Introduction
Results and data analysis of the research questions were reported in this chapter. The first research question evaluated the impact of TBLT on the motivation of students with different English proficiency, and the learning motivation questionnaire (Wu, 2006) was used to answer this question. The second research question explored instructor’s attitudes of implementing TBLT, and the reflective journals were presented in this section. The third research question explored students’ attitudes of implementing TBLT, and the course feedback sheet and semi-structured interview were offered to detect this question. Finally, the last research question explored observers’ (i.e. English teacher and homeroom teacher) attitudes of implementing TBLT, and the classroom observation checklist and the semi-structured interview were collected to answer this question.
The following section was organized around the four research questions, and the instruments, the data collecting process, the way of analysis and the results were explicit portrayed as below.
4.1 To what degree did TBLT action plan have an impact on the motivation of students with different English proficiency?
In order to understand whether TBLT have any influence on the motivation of students with different English proficiency, at first, the researcher divided students into three levels (i.e. high-achievers, middle-achievers, and low-achievers) based on their 4
th
grade English semester scores, but one of the low-achievers has learning disabilities and was usually absent at this class; therefore, she was excluded from the present study.
Second, the learning motivation questionnaire (Wu, 2006) was used to collect the quantities data, but one of the low-achievers’ posttest questionnaire was inconsistent with the observation and the interview, so his questionnaire was determined an invalid questionnaire.
Hence, 23 questionnaires were collected, i.e. 8 high-achievers, 8 middle-achievers, and 7 low-achievers, but one of the low-achievers’ data was excluded. Then, a paired-sample t-test
"#!
was carried out to investigate the significant difference between pre and posttests of different English proficiency students.
4.1.1 The Results for High-achievers
There were 8 students grouped into high-achievers, and their learning motivation questionnaire scores of pretest and posttest were displayed in Table 4.1.
Table !.1: High-achievers’ Learning Motivation Scores of Pretest and Posttest Serial Number The Score of Pretest The Score of Posttest
1 89 96
6 100 106
7 105 105
9 86 86
15 90 96
17 84 81
21 103 106
23 103 109
According to Table 4.1, one of the high-achievers’ posttest score (No. 17) was lower than the pretest and two of them stayed the level (No. 7 and 9). Therefore, most of the high-achievers’ learning motivation had progressed in the posttests. For understanding whether there was a significant difference between high-achievers’ pre and post test scores, a paired-sample t-test was carried out, and the results were presented in Table 4.2.
Table !.2: T-test Results for the Learning Motivation of High-achievers
Test Number Mean SD T P
Pretest Posttest
8 8
95.00 98.13
8.59 10.27
2.38 .049*
* P< .05 SD: Standard Deviation
"#!
Based on Table 4.2, there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest (t = 2.38; p < .05), so the task-based language teaching action plan had a significant positive impact on high-achievers’ learning motivation.
4.1.2 The Results for Middle-achievers
On the basis of students’ 4
th
grade semester English scores, 8 students were sorted into middle-achievers, and their learning motivation questionnaire scores of pretest and posttest were displayed in Table 4.3.
Table !.3: Middle-achievers’ Learning Motivation Scores of Pretest and Posttest Serial Number The Score of Pretest The Score of Posttest
2 91 107
4 74 91
10 91 87
13 70 93
14 100 101
16 101 106
20 81 87
22 103 99
According to Table 4.3, two of the middle-achievers’ posttest scores (No. 10 and 22) were lower than the pretest, but the rest of them had progressed in the posttests. In order to figure out whether there was a significant difference between middle-achievers’ pre and post test scores, a paired-sample t-test was carried out, and the results were presented in Table 4.4.
Table !.4: T-test Results for the Learning Motivation of Middle-achievers
Test Number Mean SD T P
Pretest Posttest
8 8
88.88 96.38
12.64 8.02
2.10 .074
* P< .05 SD: Standard Deviation
"#!
Based on Table 4.4, mean score of the posttest (M=96.38; SD=8.02) was higher than mean score of the pretest (M=88.88; SD=12.64), but the p value was over .05 (t = 2.10;
p > .05). Hence, there was no significant difference between middle-achievers’ pretest and posttest, but their learning motivation had progress after the task-based language teaching action.
4.1.3 The Results for Low-achievers
There were 8 students grouped into low-achievers, but one has learning disabilities and one was determined an invalid data. Accordingly, 6 low-achievers’ data were collected, and their learning motivation questionnaire scores of pretest and posttest were displayed in Table 4.5.
Table !.5: Low-achievers’ Learning Motivation Scores of Pretest and Posttest Serial Number The Score of Pretest The Score of Posttest
5 73 102
8 74 77
11 69 86
12 92 101
19 97 106
24 75 92
Based on Table 4.1, all of the low-achievers’ learning motivation had progressed in the posttests. In order to understanding whether there was a significant difference between low-achievers’ pre and post test scores, a paired-sample t-test was carried out, and the results were presented in Table 4.6.
Table !.6: T-test Results for the Learning Motivation of Low-achievers
Test Number Mean SD T P
Pretest Posttest
6 6
80.00 94.00
11.52 11.08
3.77 .013*
* P< .05 SD: Standard Deviation
""!
TBLT course food mind
map
creative menu
ordering food clothing
mind map fashion
designer shopping for clothes
On the basis of Table 4.6, there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest (t = 3.77; p < .05), so the task-based language teaching action plan had a significant positive impact on low-achievers’ learning motivation.
4.2 What were instructor’s attitudes of implementing TBLT?
In order to understand instructor’s attitudes of implementing TBLT, reflective jour-nals were used; besides, according to Gu (2004), action research should involve the cycle of observing, planning, acting, reflecting, and re-planning, and the present action plan followed this rule and cycled per lesson (Figure 4.1).
!
Figure 4.1 Cycle Process of the Course
During the period of the action research, there were many situations that beyond instructor’s imagination (e.g., the discipline of the classroom, time management for each phase, shy students, the students’ who were lack of confidence and so on), but she realized
Implement the TBLT course
Amend the teaching plan Evaluate and reflect
on the teaching outcome
"#!
the preciousness of teaching by learning and doing. The results indicated that the instructor’s teaching made a big progress and developed many strategies to deal the difficulties.
4.2.1 TBLT Benefited Instructor’s Growth on Teaching
Instructor improved her teaching during the period of the action plan, and the growth included classroom management, time management, and her teaching skill of TBLT.