Students’ perceptions of each type of role-play are divided into: students’ interest in role-play (items 1 to 9), students’ perceptions of preparation (items 10 to 20), of enactment (items 21 to 26), and of debriefing (items 27 to 32). The discussion of students’ perceptions of preparation can be further divided into four subcategories:
teacher’s assistance (items 10, 13, 14, 20), ways to prepare (items 11, 12, 18, 19), time (items 15, 16), and interruptions from others (item 17). At the end of each type, a summary is provided to recapture some important findings, and so is there a summary table that shows the mean scores of items 1 to 32 of the questionnaires and the p-values with the alpha level of significance less than 0.05 of each item in ANOVA and post hoc analysis. This section closed with a comparison among students’
perceptions of the four types of role-play to show their similarities and differences.
4.2.1 Type 1 Skeleton Dialogues
Interest. As can be seen in items 1 to 9 of Table 29, all of the mean scores are over four which demonstrates that the participants showed strong interest in skeleton dialogues. Despite this, there was a significant difference in the hopes for the incorporation of Type 1 into English class among the students of different language proficiency levels. Generally speaking, they all considered Type 1 was easy and interesting (M1=4.13, M2=4.53). They liked the topic of the unit (M4=4.37). Thus, they enjoyed participating in it and watching others’ presentations (M3=4.47, M5=4.60). They agreed that they had a keen discussion and some parts of the activity were impressive (M9=4.33, M6=4.37). Type 1 could make them interested in the school English curriculum (M7=4.23). They even wanted the teacher to frequently incorporate it into English class (M8=4.13). However, item 8 with the p-value less than 0.05 shows that the intermediate significantly wanted less incorporation of Type 1 into English class than the advanced (M8-G3=4.50, M8-G2=3.50, MD=1.000, p= .049
< .05).
Preparation. Items 10 to 20 provide the participants’ perceptions of Type 1 at the preparation stage, which include four categories: teacher’s assistance, ways to prepare, time, and interruption from others.
Teacher’s assistance. As revealed in items 10, 13, 14, and 20, the participants generally agreed on the teacher’s assistance at the preparation stage. There was no significant difference among them (p10= .801, p13= .117, p14= .204, p20= .153 > .05) and all of the average scores were over four (M10=4.57, M13=4.63, M14=4.73, M20=4.20). In other words, the participants held positive attitudes toward the teacher’s assistance. They believed that they benefited from the teacher’s model with an example worksheet and timely help and they were motivated by rewards.
Ways to prepare. As can be seen in items 11, 12, 18, and 19, there was no significant difference in the ways to prepare their skeleton dialogues (p11= .058, p12= .651, p18= .337, p19= .638 > .05) .The participants strongly agreed that partners contributed to the worksheet (M11=4.70). In addition, they tended to solve problems by looking up vocabulary in the dictionary or searching for information on the Internet (M12=4.13). Different from the high mean scores above, the general mean score of item 18 was only 3.23, which means the participants did not really memorize the lines word by word. Besides, item 19 suggests that the participants practiced role-play during the break time (M19=3.60).
Time. As shown in items 15 and 16, the participants generally agreed that the time length of preparation was adequate, but a significant difference was found in whether they could finish worksheets in class. Item 16 shows that they agreed that the amount of time for preparation was sufficient (M16=4.33, p16= .434 > .05). However, item 15 demonstrates that both of the advanced and the basic learners were significantly more capable than the intermediate of finishing their worksheets in class
(M15-G3=4.57, M15-G2=3.13, M15-G1=4.25, MD G3-G2=1.446, p G3-G2= .000 < .05; MD
G1-G2=1.125, p G1-G2= .008 < .05).
Interruption from others. As revealed in item 17, there was a significant difference in their perceptions of the interruption of the noise from other groups (p17= .029 < .05). The beginners significantly got higher points than the intermediate (M17-G1=4.13, M17-G2=2.75, MD=1.375, p= .037 < .05), suggesting that the beginners could be more easily interrupted by the noise than the intermediate.
Enactment. Items 21 to 26 present the participants’ perceptions of Type 1 at the enactment stage. As can be seen, there was no significant difference in their attitude toward the teacher’s PowerPoint slides as a prompt, the length of show time, partners’
efforts, and attention to shows (p21-26 >.05). Based on the results of items 23, 24, and 25, the participants agreed that the PowerPoint slides can minimize anxiety, assist in understanding shows, and impress them with new language use (M23=4.8, M24=4.77, M25=4.6). Besides, they considered that the length of show time was sufficient, their partners made great contributions to the show, and evaluation activities enabled them to concentrate on the shows (M21=4.53, M22=4.47, M26=4.43).
