國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the results and discussion of the quantitative and qualitative data from the three instruments used in the study. The statistical data from the English learning motivation questionnaire provide the information about whether or not the participants’ three motivational components (i.e. competence perception4, autonomy for learning English and relatedness with their classmates and the teacher) were promoted after the use of the worksheets. The qualitative data from the test-question preview worksheets offer the details about the participants’ learning behaviors, learning reflection and feedback to the teacher. The details would help explain the influence of the
worksheets upon the motivational components. The statistical data from the
school-administered English achievement test, on the other hand, would indicate whether the participants with the aid of the worksheets had better academic performance than those not using the worksheets.
The Statistical Results of
the English Learning Motivation Questionnaire
This section represents the descriptive and inferential statistical results of the pre- and post-English learning motivation questionnaires5. The statistical results are given in Tables 4.1 to 4.8.
4 The present study focuses on promoting the participants’ competence perception. Their English competence isn’t examined in the study.
5 The contents of the pre- and post-English learning motivation questionnaires are the same. The difference is that pre-questionnaire was given to the participants before the treatment, and the post-questionnaire was given after the treatment.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Table 4.1
Independent-samples T-test of the Experimental and Control Groups’
Competence Perception, Autonomy and Relatedness before the Treatment
Experimental Group - Control Group
Independent Differences
Mean SD t Sig.
Competence Perception 4.73 1.701 -2.096 .040*
Autonomy 12.63 3.222 -1.415 .162
Relatedness 11.27 3.610 -2.524 .014*
*p <. 05
As displayed in Table 4.1, the experimental group’s competence perception and relatedness with their classmates and the teacher were lower than the control group’s before the treatment. Since the present study focuses on observing the effects of the worksheet treatment on the experimental group, the changes of the three motivational components found in the group would be further analyzed. The following tables present the paired-samples t-test results, showing the in-group comparisons of the three
motivational components before and after the treatment.
‧
Paired-samples T-test of the Experimental and the Control Groups’ Competence Perception, Autonomy and Relatedness
PRE-POST
Paired Differences
Mean SD t Sig.
Experimental Group (N=30)
Competence Perception .000 1.486 .000 1.000
Autonomy -.333 2.670 -.684 .499
Relatedness -.500 2.636 -1.039 .307
Control Group (N=30)
Competence Perception .200 1.186 .924 .363
Autonomy 1.167 2.183 2.928 .007*
Relatedness .567 3.339 .929 .360
*p <. 05
As shown in Table 4.2, no significant difference was found in the experimental group’s competence perception, autonomy and relatedness after the treatment overall, but the worksheets perhaps had different effects on the participants of different achievement levels. The following sub-sections further explore the effects of the worksheet learning upon the experimental high, middle and low groups.
On the other hand, the control group became less active in learning English after the experiment. This unexpected result, though not the focus in this study, may worth a further investigation in future studies.
The Changes of the Experimental High Group’s Three Motivational Components The following presents the paired-samples t-test results of the experimental high group’s English learning motivation questionnaire scores (See Table 4.3) as well as the descriptive statistical results of the 12 questionnaire items (See Table 4.4). Both statistical results were used to see whether there were any changes in the high achievers’ three
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
motivational components (i.e. competence perception, autonomy and relatedness) after the experiment.
Table 4.3
Paired-samples T-test of the Experimental High Group’s Competence Perception, Autonomy and Relatedness
PRE-POST
Paired Differences
Mean SD t Sig.
Experimental High Group (N=8)
Competence Perception .125 .354 1.000 .351
Autonomy -2.375 2.264 -2.967 .021*
Relatedness -.750 2.375 -.893 .402
*p <. 05
The experimental high group became more active in learning English after the worksheet learning. As displayed in Table 4.3, the high group’s autonomy manifested a significant rise (t=-2.967, p=0.021<0.05), suggesting that the worksheets provided some autonomy support for the high achievers. However, the t-test results of the group’s competence perception and relatedness indicated no significant differences after the experiment.
