英语论文网

Chapter Three Methodology.......28
3.1 Research Questions and Hypotheses .........28
3.2 Research Participants .........29
3.3 Materials ....30
3.4 Instruments.......30
3.4.1 Vocabulary Tests .....30
3.4.2 Questionnaires.........32
3.4.3 SPSS Software ........33
3.5 Procedures of Present Study .........33
Chapter Four Results and Discussion ....40
4.1 Results of Final Scores and Vocabulary Level Test in EC and CC.....40
4.2 Results and Discussion of Receptive Vocabulary Test in EC and CC ......43
4.3 Results and Discussion of Productive Vocabulary Test in EC and CC.....46
4.4 Results and Discussion of Questionnaires in EC and CC.......49
Chapter Five Conclusion.......56
5.1 Major Findings......56
5.2 Pedagogical Implications ........57
5.3 Limitations of the Study....57
5.4 Suggestions for Future Research ........59

Chapter Four Results and Discussion

4.1 Results of Final Scores and Vocabulary Level Test in EC and CC
Although the two classes share the same environment, experiences andbackground, to ensure that the two classes have the same English proficiency level,the scores of last term’s final exam in EC and CC were firstly analyzed throughindependent-samples T test before the experiment. The results are shown in thefollowing two tables (See Table 4.1 and Table 4.2). As can be known from Table 4.1, the mean scores of the EC and CC are 76.36and 75.55 respectively; there is little difference that can be ignored. Moreover, the Std.Deviation of EC (8.204) is very close to that of CC (8.987), which shows that the twoclasses have a similar dispersion of the scores.From Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in table 4.2, what can be known isthat F-value is 0.347 and Sig. P-value is 0.558 which is more than 0.05. Therefore, thedifference in variances between the two classes is denied. So, the data in the line ofEqual Variances Assumed is chosen as valid data. Here Sig.

…………

Conclusion

The purpose of this study is to explore the effects of FonF instruction on collegestudents’ receptive and productive acquisition. On the basis of data analysis ofpost-test and questionnaires, it has some promising findings. The findings aresummarized as follows:Firstly, according to the results of post-test 1 which aimed at measuring students’proficiency of receptive vocabulary, students under FonF instruction got almost thesame mean scores with students under FonFs instruction. This clearly indicates thatthere is no significant difference in the effects of receptive vocabulary acquisition.That is, FonF instruction and FonFs instruction are equally effective in the acquisitionof receptive vocabulary. This is because students under FonFs instruction got enoughnoticing while students under FonF instruction got enough interaction and what’smore, both classes have chance to be exposed to vocabulary input.
……………
Reference (omitted)