Introduction
According to the research questions proposed in Chapter One, the researcher would present the results and discussions in this chapter. The research questions were as follows:
1. Is the information supportive (IS) illustration more effective than the
non-information supportive (NIS) illustration on children’s English learning?
2. Regarding the instruction with IS / NIS illustration, does gender difference contribute to different learning results?
3. Do students receiving instruction with IS illustration have different performances on assessments with IS and NIS illustration?
4. Do students receiving instruction with NIS illustration have different performances on assessments with IS and NIS illustration?
5. In terms of conversation learning, do students who received instruction with IS illustration perform better than those who received instruction with NIS
illustration?
6. In terms of vocabulary learning, do students who received instruction with IS illustration perform better than those who received instruction with NIS illustration?
7. From teachers’ and students’ perspectives, does the background information of illustration accelerate or hinder students’ comprehension of illustration?
8. From teachers’ and students’ perspectives, does the background information of illustration accelerate or hinder students’ memory of the learning content?
The Comparison of English Proficiency of the IS Group and the NIS Group
The Performances of the IS Group and the NIS Group on AssessmentⅠ
After the treatment, each subject finished a total of four posttests. Posttests 1 and 2 belonged to assessmentⅠ, while assessmentⅡ included posttests 3 and 4 . The researcher assumed that the variances were homogeneity and the samples were independent.
Therefore, the posttests were analyzed by SPSS independent t-test to compare the results of assessmentⅠ/ assessmentⅡ in both the IS and NIS groups.
In order to eliminate the bias of these two kinds of illustration, the average score of posttest 1 and posttest 2 was gained as the results of assessmentⅠ. First, from Table 4.1,
the results indicated that there was no significant difference between the IS group and the NIS group on assessmentⅠ(F=1.602, p=.212>.05). There might be some possible reasons
which resulted into this finding and these possible reasons would be discussed later. Table 4.2 presents the descriptive statistics of two groups’ performances on assessmentⅠ. From the descriptive statistics, the IS group received a mean score=84.70 with SD=15.41 and the NIS group received a mean score=85.65 with SD=11.51 on assessmentⅠ. In addition, the
distribution of scores on assessmentⅠranged from 52 to 100 in the IS group and from 73 to 97 in the NIS group. Though the individual differences on assessmentⅠwere smaller than that in the pretest, it still presented large individual differences.
Table 4.1
The Results of t-tests for AssessmentⅠof Two Groups
Pretest N Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances 27 F p
Equal variances
assumed 22 1.602 .212
Table 4.2
The Scores of AssessmentⅠof the IS Group and the NIS Group
95% Confidence Interval Groups Perfect
Score Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Lower Upper IS
(N=27)
100 84.70 15.41 52 100 -7.022 8.933
NIS (N=22)
100 85.65 11.51 73 97 -6.792 8.703
The Performances of the IS Group and the NIS Group on AssessmentⅡ
The performances of the IS group and the NIS group on assessmentⅡ were analyzed
by SPSS independent t-test as well. The scores of posttest 3 and posttest 4 were equalized as the mean scores gained on assessmentⅡ. The results presented in Table 4.3 show that there was no significant difference between the two groups with F=3.025 and p=.089. The possible reasons would also be discussed later. The descriptive statistics presented in Table 4.4 shows that there were large individual differences among these students (IS group:
Maximum=100, Minimum=25.5; NIS group: Maximum=100, Minimum=44.5).