A detailed look into the descriptive statistical results of each questionnaire item (See Table 4.4) may help further understand the influence of the worksheet learning upon the high achievers’ competence perception, autonomy and relatedness.
‧
The Descriptive Statistical Results of the Experimental High Group’s Questionnaire Scores
Item Statement Pre-questionnaire Post-questionnaire
Mean SD Mean SD
1 I gain a sense of achievement from my success experiences of learning
English at school.
3.25 .463 3.13 .641
2 The teacher’s affirmation of my English competence makes me feel confident in learning English well.
2.88 .835 2.88 .835
3 I spend time reviewing the newly-learned English materials actively.
2.00 1.069 2.25 1.035
4 I set goals for improving my English competence.
2.00 1.195 3.00 1.069
5 I search for solutions to my English problems actively.
2.88 .835 3.38 .518
6 I attribute my success or failure in English learning to effort.
3.13 .835 3.38 .744
7 I learn from my mistakes with teacher’s corrections and comments.
3.25 .707 3.63 .518
8 I learn some English-learning tips from my classmates, like the ways to
memorize difficult English words.
2.13 1.246 2.25 1.035
9 I’m willing to share my English
learning strategies with my classmates.
2.63 1.302 3.00 1.069
10 My classmates and I encourage each other to learn English well.
2.63 1.302 3.00 1.069
11 I enjoy discussing English questions with my classmates.
3.00 1.069 2.88 1.126
12 I enjoy discussing English questions with my teacher.
3.00 .926 3.00 1.069
According to the paired-samples t-test results in Table 4.3, the high achievers learned English more actively after the treatment. This finding was echoed by the unanimous
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
increase in the mean scores of the five questionnaire items (Items 3 to 7) that measured the participants’ autonomy for learning English (See Table 4.4). The five items generally received above-average mean scores (M=2.00, 2.00, 2.88, 3.13, 3.25)6 before the worksheet learning. After the seven-week worksheet learning, all the mean scores of the five items increased (M=2.25, 3.00, 3.38, 3.38, 3.63). It indicated that the high achievers became more active in reviewing newly-learned English material. They were also more inclined to attribute success and failure to effort, search for solutions to English problems and learn from their mistakes with their teacher’s corrections and comments. More impressively, the mean score of Item 4 (i.e. setting goals for improving English competence) increased the most at the end of the experiment (from M=2.00 to 3.00), showing that the high achievers tended to set goals to push themselves to improve English competence.
As for competence perception, the high achievers didn’t feel an apparent change in their English competence after using the worksheets. According to Table 4.3, no
significant difference was found in the high achievers’ competence perception. The mean scores of the two questionnaire items (Items 1 and 2) that examined the participants’
competence perception were both above the average mean score in the pre-questionnaire (See Table 4.4). This suggested that the high achievers had already developed a sense of achievement from their successful English learning experiences and had gained
confidence from teacher’s affirmation. However, in the post-questionnaire, the mean score of Item 1 decreased slightly (M=3.13), indicating that the high achievers didn’t feel they gained more sense of achievement after the worksheet learning. Furthermore, the mean score of Item 2 appeared unchanged after the experiment (M=2.88), and so did the standard deviation (SD=0.835). This manifested that the high achievers didn’t think their
6 The questionnaire is a four-point Likert scale; thus, above-average mean scores mean the scores of the questionnaire items are above M=2.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
teacher’s affirmation of their English competence on the worksheets helped increase their competence perception.
The high achievers’ relatedness with their classmates and the teacher didn’t show a significant difference after the worksheet learning based on the paired-samples t-test results (See Table 4.3). As displayed in Table 4.4, all of the five items (Items 8 to 12) received above-average mean scores (M=2.13, 2.63, 2.63, 3.00, 3.00) in the
pre-questionnaire. This finding indicated that in general the high achievers were willing to share English learning strategies, encourage each other to learn English well, and discuss questions together before the treatment. In the post-questionnaire, it was found that the mean scores of Items 8 to 10 increased (M=2.25, 3.00, 3.00), Item 12 stayed unchanged (M=3.00), but Item 11 decreased (M=2.88). These statistical results suggested that after worksheet learning, the high achievers learned more tips for learning English from their classmates and were more willing to share their own English learning strategies. They also became more involved in encouraging each other to improve English. However, they didn’t enjoy discussing English questions with their teacher more and even felt less interested in discussing with their classmates.