Debriefing. Items 27 to 32 reveal the participants’ perceptions of Type 1 at the debriefing stage. As can be seen, there was no significant difference (p27-32 > .05).
Items 27 and 28 show that the participants generally thought highly of the feedback from their peers and teacher (M27=4.40, M28=4.73). Items 29 and 30 demonstrate that reviewing the video clips of the pair presentations enhanced their comprehension of others’ performances and informed them of what to improve (M29=4.20, M30=4.30).
Items 31 and 32 also revealed that the participants were not so worried about being pointed out the wrong English usage (M31=3.40), and they believed that error correction activities could expose themselves to the correct language usage (M32=4.80).
In short, regarding students’ perceptions of Type 1, there were no significant differences in their interests in Type 1, most of their opinions toward the preparation stage, the enactment stage, and the debriefing stage, except in the following three respects. First, despite the three levels of students’ strong interest in Type 1, the intermediate indicated significantly less desire for the teacher to incorporate Type 1 into English class. Next, at the preparation stage, the intermediate were significantly less capable of finishing worksheets in class. Finally, at the preparation stage, beginners were more easily interrupted by the noise from other groups.
Table 29. Students’ Perceptions of Type 1
Type
Mean ANOVA Multiple Comparisons:
Post Hoc Analysis
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
4.2.2 Type 2─Cued Dialogues
Interest. As can be seen in items 1 to 9 of Table 30, all of the mean scores are over four, which again indicates that the participants showed strong interest in cued dialogues. Nevertheless, there were some significant differences in items 1, 2, 3, and 8 (p1= .031, p2= .018, p3= .026, p8= .009 < .05). Items 1 and 2 indicate that cued dialogues were especially easy and interesting for the advanced (M1-G3=4.79, M1-G1=3.75, MD1=1.036, p= .049 < .05; M2-G3=4.93, M2-G1=4.25, MD2= .679, p= .035
< .05). Meanwhile, items 3 and 8 show that students with advanced language proficiency enjoyed Type 2 and looked forward to its incorporation into English class significantly more than the intermediate (M3-G3=4.79, M1-G2=4.13, MD3= .661, p= .027 < .05; M8-G3=4.71, M8-G2=3.75, MD8= .964, p= .012 < .05). Another finding worth noticing was that the beginners also significantly outperformed the intermediate in item 8, suggesting that the beginners also wanted more incorporation of Type 2 into English than the intermediate (M8-G1=4.63, M8-G2=4.13, MD8= .875, p= .049 < .05).
Preparation. Items 10 to 20 provide the participants’ perceptions of Type 2 at the preparation stage, which has the same categories as Type 1.
Teacher’s assistance. Items 10, 13, 14, and 20 reveal that the participants still held positive attitudes toward the teacher’s assistance at the preparation stage of Type 2. As can be seen, there was no significant difference (p10= .499, p13= .492, p14= .376, p20= .842 > .05) and all of the average scores were over four (M10=4.67, M13=4.73, M14=4.80, M20=4.27).
Ways to prepare. As items 11, 12, and 19 indicate, the participants still agreed on the equal contributions of the pair to the worksheet in Type 2, tried to look up new words in the dictionary or online, and practiced role-play during the break time (M11=4.43, M12=4.23, M19=3.30; p11= .124, p12= .703, p19= .268 > .05). However, a surprise difference was found in memorizing the lines of play (p18= .027 < .05). Item
18 showed that the intermediate got significantly lower points than beginners, implying that the intermediate were significantly more reluctant to memorize the lines word by word than the beginners (M18-G1=3.88, M18-G2=2.38, MD= 1.500, p= .043< .05).
Time. As can be seen in items 15 and 16, some significant differences existed with regard to the preparation time in Type 2 (p15= .008, p16= .007 < .05). The advanced had significantly higher scores than the intermediate on these two items, proving that the time for preparation in Type 2 seemed insufficient for the intermediate, and thus they were unable to finish the worksheet in class (M15-G3=4.43, M15-G2=2.88, MD= 1.554, p= .010 < .05; M16-G3=4.64, M16-G2=3.38, MD= 1.268, p= .007 < .05).
