英语论文网

d since the 1980s. Many research have triedto define the concept of learning strategies (shown in the following table).In response to those various views, Ellis (1999) concludes a number of problemsrevealed by these definitions. On the basis of these problems, Eills (1999) advises thatone of the best ways to define learning strategies is to try to show a clear statement oftheir main characteristics. He concludes 8 characteristics.Learning strategies also can be defined as “measures or actions which studentstake in order to study more efficiently” (Wen, 1996). This definition puts emphasis ontwo points: the goal of using learning strategies in the learners’ actions and the actioncan be either exterior or interior.

.........

Chapter 3 Methodology .......21
3.1 Subjects ......21
3.2 Research Questions ........21
3.4 Procedures ........23
3.4.1 Pilot Test.........23
3.4.2 Data Collection .....24
3.5 Data Analysis ....24
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion.....25
4.1 Characteristics of the Subjects’ Tolerance of Ambiguity....25
4.2 Characteristics of Subjects’ Language Learning Strategies......30
4.4 Correlation between TOA and the Selection and Application of LLS....41
Chapter 5 Conclusion ..........45
5.1 Major Findings of the Present Study........45
5.2 Research Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research.....49

Chapter 4 Results and Discussion

This chapter presents and discusses the results of this study and attempt toexplain the results. It includes the following aspects: characteristics of the subjects’TOA and LLS, differences between high tolerance of ambiguity subjects and lowtolerance of ambiguity subjects in their language learning use, and correlationbetween tolerance of ambiguity and language learning strategies use.

4.1 Characteristics of the Subjects’ Tolerance of Ambiguity

4.1.1 Overall profile of Students’ Tolerance of Ambiguity
According to their scores of tolerance of ambiguity, the author divided 285subjects into high tolerance of ambiguity group and low tolerance of ambiguity group.The number of high tolerance of ambiguity subjects is 48, accounting for 16.84%, andthe number of low tolerance of ambiguity subjects is 237, accounting for 83.16%,shown as follows.The percentage of high tolerance of ambiguity group, 16.84%, is slightly lessthan Zhang’s (2004) findings, whose research shows that the number of high toleranceof ambiguity subjects accounts for 18.84% and the number of low tolerance ofambiguity students is 81.16%.To get a overall picture of tolerance of ambiguity, descriptive statistics wasemployed by SPSS 16.0. A summary of the descriptive statistics results of tolerance ofambiguity is presented in Table 4.2。The results in Table 4.2 show that the mean is 2.48 (S.D. = 0.804, N = 285). Thisscore is around the median, showing that the subjects’ general degree of TOA isneither high nor low. This indicates that students in this study neither have enoughhigh tolerance of ambiguity to acquire new language easily and nor have highintolerance of ambiguity to impede their language learning.
........

Conclusion

The previous discussions of the present study have an deep influence onlanguage teaching and learning. First of all, this chapter summarizes the 本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。