The Changes of the Experimental Middle Group’s Three Motivational Components The paired-samples t-test results and the descriptive statistical results of the middle group’s questionnaire scores are presented in Tables 4.5 and 4.6. The results would indicate whether or not the middle achievers’ competence perception, autonomy and relatedness changed after the experiment.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Table 4.5
Paired-samples T-test of the Experimental Middle Group’s Competence Perception, Autonomy and Relatedness
PRE-POST
Paired Differences
Mean SD t Sig.
Experimental Middle Group (N=14)
Competence Perception -.500 1.401 -1.336 .205
Autonomy -.571 2.243 -.953 .358
Relatedness -1.500 2.473 -2.270 .041*
*p <. 05
As shown in Table 4.5, there was a significant improvement in the middle achievers’
relatedness with their classmates and the teacher after the worksheet learning (t=-2.270, p=0.041<0.05). Nevertheless, no significant changes were found in their competence perception and autonomy for learning English at the end of the experiment. These t-test results revealed that the middle achievers became neither more active nor more confident in learning English after using the worksheets.
In order to obtain the details about the changes of the middle group’s three motivational components, the increase or decrease in the mean scores of each questionnaire item was further investigated (See Table 4.6).
‧
The Descriptive Statistical Results of the Experimental Middle Group’s Questionnaire Scores
Item Statement Pre-questionnaire Post-questionnaire
Mean SD Mean SD
1 I gain a sense of achievement from my success experiences of learning
English at school.
2.57 1.016 2.79 .802
2 The teacher’s affirmation of my English competence makes me feel confident in learning English well.
2.14 .663 2.43 .852
3 I spend time reviewing the newly-learned English material actively.
2.21 .699 2.07 .730
4 I set goals for improving my English competence.
2.71 .726 2.57 .646
5 I search for solutions to my English problems actively.
2.71 .825 3.07 .475
6 I attribute my success or failure in English learning to effort.
3.00 .679 3.36 .633
7 I try to learn from my mistakes I made on my English tests with teacher’s corrections and comments.
2.86 .949 3.00 .679
8 I learn some English-learning tips from my classmates, like the ways to
memorize difficult English words.
2.07 .917 2.57 .852
9 I’m willing to share my English
learning strategies with my classmates.
1.86 .663 2.21 .802
10 My classmates and I encourage each other to learn English well.
2.00 .784 2.36 .842
11 I enjoy discussing English questions with my classmates.
2.36 1.008 2.57 .938
12 I enjoy discussing English questions with my teacher.
2.79 .975 2.86 .770
According to the paired-samples t-test results in Table 4.5, the middle achievers
developed a closer relationship with their classmates and the teacher after the worksheet
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
learning. The mean scores of the five relatedness items (Items 8 to 12) also had a
unanimous increase in the post-questionnaire (See Table 4.6). As displayed in Table 4.6, four of the five questionnaire items on relatedness (Item 8, Item10, Item 11 and Item12) generally received above-average mean scores in the pre-questionnaire (M=2.07, 2.00, 2.36, 2.79) except Item 9. This indicated that the middle achievers initially had a close interaction with their classmates and the teacher in terms of acquiring English learning strategies from their classmates, encouraging each other to learn English well, and discussing English questions together. However, they were less willing to share their learning strategies with others as the mean score of Item 9 (M=1.86) was found below the average. After using the worksheets for seven weeks, the middle achievers developed a closer relationship with their classmates and the teacher for the mean scores of all the five relatedness items increased (M=2.57, 2.21, 2.36, 2.57, 2.86), and all were above the average mean score. Among them, Item 8 increased the most (from 2.07 to 2.57), showing that the middle achievers firmly agreed that they learned some useful learning tips from their classmates.
