Unit 5 Reporting Results
Objectives:
-Understand the function and the major elements of the results section;
-Learn the major steps to deal with the results section;
-U the tips for describing graphic information;
-Grasp the tips for making comparison and contrast;
-Learn the skills for choosing appropriate graphs and making graphs.
Contents:
- Teacher’宠物狗掉进粪坑s introduction;
- Reading and discussion: Types of Language for Thinking and Lexical Collocational Errors;
- Language focus: graphic description; comparison and contrast;
-Writing practice: using graphs and describing graphs (tables and charts);
- Rewriting practice: grasping the major moves for outlining the results ction;
- Classroom extension: descriptions of data and graphs when reporting results.
1. Reading Activity
1.1 Pre-reading Task
Do you know how to report the results of your rearch? The standard approach to the 火星人results section of a rearch paper is to prent the results with the statistical techniques such as tables and charts. This does not mean that you do not need any text to describe data prented in graphs.
Think about the following questions before reading the text and then have a discussion with your classmates.
1. What is the function of the results section?
2. What are the major elements included in the results section?
3. What are the major steps for you to deal with the results section?
4. How do you describe graphic information in the results ction?
5. How do you compare and contrast the data prented in graphs?
The following is part of the results section of a rearch paper which investigated how EFL learners’ types of language for thinking influence their lexical collocational errors in speech.
1.2 Reading Passage
Results
Types of Language for Thinking and Lexical Collocational Errors
1One key issue in this study was whether a learner’s type of language for thinking influences lexical collocational production. 2 This issue was explored by examining one retrospective report on the questionnaire, ‘‘When tape recording, what language did you mainly u for inner speech?’’ 3Bad on their respons, t
he 42 participants were classified into four language groups: Chine, English, Chine mingled with English, and other languages. 4The participants’ inaccuracy rates were compared, which were obtained by dividing the number of errors by the overall number of lexical collocations they produced individually, among the language groups.
The preliminary analysis discovered that the 42 participants produced a total of 2,491 lexical collocations, and each participant created approximately 29 lexical collocations per minute. Regarding learner errors, 263 incorrect collocations were found among the 2,491 lexical collocations, resulting in an inaccuracy rate of 10.56. To report the effect of language for thinking on the production of lexical collocations in speech, Table 1 records the fact that 5 students stated that their type of language for thinking was for the most part Chine. As Table 1 shows, 17 mainly ud English for thinking, 20 primarily thought in Chine mingled with English, and none thought in other languages. The inaccuracy rate of oral lexical collocations in each language group was calculated by dividing the total number of lexical collocational errors by the total number of lexical collocations prod
uced. Descriptive statistics demonstrated that tho who mainly thought in their native language (Mandarin Chine) produced the highest inaccuracy rate of lexical collocations (M=15.17), followed by tho who primarily thought in English (M=12.40) and tho using a combination (M=8.44). Results of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) further displayed that the difference among the three groups reached a significant level, F(2,39)=4.07, p<.05. This result supports the notion that EFL learners’ type of language for thinking appreciably influences their oral production of lexical collocations.
To probe intergroup differences, the Fisher Least Significant Difference (LSD) posthoc test was adopted, which aims at discerning whether the comparison between groups reaches the significance level. The LSD test showed that the Chine-mingled-with- English group had a markedly lower inaccuracy rate than the Chine or English groups, while the difference between the Chine and English groups was not significant. Thinking in both Chine and English was more beneficial and effective to the EFL learners’ oral production of lexical collocations.
Table 1: Types of Language for Thinking and Inaccuracy Rates of Lexical Collocations
Group | N | M (%)康涅狄格大学 | SD (%) | F | emergencystopikenComments |
Chine (CH) | 5 | 15.17 | 5.48 | 4.07* | CH>CE* |
English (EN) | 17 | 12.40 | 6.72 | | EN>CE* |
Chine mingled with English (CE) | 20 | 8.44 | 4.32 | | |
Others | 0 | | | | |
| | | | | the反义词 |
Note: Mean shows the average inaccuracy rate of collocations in each group.
*P<.05
(Hung-ChunWang & Su-Chin Shih, 2011)
1.3 Reading Comprehension
1.3.1 Read the first paragraph and identify the information elements you find in each ntence of the text.
短裤 英文
convergenceSentences | Elements |
Sentence 1 | |
Sentence 2 | |
Sentence 3 | |
Sentence 4 | |
| |
1.3.2 Some verbs can be ud to locate the results of the rearch, such as “show” and “indicate”. Read the cond and third paragraphs carefully and think of the question: Which verbs did the authors u for locating the results?
Paragraphs | Verbs locating the results |
In the 2nd paragraph | |
In the 3rd paragraph | |
| |
1.3.3 Read the cond and third paragraphs carefully and think of the question: What is the function of the last ntence in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs respectively?
沈阳早教机构
Sentences | Function |
Last ntence in the 2nd paragraph | |
Last ntence in the 3rd hancockparagraph | |
| |