Table 4.3
The Results of t-tests for AssessmentⅡ of Two Groups
Pretest N Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances 27 F p
Equal variances
assumed 22 3.025 .089
Table 4.4
The Scores of AssessmentⅡ of the IS Group and the NIS Group
95% Confidence Interval Groups Perfect
Score Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Lower Upper IS
(N=27)
100 72.81 20.29 25.5 100 -5.544 14.96
NIS (N=22)
100 77.52 13.95 44.5 100 -5.176 14.59
The above statistics addressed research question one: Is the information supportive (IS) illustration more effective than the non-information supportive (NIS) illustration on
children’s English learning? In the present study, the study results revealed that IS
illustration and NIS illustration did not show significant differential effectiveness on children’s English learning. Moreover, there were several reasons why there was no significant difference between these two groups. First, after excluding students who had learned English at cram schools for more than 2 years, there were only 49 subjects involved in the present study, which could be considered as a small sample size. Second, the span of the experimental treatment could be another factor since there were only 80 minutes of weekly instruction, including presenting teaching content: (1) vocabulary and conversation, (2) having practice: with whole class and in groups, and (3) finishing the English worksheet. Furthermore, though the whole experiment lasted for 10 weeks,
excluding 2 weeks for assessments, only 8 weeks remained for the experimental treatment.
The study results might be different if the sample size could be bigger and the span of the experimental treatment could last for a longer period of time. Third, participants’
personalities also should be considered as a possible factor. From the interview, the instructor mentioned that: “The students in NIS group always provided the responses that you could expect, whereas in IS group, they responded in various ways to the same thing.”
She further indicated that “Students’ responses are affected by their personality. If students
in 3 乙 (NIS group) received IS illustration, they won’t propose any questions about the illustration as well.” From the interview, different personalities of these two classes were ascertained and these different personalities were also recognized as a factor which might result in different responses. Furthermore, the effectiveness of illustration might be influenced by students’ differential responses. Thus, since students’ personalities were various, they provided different responses that might affect the effectiveness of differential illustration.
The Comparison of English Proficiency on Gender Difference in the IS and NIS Groups
Before the Experimental Treatment
The pretest was utilized to verify whether gender difference in the IS and the NIS group had different English proficiency as well. Four independent t-tests were employed including (1) boys vs. girls in the IS group, (2) boys vs. girls in the NIS group, (3) boys of the IS group vs. the NIS group and (4) girls of the IS group vs. the NIS group. The
researcher assumed that the variances were equal and conducted Levene’s test. The data revealed that there was no significant difference between different genders in all these conditions. Boys vs. girls in the IS group received the result with F=.656 and p=.426>.05.
Moreover, boys vs. girls in the NIS group received the result with F=.376 and p=.546>.05.
t-test showed boys of the IS group vs. the NIS group with F=1.581 and p=.220>.05.
Likewise, girls of the IS group vs. the NIS group received the result with F=.051 and p=.824>.05. According to the results, the researcher supposed that the participants of
different genders in the IS and the NIS groups had similar English proficiency. The results of Levene’s test for equality of variances are presented in Table 4.5 and scores of the pretest on gender difference in both groups are demonstrated in Table 4.6
Table 4.5
The Results of t-tests for Equality on Gender Difference
Pretest t-Test N Levene’s Test for Equality of
Variances
The Scores of the Pretest on Gender Difference in the IS Group and the NIS Group
Groups Perfect
Score Mean Minimum Maximum
IS Boys
The Performances of Males and Females in the IS Group on AssessmentsⅠandⅡ
After ascertaining the English proficiency on gender difference of the IS group, t-tests of males’ and females’ performances on assessmentsⅠandⅡ in the IS group were made.
The results demonstrated that there was no significant difference between males’ and females’ performances in the IS group on both assessmentsⅠ(F=.020, p=.888>0.5) and assessmentⅡ(F=2.968, p=.097>0.5). Furthermore, descriptive statistics noted that males with a mean score=85.3 performed better than females with a mean score=83.95 on assessmentⅠ,whereas females with a mean score=75.83 gained higher scores than males, with a mean score=70.40 on assessmentⅡ. The results of t-tests of males’ and females’
performances on assessments Ⅰand Ⅱ are submitted in Table 4.7 and scores of the assessments on gender difference in the IS group are demonstrated in Table 4.8.