Nevertheless, according to the paired-samples t -test results shown in Table 4.5, the middle achievers didn’t have a strong feeling that their English competence improved after the worksheet learning. However, when the mean scores of the two questionnaire items on competence perception (Items 1 and 2) were examined, both displayed an increase in the post-questionnaire (See Table 4.6) though the increase in the mean scores didn’t reach the significant level in the t-test results.
As for autonomy, the t-test results in Table 4.5 also revealed that the middle achievers didn’t become more active in learning English after using the worksheets. As displayed in Table 4.6, the five items (Items 3 to7) on autonomy received above-average mean scores (M=2.21, 2.71, 2.71, 3.00, 2.86) in the pre-questionnaire. In the
post-questionnaire, it was found that Items 3 and 4 decreased (M= 2.07, 2.57) but Items 5
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
to 7 increased (M=3.07, 3.36, 3.00). The decrease in Item 3 showed that the middle achievers didn’t think previewing test questions could make them learn autonomously.
The decrease in Item 4 indicated that the middle achievers became less willing to set goals for improving English competence at the end of the experiment. Though Items 3 and 4 decreased in the post-questionnaire, Items 5 to 7 increased, indicating that the worksheet learning still had some positive effects on promoting middle group’s autonomy for learning English. The increase in the three items revealed that the middle achievers were more inclined to view effort as the cause of their success in English learning. They also became more active in searching for solutions to their English problems and to learn from their mistakes with their teacher’s corrections and comments.
The Changes of the Experimental Low Group’s Three Motivational Components The statistical results, including the paired-samples t-test results and the descriptive statistical results of the low group’s questionnaire scores, are presented in Tables 4.7 and 4.8. This statistical data provide the information about the changes of the low achievers’
competence perception, autonomy and relatedness.
Table 4.7
Paired-samples T-test of the Experimental Low Group’s Competence Perception, Autonomy and Relatedness
PRE-POST
Paired Differences
Mean SD t Sig.
Experimental Low Group (N=8)
Competence Perception .750 2.053 1.033 .336
Autonomy 2.125 1.808 3.325 .013*
Relatedness 1.500 2.268 1.871 .104
*p <. 05
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
As displayed in Table 4.7, the low achievers’ competence perception and relatedness with their classmates and the teacher showed no significant differences after the worksheet learning. However, their autonomy for learning English manifested a significant drop at the end of the experiment (t=3.325, p=0.013<0.05). The results indicated that the low achievers had no feelings that their English learning motivation was promoted. Even worse, they became less active in learning English after using the test-question preview worksheets.
In order to gather more information about the effects of the worksheet learning upon the low group’s English learning motivation, the mean scores of the 12 questionnaire
items were further investigated. The descriptive statistical data are presented in Table 4.8.
‧
The Descriptive Statistical Results of the Experimental Low Group’s Questionnaire Scores
Item Statement Pre-questionnaire Post-questionnaire
Mean SD Mean SD
1 I gain a sense of achievement from my success experiences of learning
English at school.
1.63 .744 1.38 .744
2 The teacher’s affirmation of my English competence makes me feel confident in learning English well.
1.75 1.035 1.25 .463
3 I spend time reviewing the newly-learned English materials actively.
1.75 .707 1.75 1.035
4 I set goals for improving my English competence.
2.00 1.195 1.63 .744
5 I search for solutions to my English problems actively.
1.88 .991 1.63 .916
6 I attribute my success or failure in English learning to effort.
3.13 .835 1.88 .991
7 I try to learn from my mistakes I made on my English tests with teacher’s corrections and comments.
1.75 1.035 1.50 .756
8 I learn some English-learning tips from my classmates, like the ways to
memorize difficult English words.
2.25 1.165 1.88 1.126
9 I’m willing to share my English
learning strategies with my classmates.