Interruption from others. As revealed in item 17, there was no significant difference in their perceptions of the interruption of the noise from other groups (M17=3.43, p17= .331 > .05).
Enactment. Items 21 to 26 present the participants’ perceptions of Type 2 at the enactment stage. As can be seen, the results were similar to those in Type 1. That is, there was no significant difference in their attitude toward the teacher’s PowerPoint slides as a prompt, the length of show time, partners’ efforts, and attention to shows (p21-26 >.05). Items 23, 24, and 25 showed that they strongly agreed that the PowerPoint slides could minimize anxiety, assist in understanding others’ shows, and impress them with new language use (M23=4.8, M24=4.77, M25=4.63). The participants considered that the length of show time was sufficient, their partners made great contributions to the show, and evaluation activities enabled them to concentrate on the shows (M21=4.60, M22=4.30, M26=4.60).
Debriefing. Items 27 to 32 reveal the participants’ perceptions of Type 2 at the debriefing stage. As can be seen, the results were similar to those in Type 1. There
was no significant difference (p27-32 > .05). Items 27 and 28 suggested that the participants generally thought highly of the feedback from their peers and teacher (M27=4.40, M28=4.77). Items 29 and 30 demonstrated that reviewing the video clips of the pair presentations enhanced their comprehension of others’ presentations and informed them of what to improve (M29=4.17, M30=4.40). Items 31 and 32 also revealed that the participants were not so worried about being pointed out the wrong English usage (M31=3.57), and they believed that error correction activities could expose themselves to the correct ways to use English (M32=4.70).
To conclude, concerning students’ perceptions of Type 2, students showed even stronger interest in Type 2 than Type 1. There were no significant differences except in the following three aspects. First, the advanced enjoyed Type 2 significantly more than the intermediate. They showed significantly high desire to have Type 2 incorporated into English class, whereas the intermediate showed the least desire.
Next, as to students’ perceptions of the preparation stage, one surprise was that the intermediate seemed to memorize the lines word by word the least often among all.
Finally, again at the preparation stage, the preparation time was significantly insufficient for the intermediate, and thus they were the least capable of finishing worksheets in class.
Table 30. Students’ Perceptions of Type 2
Type
Mean ANOVA Multiple Comparisons:
Post Hoc Analysis
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
4.2.3 Type 3─Role Instructions
Interest. As revealed in items 1 to 9 of Table 31, the participants still showed great interest in role instructions with all the mean scores over four. Similar to the results of Type 2, items 1, 2, and 8 with the p-value less than 0.05 showed that role instructions was also especially interesting and easy for the advanced (M1-G3=4.71, M1-G1=3.50, MD=1.214, p= .018 < .05; M2-G3=4.71, M2-G1=4.25, MD= .589, p= .020
<. 05). Thus, students of advanced English proficiency anticipate significantly more for the incorporation of Type 3 into English class than the other two groups (M8-G3=4.57, M8-G2=3.63, M8-G1=3.75, p G3-G2= .009, p G3-G1= .024 < .05).
Preparation. Items 10 to 20 offer the participants’ perceptions of Type 3 at the preparation stage, which contains the same subcategories mentioned before.
Teacher’s assistance. As items 10, 13, 14, and 20 show, all the mean scores were over four which demonstrates that the participants still held positive attitude toward the teacher’s assistance at the preparation stage of Type 3 (M10=4.37, M13=4.53, M14=4.67, M20=4.07). However, different from those items of Types 1 and 2 which showed no significant difference, item 14 of Type 3 showed that both of the advanced and the intermediate significantly agreed more than the beginners on the statement that the teacher successfully helped them solve their problems during the preparation (M14-G3=4.93, M14-G2=4.63, M2-G1=4.13, p G3-G1= .000, p G2-G1= .039 <. 05).
Ways to prepare. According to items 11, 12, 18, and 19, the results showed that there was no significant difference in the ways to prepare for Type 3 (M11=4.10, M12=4.20, M18=3.13, M19=3.67; p11= .070, p12= .506, p18=. 146, p19=. 130 > .05). That is to say, the participants still agreed on the equal contributions of the pair to the worksheet in Type 3, tried the same way to solve their problems, tended not to memorize lines word by word, and practiced their role-play during the break time.
Time. In items 15 and 16, only item 16 has a p-value less than 0.05, which
showed that the time for preparation was again especially insufficient for the intermediate (M16-G2=2.75, M16-G3=4.36, p= .002 < .05).