Table 4.7
The Results of t-tests on Gender Difference for AssessmentsⅠandⅡ in the IS Group Equal variances
assumed
N Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances 15 F p
AssessmentⅠ
12 .020 .888 AssessmentⅡ 15
12
2.968 .097
Table 4.8
The Scores of Males and Females on AssessmentsⅠandⅡ in the IS Group
Assessment Gender Perfect Score Mean SD
Male (N=15) 100 85.30 16.02
Ⅰ
Female (N=12) 100 83.95 15.27
Male (N=15) 100 70.40 23.21
Ⅱ Female (N=12) 100 75.83 16.43
95% Confidence Interval
Assessment Gender Minimum Maximum
Lower Upper
Male (N=15) 52.5 100 -11.18 13.86
Ⅰ
Female (N=12) 51 100 -11.13 13.81
Male (N=15) 25.5 100 -21.78 10.92
Ⅱ
Female (N=12) 41.5 100 -21.18 10.31
The Performances of Males and Females in the NIS Group on AssessmentsⅠandⅡ
The same process of t-test for comparing males’ performances with females’ was administered in the NIS group. The results, both assessmentsⅠandⅡ, revealed that there was no significant difference between males’ and females’ performances in the NIS group with F=.111, p=.742>.05 and F=1.013, p=.326>.05. The results of t-tests of males’ and females’ performances on assessmentsⅠandⅡ are presented in Table 4.9. Moreover, on assessmentⅠ, females, with a mean score=86.05 had a better performance than males with a mean score=85.33. Similarly, females outperformed males on assessmentⅡ with a mean
score=80.20 vs. 75.29. The scores of the assessments on gender difference in the NIS groups are demonstrated in Table 4.10.
Table 4.9
The Results of t-tests on Gender Difference for AssessmentsⅠandⅡ in the NIS Group Equal variances
assumed
N Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances 12 F p
The Scores of Males and Females on AssessmentsⅠandⅡ in the NIS Group
Assessment Gender Perfect Score Mean SD
Male (N=12) 100 85.33 10.56
Assessment Gender Minimum Maximum
Lower Upper
The Performances of Males in the IS Group and the NIS Group on AssessmentsⅠandⅡ
Additionally, performances of males in the IS group were compared with the
performances of males in the NIS group to figure out whether different kinds of illustration had different effects on males. Therefore, t-tests of males’ performances of the IS group and the NIS group on assessmentsⅠandⅡ were created. The results showed that there was no significant difference between males’ performances in the IS and the NIS group on both assessmentⅠ(F=1.390, p=.250>0.5)and assessmentⅡ(F=3.159, p=.088>0.5).
However, descriptive statistics demonstrated that males in the NIS group with a mean score=85.33 slightly performed better than males in the IS group, with a mean score=85.30 on assessmentⅠ,whereas males in the NIS with a mean score=75.29 gained much higher scores than males in the IS group with a mean score=70.40 on assessmentⅡ. The results of t-test for males’ performances in the IS group and the NIS group on assessmentsⅠandⅡ are presented in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11
The Results of t-tests for Males’ Performances in the IS Group and the NIS Group on
AssessmentsⅠandⅡ Equal variances
assumed
N Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances 15 F p
AssessmentⅠ
12 1.390 .250 AssessmentⅡ 15
12
3.159 .088
The Performances of Females in the IS Group and the NIS Group on AssessmentsⅠandⅡ
Females’ performances in the IS group and the NIS group on both assessments were also analyzed by t-tests to see whether different kinds of illustration had different effects on females’ learning. Based on the present study results, there was no significant difference between females’ performances in the IS and the NIS group on both assessmentⅠ(AⅠ) (F=.348, p=.562>0.5) and assessmentⅡ (AⅡ) (F=1.133, p=.300>0.5). From descriptive statistics, both on assessmentsⅠandⅡ, females in the NIS group (AⅠ: 86.05, AⅡ: 80.2) outperformed females in the IS group (AⅠ: 83.95, AⅡ: 75.83). The results of t-tests for females’ performances in the IS group and the NIS group on assessmentsⅠandⅡ are shown in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12
The Results of t-test for Females’ Performances in the IS Group and the NIS Group on
AssessmentsⅠandⅡ Equal variances
assumed
N Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances 12 F p
AssessmentⅠ
10 .348 .562 AssessmentⅡ 12
10
1.133 .300
The statistics above provided answers for research question two: Regarding the instruction with IS / NIS illustration, does gender difference contribute to different learning
results? In the present study, the results pointed out that gender difference did not
contribute to different learning results on both assessments. Furthermore, different genders did not present significant effectiveness on differential illustration types. In addition, though different genders in the NIS group received no significant difference, females performed better than males on both assessments, when comparing the mean scores.
