英语论文网

e immediatetest is 2.79, the df value is 76, and the Sig (2-tailed) value is 0.007 which is less than 0.05.The data indicate that the participants in EG significantly outperformed the participants inCG (t (76) = 2.79, p=0.007<0.05). Inspections of the two group means indicate that theaverage score of the students in EG who received explicit proactive FonF (27.34) issignificantly higher than that of the students in CG who received implicit proactive FonFinstruction (23.4). The difference between the means is 3.94 points on a 40 points test, i.e.the mean score of EG is 3.94 points higher than that of CG. The subjects in EGsignificantly outperformed those in CG in the immediate post-test.

.......

Conclusio

Based on the previous studies and the data collected from the present empiricalresearch, the overall conclusion drawn from the present empirical study is that theshort-term effects of Explicit Proactive FonF in acquiring subjunctive mood are better thanthose of Implicit Proactive FonF while the long-term effects of Implicit Proactive FonF inacquiring subjunctive mood are better than those of Explicit Proactive FonF. The majorfindings of the present research, together with the fundamental pedagogical implicationsand research limitations are presented in this chapter.Based on the result analysis of the present research and the Noticing Hypothesis, thefollowing major findings are gained.For the first question, i.e., In terms of short-term effects, which method has bettereffects in subjunctive mood learning, Explicit Proactive FonF or Implicit Proactive FonF?In immediate post-test, the participants in EG significantly outperformed the participants inCG in terms of instant acquisition of English subjunctive mood, so evaluated from theperspective of the instant learning effect, explicit proactive FonF functions significantlybetter than implicit proactive FonF.
............
References (omitted)

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。