Theory and Practice in Language Studies Contents - Academy ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1074 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIESResults of the Effects of Teaching Collocations on the Speaking Ability of EFL learnersThe first research question aimed to examine significant effects of teaching collocations on speaking ability ofIranian EFL learners. In order to answer this question, the descriptive statistics participants‟ performances on thepretests and posttests of the control group (CG) and the experimental group (EG) were calculated. Table 4.5 tabulatesthe descriptive statistics of the control group and experimental group.TABLE 1.5RESULTS OF DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF THE CG AND EG IN PRETEST AND POSTTESTPaired Samples StatisticsgroupexperimentalPair 1collocation pretestMean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean6.65 20 1.599 .357collocation posttest18.95 20 4.032 .902Pair 2interview pretest6.70 20 .979 .219interview posttest14.90 20 2.713 .607controlPair 1collocation pretest6.20 20 2.167 .484collocation posttest6.45 20 1.669 .373Pair 2interview pretest6.25 20 1.446 .323interview posttest5.05 20 1.276 .285As the table shows the mean score of the experimental group has increased from collocation pretest (6.65) tocollocation posttest (18.95). The same rise is easily noticeable in interview pretest (6.70) to posttest interview (14.90).For control group, the mean scores of collocation tests also increase, but this rise is trivial from pretest (6.20) to posttest(6.45). The performance of control group on interview from pretest (6.25) to posttest (5.05) decreases.Table 1.6 shows the homogeneity of the participants in both control and experimental groups by running anindependent sample t-test.TABLE 1.6RESULT OF INDEPENDENT SAMPLE T-TEST OF THE CG AND EGPaired Samples TestPaired Differences95% Confidence Interval ofthe DifferencegroupexperimentalPair 1collocation pretest -collocation posttestMean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Uppert df Sig. (2-tailed)-12.300 3.962 .886 -14.154 -10.446 -13.885 19 .000Pair 2interview pretest -interview posttest-8.200 2.215 .495 -9.237 -7.163 -16.558 19 .000controlPair 1collocation pretest -collocation posttest-.250 1.118 .250 -.773 .273 -1.000 19 .330Pair 2interview pretest -interview posttest1.200 1.642 .367 .432 1.968 3.269 19 .004As the table represents, the difference between participants‟ collocation performance from pretest to the posttest inthe control group is not significant, t(19) = 1.000, p= .330 > .05. In other word, there is no significant improvement inthe control group from pretest to posttest. The paired sample test for control group indicates that participants‟ interviewperformance from pretest to posttest is negatively affected, t(19) = 3.269, p= .004 < .05. In other word, participantsanswered fewer oral questions in posttest than pretest. It seems that they avoided producing the collocations.In contrast to control group, the experimental group performed significantly better from pretest to posttest on thecollocation test, t (19) =13.88, p= .000
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 1075measure correlations between the scores of knowledge of lexical collocations and use of collocations among all subjects.The results displays in Table 1.7.TABLE 1.7RESULTS OF PEARSON CORRELATION BETWEEN COLLOCATION TEST AND COLLOCATION INTERVIEW IN PRE AND POSTTESTcollocation pretestinterview pretestcollocation posttestinterview posttestPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NPearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)NCorrelationscollocationpretest*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).interviewpretestcollocationposttest1 -.045 .280 .139.785 .080 .39340 40 40 40-.045 1 .326* .331*.785 .040 .03740 40 40 40.280 .326* 1 .934**.080 .040 .00040 40 40 40.139 .331* .934** 1.393 .037 .000interviewposttest40 40 40 40As the table displays, Pearson correlation between collocation test and collocation interview in pretests was r = 0.04 p=0.05). In brief, there was apositive correlation between participants‟ knowledge and use of collocationsResult of Learning Collocation QuestionnaireThe last question of this study concerned participants‟ perceptions and opinions about the learning collocations andits impact on speaking. To analyze the questions individually before and after the treatment, first the descriptivestatistics were calculated. Tables 1.8 show the results.groupexperimentalcontrolTABLE 1.8RESULTS OF DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR LEARNING COLLOCATION QUESTIONNAIREPair1Pair2Pair3Pair4Pair5Pair6Pair7Pair8Pair9Pair10Pair11Pair12Pair13Pair1Pair2Pair3Pair4Pair5Pair6q1q1q2q2q3q3q3q3q3q3q4q4q5q5q6q6q7q7q8q8q9q9q10q10q11q11q1q1q2q2q3q3q3q3q3q3q4q4Paired Samples StatisticsStd. ErrorMean N Std. Deviation Mean3.50 20 .946 .2122.60 20 .883 .1972.70 20 1.455 .3251.95 20 1.146 .2563.15 20 .813 .1822.65 20 1.137 .2543.25 20 .910 .2043.55 20 .945 .2112.35 20 .933 .2092.75 20 .967 .2162.90 20 .718 .1613.60 20 .503 .1121.75 20 1.209 .2702.20 20 1.005 .2253.55 20 .826 .1853.70 20 1.081 .2423.10 20 1.119 .2503.55 20 .999 .2232.65 20 1.496 .3353.00 20 1.451 .3243.45 20 1.276 .2853.40 20 1.188 .2664.05 20 1.050 .2354.80 20 .410 .0923.65 20 1.040 .2333.85 20 .875 .1963.40 20 .821 .1842.95 20 .887 .1983.25 20 1.517 .3392.65 20 1.424 .3193.55 20 .759 .1702.90 20 1.021 .2283.20 20 .894 .2002.95 20 1.099 .2463.15 20 .933 .2093.25 20 .910 .2043.10 20 .788 .1763.25 20 .639 .143For determining its level of significant sample t-tests were run. Table 1.9 represents the results.© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
Page 3 and 4:
ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
Page 5 and 6:
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STU
Page 7:
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STU
Page 10 and 11:
872 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
عَ‏896 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN L
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Mean of strategy954 THEORY AND PRAC
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
1000 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163: 1024 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
Page 164 and 165: ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
Page 219: Call for Papers and Special Issue P
Page 222: (Contents Continued from Back Cover
show all

Theory and Practice in Language Studies Contents - Academy ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?