However, in the pretest, the males’ mean score was higher than that of females’. Also, when comparing the mean scores of females in the NIS group with that of females in the IS group, the NIS group outperformed the IS group as well. Similarly, in the pretest, females in the IS group gained higher scores than females in the NIS group. Therefore, females might make more progress while receiving instruction with the NIS illustration, which need a further study to verify the effectiveness of NIS illustration on females. The main possible reason for these insignificant results was the small sample size. The numbers of different genders in each group were less than 20. The biggest amount was 15 and the smallest was 10. All of these four groups could be considered as small sample sizes.
Students’ Performances of Receiving Assessments with Differential Illustration Types
The Comparison of Posttests 1 and 2 in the IS Group
The researcher compared the posttest 1 with posttest 2 in the IS group to investigate whether instruction and assessment with different kinds of illustration had any impact on students’ performances. Posttest 1 was designed with the IS illustration which was used in the IS group, whereas posttest 2 designed with the NIS illustration was unfamiliar to the students in the IS group. On assessmentⅠ, the students in the IS group completed posttest 1 in week 4 and received posttest 2 in week 5. The results of the comparison of posttests 1 and 2 in the IS group are revealed in Table 4.13. The paired t-test of posttests 1 and 2 in the IS group noted no significant difference with t=-.899, p=.377>.05. The results indicated that students who received instruction with the IS illustration didn’t perform significantly better on the posttest with the IS illustration than that with NIS illustration. Contrarily, from means of posttest 1 and posttest 2, students in the IS group a gained higher score on posttest 2 (with NIS illustration) than that on posttest 1 (with IS illustration), with mean scores=85.51 vs. 83.88.
Table 4.13
The Comparison of Posttests 1 and 2 in the IS Group
Paired
t-Test N t p Mean SD
83.88 16.03 Posttest 1 &
Posttest 2 27 -.899 .377
85.51 16.18
The Comparison of Posttests 3 and 4 in the IS Group
In order to ascertain the influence of the assessment illustration type, the researcher compared posttest 4 with posttest 3. On assessmentⅡ, the IS group finished posttest 4 with
NIS illustration in week 9 and completed posttest 3 with IS illustration in week 10. The sequence of receiving assessment illustration type was different from the assessmentⅠ.
The paired t-test of posttests 3 and 4 in the IS group was employed and the results are presented in Table 4.14. The result showed no significant difference with t=1.888, p=.070>.05. Furthermore, the same condition was also found in the means of posttests 3
and 4 as that of posttests 1 and 2. Students in the IS group performed with higher score on posttest 4 (with NIS illustration) than on posttest 3 (with IS illustration) with mean
scores=75.14 vs. 70.48.