Interruption from others. Item 17 showed that there was no significant difference in the participants’ perceptions of the interruption of the noise from other groups (M17= 3.47, p17= .823> .05), which is similar to the result of Type 2.
Enactment. The same as the results of Types 1 and 2, the mean scores of items 21 to 26 in Type 3 were all over four which demonstrate that the participants still held positive attitude toward the presentation stage of Type 3. However, items 21, 23, 25, and 26 showed some significant differences (p21= .001, p23= .002, p25= .002, p26= .003
< .05). As item 21 indicates, the advanced learners significantly agreed more than the intermediate on the sufficient time for presentation in Type 3 (M21-G3=4.71, M21-G2=3.63, p=. 001 < .05). In addition, results for items 23, 25, and 26 suggest that the advanced and the intermediate were significantly more aware of the advantages from the teacher’s PowerPoint slides of helping them ease anxiety about forgetting lines, learn new language use, and the benefits of the evaluation activities, which are pushing them to concentrate on others’ presentations (M23-G3=4.71, M23-G2=4.75, M23-G1=3.75, p G3-G1= .005, p G2-G1= .010 < .05; M25-G3=4.71, M25-G2=4.75, M25-G1=3.75, p G3-G1= .005, p G2-G1= .010 < .05; M26-G3=4.64, M26-G2=4.63, M26-G1=3.63, p G3-G1= .005, p G2-G1= .015 < .05).
Debriefing. Similar to the results of items 27 to 32 in Types 1 and 2, Type 3 also showed the mean score of item 31 around 3.5 and the others all over four. However, different from Types 1 and 2 where no significant difference was found in these six items, item 32 of Type 3 showed that both the advanced and the intermediate agreed significantly more that error correction activities had helped them learn the correct ways to use English than the beginners (M32-G3=4.79, M32-G2=4.50, M32-G1=3.23, p
G3-G1= .000, p G2-G1= .014 < .05).
To sum up, regarding students’ perceptions of Type 3, there were no significant differences except in the following aspects. First, the intermediate still had the least desire for the incorporation of Type 3 into English class among the three levels of students. Next, the preparation time for Type 3 was significantly insufficient for the intermediate. Then, the teacher’s PowerPoint Slides as prompts significantly worked better on the advanced and the intermediate than the beginners. Finally, the advanced and the intermediate agreed significantly more than the beginners on the benefits from the error correction activities in Type 3.
Table 31. Students’ Perceptions of Type 3
Type
Mean ANOVA Multiple Comparisons:
Post Hoc Analysis
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
4.2.4 Type 4─Free Role-play
Interest. As shown in items 1 to 9 of Table 32, eight out of these nine items demonstrate significant differences, which is quite different from the results of Type 1 to 3 (p1- p4, p6- p9 < .05). One thing worth noticing is that the advanced got significantly higher scores than the beginners in those eight items, showing that the advanced had more interest in Type 4 than the beginners. For example, they agreed that Type 4 was easy and interesting (M1-G3=4.43, M2-G3= 4.57); they enjoyed participating in Type 4 (M3-G3= 4.79); they liked the topic of the unit (M2-G3= 4.64);
they agreed that they felt impressed with some parts of the activity and it made them interested in school English curriculum (M6-G3= 4.79, M7-G3= 4.79); they hoped Type 4 could be incorporated into English class (M8-G3= 4.79); their discussion at the preparation stage of Type 4 was keen (M9-G3= 4.50). The other thing worth mentioning is that the beginners got significantly lower scores, i.e., 2.38 and 2.88 in item 1 and 9, implying that they did not consider Type 4 was easy for them and their discussion for the Type 4 task tended to be somewhat dull.
Preparation. Items 10 to 20 provide the participants’ perceptions of Type 4 at the preparation stage, which includes the four subcategories as mentioned before.
Teacher’s assistance. The mean scores of items 10, 13, 14, and 20 were all over 4 points, showing that the participants still held positive attitude toward the teacher’s assistance at the preparation stage of Type 4 (M10=4.37, M13=4.27, M14=4.47, M20=4.47). However, item 13 indicated that both of the advanced and the intermediate were significantly more active in asking for help than beginners (M13-G3=4.71, M13-G2=4.63, M13-G1=3.13, P G3-G2= .000, P G2-G1= .000 < .05). In addition, item 14 also showed that the advanced significantly agreed more than the beginners on the statement that the teacher succeeded in helping them solve problems during the preparation (M14-G3=4.93, M14-G1=3.75, P= .002 < .05).
