than level one students in the English classes context. The difference is significant in the case of in-class WTC (t = 2.33, df = 80, p = .02<.05, Also See Appendix II, Table …show more content…
A lso, there is no correlation for level three students’ WTC and English Proficiency as the r is only .059 See Appendix II, Table 11). There is therefore, no significant correlations between the WTC and students’ general English proficiency in this experimental. For different levels, the different extent of significance is not found either.
Based on the previous factor analysis, those items index the factor4—WTC in class were selected to correlate with the subscale. Surprisingly, for the specific dimension, the person coefficient is (See Appendix II, Table 12), it could be seen that WTC in class of level one students is particularly correlated with the students general English proficiency, with a coefficient up to .330 and the correlation is significant. However, there is still no association between the two variables for the level three students, whose coefficient is merely -.019 (See Appendix II, Table 13). That is, in this regard, the level three students’ WTC and proficiency cannot give rise to each
A principal component factor analysis was conducted on the 25 items with varimax rotation. Because the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure verified that the whole WTC scale was .832 (>.8 is applicable for factor analysis according to Kaiser), it gave me the confidence that the sample size of the research was adequate for factor analysis. The scree plot for WTC scale showed the inflexions that the scale is not unidimensional. Consequently, I retained the five factors to keep all the items for the following analyses.
That is, factor analysis with Principal Components scale and Rotated Matrix for the WTC yielded five factors. All together explained 71.79% of the total variance. Table 2 shows the factor loading …show more content…
As the Table 3 describes, the WTC in level three is merely a bit more than level one in the experiment. This difference is not significant with the t-value is -1.67, df is 80 and the two-tailed value of p is 0.10, which is greater than 0.05. Details could be also read in the Table 8 (See Appendix II for specific information). It could be concluded that there is no difference between the means of the level one and level three students’ WTC. That is, it could be inferred that the WTC of level three is almost equal to the level one.
Typically, in terms of the WTC in class dimension, from the Table 4, according to the data of Table 4, it could be revealed that the level three students perform more willing to communicate than level one students in the English classes context. The difference is significant in the case of in-class WTC (t = 2.33, df = 80, p = .02<.05, Also See Appendix II, Table …show more content…
A lso, there is no correlation for level three students’ WTC and English Proficiency as the r is only .059 See Appendix II, Table 11). There is therefore, no significant correlations between the WTC and students’ general English proficiency in this experimental. For different levels, the different extent of significance is not found either.
Based on the previous factor analysis, those items index the factor4—WTC in class were selected to correlate with the subscale. Surprisingly, for the specific dimension, the person coefficient is (See Appendix II, Table 12), it could be seen that WTC in class of level one students is particularly correlated with the students general English proficiency, with a coefficient up to .330 and the correlation is significant. However, there is still no association between the two variables for the level three students, whose coefficient is merely -.019 (See Appendix II, Table 13). That is, in this regard, the level three students’ WTC and proficiency cannot give rise to each