Table 4.14
The Comparison of Posttests 3 and 4 in the IS Group
Paired
t-Test N t p Mean SD
70.48 23.06 Posttest 3 &
Posttest 4 27 1.888 .070
75.14 19.35
The above statistic figures would be used to answer the research question three: Do students receiving instruction with IS illustration have different performances on
assessments with IS and NIS illustration? The results suggested that the students who
received instruction with IS illustration did not have a significantly different performances on completing assessments with IS illustration or NIS illustration. Thus, results indicated that the illustration type of instruction and assessments would not affect the performances of students who receiving instruction with IS illustration. The possible reason was that students had already comprehended the meaning of the teaching content by receiving instruction with IS illustration. Therefore, differential illustration, either IS or NIS illustration, in the posttests would not influence the performances of students who receiving instruction with IS illustration.
The Comparison of Posttests 1 and 2 in the NIS Group
The same comparison of posttest 1 and posttest 2 was done in the NIS group to see whether the influence of assessment illustration types in the NIS group had similar impact on the IS group. For the NIS group, subjects received posttest 2 with NIS illustration in week 4 and completed posttest 1 with IS illustration in week 5. The paired t-test of
posttests 1 and 2 in the NIS group revealed that there was no significant difference between these posttests with t=-1.758, p=.093>.05 and represented that students who received instruction and assessments with different kinds of illustration didn’t have any impact on students’ performances. Interestingly, from the means of posttest 1 and posttest 2, students
in the NIS group gained higher scores on posttest 1 (87.00 with IS illustration) than posttest 2 (84.31with NIS illustration). The details of comparison are posted in Table 4.15.
Table 4.15
The Comparison of Posttests 1 and 2 in the NIS Group
Paired
t-Test N t p Mean SD
87.00 13.83 Posttest 1 &
Posttest 2 22 -1.758 .093
84.31 9.98
The Comparison of Posttests 3 and 4 in the NIS Group
Posttest 3 and posttest 4 of the NIS group also received the procedures of paired t-test.
The sequence of receiving posttests on assessmentⅡwas opposite to assessmentⅠ.
Posttest 3, with IS illustration, was taken in week 9, while posttest 4 with, NIS illustration, was finished in week 10. The paired t-test of posttests 3 and 4 in the NIS group achieved the significant level with p=.001<.05, which meant that students in NIS group had a significant better performance on posttest 4 with NIS illustration than on posttest 3 with IS illustration. The details of comparison are posted in Table 4.16.
Table 4.16
The Comparison of Posttests 3 and 4 in the NIS Group
Paired
t-Test N t p Mean SD
73.81 15.43 Posttest 3 &
Posttest 4 22 -4.088 .001
81.22 13.68
According to above statistics, the research question four was addressed: Do students
receiving instruction with NIS illustration have different performances on assessments with
IS and NIS illustration? On assessmentⅠ, the results proposed that students receiving
instruction with NIS illustration did not have different performances on completing
assessments with IS or NIS illustration. However, different results presented in the NIS
group on assessmentⅡ indicated that students in the NIS group had a significantly better
performances on posttest 4 with NIS illustration than on posttest 3 with IS illustration. The
possible explanation was provided in the following. Though, from the interview, the
instructor stated that both kinds of illustration would not cause problems for students to
comprehend the meaning of the teaching content, some items of IS illustration still needed
the instructor’s explanation to assist the students’ comprehension. The instructor mentioned:
“I don’t think there was any difficulty that would affect the students’ understanding (while
using these two kinds of illustration).” She further indicated that: “And I didn’t have to
make many efforts on explaining the meaning of illustration.” Moreover, “If students
hadn’t perceived the meaning, I would have asked them to look at the details of the (IS)
illustration. Then they could understand the meaning of the illustration.” From the above
information, the possible reason for explaining why students in the NIS group performed
better on posttest 4 than on posttest 3 was revealed. Since the students in the NIS group
received instruction with NIS illustration and didn’t obtain the instructor’s explanation
about the IS illustration, they might have had some difficulties while finishing the posttests
with IS illustration. Moreover, the teaching content of the assessments also played a crucial
with IS illustration. Moreover, the teaching content of the assessments also played a crucial