英语论文网

35.84 minutes; these data show that the EC students read faster than the CC students. However, in table 5.4,when t=-1.227, the Sig. (2-tailed) =.223>.05, which shows that the EC and the CC students’ reading speedare not significantly different. Therefore, we can make a conclusion that the two classes have the sameEnglish proficiency in fast reading before the teaching experiment and that they can be randomlydistributed as the EC and the CC.

.........

Conclusion

In this research, the author mainly used tests, questionnaire, fast reading plan and evaluation table toanalyze whether reading strategies training are effective on fast reading teaching. 85 freshmen, whomajored in Chinese language and literature coming from two parallel classes, were chosen to finish thisempirical study. As the data mentioned above, three findings are made as follows:First, after the training, the experimental class’s frequency of strategy use has improved a lot and thisimprovement is significant in using meta-cognitive strategy and cognitive strategy; while the frequency ofsocial/affective strategy use increased without significance. All in all, reading strategies training improvedstudents’ frequency of using meta-cognitive and cognitive strategies, but the frequency of social/affectivestrategy use was not enhanced after the experiment.Second, correlation analysis was used to test the relationship between the frequency of strategy useand fast reading achievement, and the author found that there was a significant correlation between readingstrategy use and fast reading achievement. After the experiment, students’ fast reading achievementimproved significantly. Although the experimental class’s reading speed was faster than the control class inthe post-test, the improvement was not significant. In this way, the author drew the conclusion that readingstrategies training improved readers fast reading achievements, but the reading speed was not acceleratedby strategies training.Third, after training in the experimental class, high-level, intermediate-level and low-level students’strategies use was different. High-level readers used meta-cognitive and cognitive strategies in highfrequency; intermediate-level readers used cognitive strategies with high frequency; while the low-levelstudents only used three reading strategies in medium frequency. For the whole reading strategies use,high-level students were not significantly better than middle-level students and this result went the same asthe relation between intermediate-level and low-level students. However, high-level students did better inusing these three kinds of strategies than low-level students significantly. Therefore, reading strategiestraining caused significant differences between high-level and low-level students in using overall readingstrategies.
.........
Reference documents (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。