1.50 .756 1.25 .463
10 My classmates and I encourage each other to learn English well.
1.50 .756 1.75 .886
11 I enjoy discussing English questions with my classmates.
1.88 1.126 1.25 .463
12 I enjoy discussing English questions with my teacher.
2.38 1.188 1.88 1.356
Based on the paired-samples t-test results in Table 4.7, the low achievers became reluctant to learn English after the experiment. In the pre-questionnaire, three of the five
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
questionnaire items on autonomy (Items 3, 5 and 7) received below-average mean scores (M=1.75, 1.88, 1.75). It showed that the low achievers were initially less autonomous in spending time reviewing English material, looking for solutions to English problems and learning from mistakes with their teacher’s corrections and comments. On the other hand, the rest two items (Items 4 and 6) got better mean scores (M=2.00, 3.13), indicating that the low achievers still set goals for improving English and attributed their success and failure to effort. However, after the worksheet learning, only Item 3 stayed unchanged (M=1.75); the other four items (Items 4, 5, 6 and 7) decreased (M=1.63, 1.63, 1.88, 1.50), especially Item 6, which decreased the most (from 3.13 to 1.88). The results showed that the low achievers had less intention to set goals, look for solutions and learn from mistakes. Even worse, they questioned their former belief in effort attributions, which revealed that they no longer wanted to attribute success to effort.
When it comes to competence perception, the paired-samples t-test results showed that the low achievers’ confidence in their English competence didn’t increase after the experiment (See Table 4.7). When the mean scores of the questionnaire items on competence perception (Items 1 and 2) were examined, it was found that both items received below-average mean scores (M=1.63, 1.75) in the pre-questionnaire, and the mean scores decreased in the post-questionnaire (See Table 4.8). The results manifested that the low achievers didn’t gain much sense of achievement and confidence from English learning at school before the experiment, and such situation became even worse after the experiment. In other words, the worksheets were unable to promote the low achievers’ competence perception.
The low achievers’ relatedness with their classmates and the teacher revealed no significant change after the worksheet learning as shown in Table 4.7. To obtain more details, the changes in the mean scores of the five questionnaire items on relatedness (Items 8 to 12) were further investigated. As can be seen in Table 4.8, Items 8 and 12
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
received above-average mean scores (M=2.25, 2.38) in the pre-questionnaire, manifesting that the low achievers still learned some English learning tips from their classmates and were willing to discuss English questions with their teacher. However, Items 9 to 11 got below-average mean scores (M=1.50, 1.50, 1.88), showing that the low achievers were reluctant to share their English learning strategies, encourage their classmates to learn English and discuss with their classmates. In the post-questionnaire, it was found that Item 10 increased (M=1.75), but the mean score was still below the average mean score.
It indicated that though the low achievers became more willing to give and accept encouragement from others than before, the momentum of doing it was not strong. The rest of the relatedness items (Items 8, 9, 11 and 12), on the other hand, decreased (M=1.88, 1.25, 1.25, 1.88). These statistical results revealed that the low achievers felt less inclined to learn tips for learning English from their classmates and had less enjoyment in
discussing English questions with their teacher. Furthermore, they became reluctant to share learning strategies and discuss with their classmates.
The Analysis of the Open Questions on the Test-question Preview Worksheets
This section presents the qualitative data collected from the open questions of the student self-evaluation section and the student/teacher feedback section on the
test-question preview worksheets. These data provide the information about the
experimental high, middle and low achievers’ learning behaviors, their reflection upon the behaviors and their feedback on the worksheet learning. Tables 4.9 to 4.15 illustrate the qualitative data with seven topics. They are (1) goal setting, (2) learning strategy use, (3) satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the test results, (4) reasons for feeling satisfied or dissatisfied, (5) gains from the worksheet learning, (6) reasons for feeling thankfulness to others, and (7) feedback on the worksheet learning.
‧
Numbers of the Participants Setting Goals Goal
The data in Table 4.9 shows the goals that the experimental high, middle and low achievers set before they started preparing for the test questions on the worksheets.
According to the data, it was found that the high and middle achievers’ anticipated test scores were similar, but the low achievers’ anticipated test scores were generally lower
According to the data, it was found that the high and middle achievers’ anticipated test scores were similar, but the low achievers’ anticipated test scores were generally lower