英语论文网

ction .........22
3.4.2 Data analysis ......23
Chapter4 Results and Discussions.......26
4.1 Quantitative results.........26
4.1.1 Temporal indices ......26
4.1.2 Performing indices .........31
4.1.3 Summary of quantitative results ......34
4.2 Qualitative results.....36
4.2.1 Pauses.....36
4.2.2 The contents of their speech production ......39
4.2.3 Summary of qualitative results ........40
4.3 Discussion of results.......41
4.4 Summary ......44
Chapter 5 Conclusion and Implications ......45
5.1 Major findings of the study ........45
5.2 Implications of the study ......46
5.2.1 Implications for teachers......46
5.2.2 Implications for students......46
5.3 Limitations of the study........47

Chapter4 Results and Discussions

4.1 Quantitative results
In the study, ANOVA is adopted to test the improvement of oral English throughtemporal indices and performing indices. Through ANOVA, the relevant data werepresented, which includes mean, standard deviation, significance and significancebetween groups. In this part, five important indices which consists of speech rate(SR), articulationrate(AR), phonation/time ratio(PTR), mean length of run(MLR) and average length ofpause(ALP) will be calculated, while the results will be illustrated and discussed. Thefollowing are results of the five indices in three tests. The data on speaking rate show that the average SR is 106.94 syllables perminute in pretest, 141.03 syllables per minute in mid-test, and 140.11 syllables perminute in posttest. The results present that the significance between groups is it is0.027, that’s to say, there is obvious difference among three tests. Specifically, it issignificant at the 0.05 level between pretest and mid-test, pretest and posttest. Aspretest was held on 20thof October, 2010, and mid-test on 20thof October, 2010, thetime span between pretest and mid-test is almost one year. During this year, thesubjects spent much more time in disciplining oral production as a whole, so theimprovement in the indices is obvious. In posttest, the mean of speaking rate declineda little bit, but the level of significance is higher than 0.05, it didn’t have obviousstatistic significance. Besides, from the standard deviation, it can be found that thestandard deviation declined a lot in mid-test, while that increased a lot in posttest.
……………

Conclusion

Between pretest and mid-test, the college offered curriculum in oral English forthe English majors, including the 9 subjects. In the process of practicing oral English,the ability and level of oral English is improved to a degree. However, decrease washappened in posttest more or less, no matter in quantitative or qualitative aspects.As far as the temporal indices are concerned, the subjects showed obviousdevelopment in the respects of speaking rate(SR), phonation/time ratio (PTR),articulation rate(AR) and average length of pause(ALP), that’s to say, the subjectsmake certain progress in L2 oral fluency. Through practicing oral English generally,the ability of morpho-phonology encoding and phonetic encoding was strengthened,then the time of response become reduced, then the speed of producing utterances wasaccelerated. Meanwhile, it seems that the oral level of subjects presents centraltendency in mid-test, while the gap 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。