The Difference in English Proficiency Between Tourism and Engineering Students of Two Asian Universities
Massuline Antonio D. Ligaya, Estrella F. Fajardo, Joung-Hyun Ham, and Seungjin Lee
International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), Vol. 8, Issue 2S6, July 2019, pp. 219–224
DOI: 10.35940/ijrte.B1041.0782S619

Research Summary

English proficiency has become increasingly important across academic disciplines and professions, particularly in fields whose graduates are expected to participate in an international workforce. Tourism is commonly associated with a strong need for English because practitioners routinely communicate with people from different linguistic backgrounds. Engineering, by contrast, may sometimes be perceived as less dependent on English communication. Yet engineers working in international and technology-oriented environments also need English for professional activities such as writing emails and reports, participating in meetings and teleconferences, and delivering presentations. Against this background, the study compared the English proficiency of Tourism and Engineering students from two Asian universities and examined selected factors associated with their proficiency.

The investigation focused on four groups: Tourism and Engineering students from University A and Tourism and Engineering students from University B. The study examined students’ age, number of years studying English, attitude toward learning English, motivation for learning English, and level of English proficiency. It also investigated whether these factors were significantly related to proficiency and whether the four groups differed significantly in their English performance.

Using a descriptive survey research design, the study involved 399 respondents: 97 Tourism and 99 Engineering students from University A, and 104 Tourism and 99 Engineering students from University B. The questionnaire contained three sections covering students’ profiles, their attitudes and motivation toward English, and an English proficiency test. The proficiency assessment covered five areas: vocabulary/grammar, correct grammatical form, answering questions, combining sentences, and word sequencing. Data were analyzed using means, correlation coefficients, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Tukey’s HSD post hoc procedure.

The descriptive findings revealed substantial differences between the universities. Students from University A had studied English considerably longer than those from University B. Engineering students from University A reported the longest average exposure at 13.51 years, followed closely by Tourism students from the same university at 13.38 years. By comparison, Tourism and Engineering students from University B averaged 9.82 and 9.97 years, respectively.

Attitudes toward English also varied. Tourism students from both universities and Engineering students from University A demonstrated positive attitudes toward learning English, whereas Engineering students from University B were classified as only moderately positive. All four groups were classified as moderately motivated, with relatively small differences in their motivation scores.

The clearest differences emerged in English proficiency. Both groups from University A were classified as proficient, while the Tourism and Engineering students from University B were classified as moderately proficient. Engineering students from University A obtained the highest overall proficiency mean (3.376), followed by Tourism students from University A (3.08). Tourism students from University B recorded the lowest mean (2.186), while Engineering students from University B obtained 2.232. Engineering students from University A also achieved the highest scores across all five tested areas.

Correlation analysis produced different patterns across the four groups. Among Engineering students from both universities, the number of years studying English was significantly associated with particular areas of English proficiency. Among Tourism students, age showed negative relationships with certain proficiency areas. Only among Tourism students from University B were attitude toward learning English and motivation for learning English positively correlated with English proficiency. These findings suggest that factors associated with proficiency differed according to student group rather than operating uniformly across all participants.

The comparison of the four groups produced a statistically significant overall difference, with the ANOVA yielding F = 62.77, p < .001. Tukey’s post hoc analysis showed that Engineering students from University A significantly outperformed all three other groups. Tourism students from University A also significantly outperformed both groups from University B. In contrast, the difference between Tourism and Engineering students within University B was not statistically significant.

Overall, the findings challenge the common assumption that Tourism students necessarily possess stronger English skills than Engineering students because of the communicative demands of the tourism profession. In this study, the highest-performing group consisted of Engineering students, while differences between the two universities were considerably larger than the Tourism–Engineering difference within University B. The results therefore suggest that academic discipline alone cannot adequately explain differences in English proficiency; learners’ educational context and previous exposure to English also warrant consideration.

Research Contribution

The study contributes to research on English proficiency across academic disciplines and Asian university contexts by directly comparing Tourism and Engineering students rather than assuming that the communicative demands of their future professions determine their language competence. Its findings question the stereotype that Tourism students should necessarily outperform Engineering students in English and highlight the possible importance of educational context and duration of English-language study. The study also demonstrates that relationships among age, motivation, attitude, English exposure, and proficiency may differ across groups, supporting more context-sensitive approaches to university language education.

Keywords: English proficiency, Tourism students, Engineering students, attitude toward English, motivation toward English, English-language exposure, Asian universities

Full Text

The full text of this publication is available upon request. Researchers, educators, students, and other interested readers who wish to obtain a copy may contact the author through this website or by email at madligaya@gmail.com.