英语论文网

4.1.2 Analysis on five subcomponents of LAIOE .....32
4.1.3 Comparison among students from different levels of universities .......34
4.2 Correlation analysis between the five factors and LAIOE .....35
4.3 The regression model and discussion .......38
Chapter 5 Conclusions.....47
5.1 Major findings.......47
5.2 Implications.....48
5.2.1 Implications for teachers.....48
5.2.2 Implications for students.....51
5.3 Limitations and suggestions....51

Chapter 4 Results and discussions

4.1 The current situation of LAIOE
To reveal the general tendency of English majors’ autonomy in oral Englishlearning required not only the description of an overall report, but also thedetermination of the mean, standard deviation, median, mode, minimum of everyaspect in this scale. Detailed analysis on the five subcomponents of LAIOE requiredfurther comparison and explanation. Scale of LAIOE comprises 23 items, thus the mean score of these 23 items couldimply an English major’s overall situation of oral autonomy. The higher the meanscore is, the better the student dose in oral learning. A total mean score from 1 to 3 isregarded as low autonomy in oral English learning, and 3 to 4 indicates a moderatelevel. If mean score surpasses 4 and even approaches to 5, it means that the student ishighly autonomous in oral English learning (Liu and Jackson, 2008).The mean score range of student’s LAIOE is 1.48 to 4.35 (the possible range is 1to 5), which suggests a broad gap among English majors. It also shows a mean of2.7798, a median of 2.6957, and a mode of 2.61; all three indexes are lower than 3,manifesting that English majors are obviously not autonomous enough in oral Englishlearning (Table 4).

…………

Conclusion

In this study, through all the analyses above, we can draw the followingconclusions about LAIOE of English majors in China. Most English majors were not autonomous enough in oral learning. 69% ofthem got low scores of LAIOE (ranging from 1 to 3), 30% of them were moderatelyautonomous, and only 1% was highly autonomous. This situation is far from ideal anddeserves more attention.The five subcomponents (LA1, LA2, LA3, LA4, and LA5) were all significantlyand positively correlated with LAIOE, indicating that they were all importantsubcomponents. In the aspect of each subcomponent, LA1 got the highest score (3.02),indicating that students were able to follow the teachers to train their oral English.LA4 and LA5 got 2.98 and 2.86 respectively; it meant that the English majors couldbasically monitor their learning process and give an evaluation on themselves. LA2got 2.50 and LA3 got 2.57, so these two subcomponents were much lower than themoderate level, illustrating English majors were not good at establishing their ownoral learning goals, making oral learning plans and taking advantage of oral learningstrategies. There is unbalance in the development of English majors’ LAIOE.
……………
Reference (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。