# Usefulness of Digital Language Resources in Improving Native Language among Adults
## 4 Results and Findings
### RQ2: Effects on Perceived Usefulness of Digital Language Resources
The results of the Kruskal-Wallis H test showed no statistically significant difference in the perceived usefulness of digital language resources, \(p>0.05\). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Intention of Using Digital Language Resources 1**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Teaching Language**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{x^{2}}\) **(3)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{p}\)} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-8}  & & & & & & **Yes** & \\ \cline{3-8}  & & \(\mathbf{n}\) & \% & \(\mathbf{n}\) & \% & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Seeking information} & Never & 13 & 15.48 & 0 & 0 & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & Rarely & 12 & 14.29 & 8 & 9.52 & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & Occasionally & 21 & 25 & 5 & 5.95 & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & Regularly & 17 & 20.24 & 8 & 9.52 & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Improving general language use} & Never & 18 & 21.43 & 1 & 1.19 & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & Rarely & 23 & 27.38 & 8 & 9.52 & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & Occasionally & 16 & 19.05 & 7 & 8.33 & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & Regularly & 6 & 7.14 & 5 & 5.95 & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Improving professional language use} & Never & 23 & 27.38 & 4 & 4.76 & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & Rarely & 23 & 27.38 & 6 & 7.14 & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & Occasionally & 10 & 11.9 & 9 & 10.71 & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & Regularly & 7 & 8.33 & 2 & 2.38 & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Using for learning, study, or work} & Never & 10 & 11.9 & 2 & 2.38 & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & Rarely & 16 & 19.05 & 3 & 3.57 & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & Occasionally & 15 & 17.86 & 4 & 4.76 & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & Regularly & 22 & 26.19 & 12 & 14.29 & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Entertainment} & Never & 37 & 44.05 & 7 & 8.33 & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & Rarely & 17 & 20.24 & 8 & 9.52 & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-8}  & Occasionally & 4 & 4.76 & 3 & 3.57 & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-8}  & Regularly & 5 & 5.95 & 3 & 3.57 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(<\)0.05. 1 Rarely stands for “less than once a month”, occasionally for “one to three times a month” and regularly for “at least once a week”.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Chi-square comparison table of participants, teaching language or not, with various types of intention. Finally, the effect was analysed of the various modes of the post-institutional language training on perceived usefulness of digital language resources. The analysis with the Mann-Whitney U test revealed no significant effects of any mode of training, \(p>0.05\). The reason for no significant effects of age and level of education on perceived usefulness can be due to different needs that depend on individuals and their type of work. This can be explained by answers from the semi-structural interview, where two interviewees from different age groups and levels of education similarly perceived digital language resources as useless for them, namely \"Yes, they would be useful, but probably not for me. However, they would be useful if I needed them. Maybe if I had to run a meeting or a lecture, but I probably will not have to.\" (F, 76) and \"Not useful for me. I do not need to write grammar correctly at work, only meeting minutes sometimes.\" (M, 28).