Ways to prepare. Item 18 showed no significant difference, but items 11, 12, and 19 did (p11= .009, p12= .014, p19= .000 < .05). First, scores for item 11 indicated that both the advanced and the intermediate agreed significantly more than beginners that partners contributed to the worksheets (M11-G3=4.50, M11-G2=4.63, M11-G1=3.50, p
G3-G1= .021, p G2-G1= .000 < .05). Next, item 12 suggested that the advanced agreed significantly more than beginners that they solved problems by looking up new words in the dictionary or surfing the Internet (M12-G3=4.64, M12-G1=3.75, p=. 017 < .05).
The advanced also agreed significantly more than the other two groups that they had practiced role-play during the break time (M19-G3=4.14, M19-G2=3.00, M19-G1=2.63, p
G3-G2= .013, p G3-G1= .001< .05). Finally, the low mean score of item 18, i.e., 3.30, implied that the participants regardless of their proficiency levels tended not to memorize lines word by word in Type 4.
Time. Items 15 and 16 both showed significant differences, demonstrating that both the intermediate and the beginners had significantly more difficulty finishing worksheets in class than the advanced and that the time for preparation was especially insufficient for the intermediate and beginners (M15-G3=3.71, M15-G2=2.13, M15-G1=1.63, p G3-G2= .000, p G3-G1= .000; M16-G3=3.57, M15-G2=2.13, M15-G1=1.63, p
G3-G2= .001, p G3-G1= .000< .05).
Interruption from others. Item 17 showed that there was no significant difference in the participants’ perceptions of the interruption of the noise from other groups (p17= .379 > .05), which is similar to Types 2 and 3.
Enactment. The mean scores of items 21 to 26 were all over four again, showing that the participants held positive attitude toward the presentation stage of Type 4. However, some significant differences in items 21, 25, and 26 revealed that the advanced had sufficient time for presentation in Type 4 (M21-G3=4.71, M21-G1=4.13, p= .010 < .05), had benefited significantly more from the PowerPoint slides than
beginners (M25-G3=4.71, M25-G1=3.88, p= .014 < .05), and were more motivated to concentrate on others’ performance through evaluation activities (M26-G3=4.71, M26-G1=3.88, p= .014 < .05). The results of Type 4 in enactment were somewhat similar to those of Type 3.
Debriefing. Different from the results of items 27 to 32 in the previous three types, those of Type 4 showed three significant differences (p28= 0.27, p31= 0.02,p32= 0.02 < .05). Item 28 showed that the advanced agreed significantly more that they benefited from the teacher’s feedback than beginners (M28-G3=4.64, M28-G1=3.88, p= .030 <. 05). Item 32 indicated that the advanced agreed significantly more than the other two groups that they learned the correct ways to use English during the error correction activities (M32-G3=4.86, M32-G2=4.00, M32-G1=4.00, p G3-G2= .012, p
G3-G1= .012 < .05). What’s more surprising, the low mean score of item 31, which is 2.77, demonstrated that the participants of all three levels were generally not afraid of their errors being pointed out; among them, the advanced had significantly the least worry about their grammatical errors being pinpointed (M31-G3=2.21, M31-G2=3.25, M31-G1=3.25, p G2-G3= .010, p G1-G3= .010 < .05).
To summarize, with regard to students’ perceptions of Type 4, there seemed to be more significant differences among the groups of different proficiency levels. First, Type 4 was especially difficult for the beginners while the advanced enjoyed it the most. Beginners’ discussion was significantly not as keen as the other groups. Second, the advanced and the intermediate were more active in asking for help. The advanced even spent more time trying different ways to solve problems and practicing during the break time than the other groups. In addition, the time for preparation was especially insufficient for the intermediate and the beginners. Third, the advanced benefited significantly more from the enactment and debriefing of Type 4 than the other groups, including learning new language use from the slides and error correction
activities, and improving themselves through reflecting on the teacher’s feedback.
Finally, the advanced had the least worry about their language errors being pinpointed in Type 4.
Table 32. Students’ Perceptions of Type 4
Type
Mean ANOVA Multiple Comparisons:
Post Hoc Analysis
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
4.2.5 Comparisons of Students’ Perceptions of 4 Types
Section 4.2.5. presents a comparison of students’ perceptions of these four types
Section 4.2.5. presents a comparison of students’ perceptions of these four types