Results of the Temporal and Conditional Differences of Group D

This section is composed of four parts. First, the pretest results of Group D and Group E are reported. Second, the temporal difference between Group D and Group E is presented utilizing Independent-Sample t-test regarding their listening performance on main idea and detail respectively. Third, the temporal difference within Group D and Group E is illustrated separately via one-way repeated measure ANOVA,

including both the listening performance on main idea recall and detail recall. Finally, the conditional difference between Group D and Group E is demonstrated through Independent-Sample t-test based on the results of listening comprehension test.

Pretest Results:

The descriptive statistics and t-test results of pretest are given in Table 12. The results show no significant difference between Group D and Group E (p=.398). Those two groups were therefore homogeneous considering their English listening

proficiency level.

The Temporal Difference between Group D and Group E:

In this part, the results regarding the listening performance on main idea recall are presented first, followed by the listening performance on detail recall.

Concerning the listening performance on main idea recall between Group D and Group E, the descriptive statistics given in Table 13 show that the mean scores of Group D were higher than Group E in week 1(Group D, M= 7.777; Group E, M=

7.115), week 2 (Group D, M= 8.888; Group E, M= 3.461), and week 4 (Group D, M=

6.111; Group E, M= 2.884), but was lower than Group E in week 3 (Group D, M=

4.444 ; Group E, M= 6.92). Table 12 also reveals a significant difference through Independent-Sample t-test in week 4 (p= .035), showing that Group D outperformed Group E regarding main idea recall in the fourth week of the training.

As for the listening performance on detail recall between Group D and Group E, the descriptive statistics and t-tests results in Table 14 show that throughout the four-week training, Group D (W1, M= .563; W2, M= .681; W3, M= 1.508; W4, M= .627) recalled more detail of the listening input than Group E (W1, M= .344; W2, M= .502; W3, M= 1.025; W4, M= .486). Nevertheless, as indicated by the results of the Independent-Sample t-tests, no significant difference is found between these two Table 11: Results of Independent-Sample t-test measuring pretest scores for Group D and Group E

Group D Group E

M SD M SD Mean Difference t-value P

Pretest 90.35 12 94.23 11.33 -.387 -.862 .398

Note. Group D= Slower-than-normal to the average speech rate (below 130 wpm -170 wpm) (150-170 wpm); Group E= Steady average speech rate

groups (F= .532, p > .05).

Table 12 :Results of Independent-Sample t-test measuring main idea scores of Group D and Group E

Group D Group E

M SD M SD

Mean Difference

t-value P

Week1 Article 1

7.777 3.078 7.115 3.797 .662 .539 .596

Week 2 Article 2

8.888 16.873 3.461 4.150 5.427 1.130 .268

Week 3 Article 3

4.444 4.501 6.92 3.97 -2.478 -1.587 .123

Week 4 Article 4

6.111 4.042 2.884 3.932 3.226 2.218 .035*

Note. Group D= Gradually-increasing speech rate from the slower-than-normal to the average speech

rate (below 130 wpm -170 wpm); Group E= Steady average speech rate (150-170 wpm)

Based on the above results, the training of gradually-increasing speech rate enhanced participants’ ability of listening for the gist compared to the training of steady average speech rate.

The Temporal Difference within Group D and Group E:

This part first shows the results with regard to the temporal difference within Group D. Next, the results of the temporal difference within Group E are addressed.

While showing the temporal difference within each group, the performance on listening for main idea and detail are both reported.

For the main idea recall within Group D during the training, the results of Table 13: Results of Independent-Sample t-test measuring detail scores of Group D and Group E

Note. Group D=Gradually-increasing speech rate from the slower-than-normal to the average

speech rate (below 130 wpm -170 wpm); Group E= Steady average speech rate (150-170 wpm)

one-way repeated measure ANOVA indicated in Table 15 showed no significant difference (F= .532).

Examination on the distribution of the main idea scores across the four weeks revealed that the main idea score of Group D increased from the first week (M= 7.777) to the second week (M= 8.888) and from the third week (M= 4.444) to the fourth week (M= 6.111). Nevertheless, a decrease of main idea score was found from the second week (M= 8.888) to the third week (M= 4.444). This decrease of main idea score from the second week to the third week, followed by an increase of main idea score from the third week to the fourth week merits further discussion, which will be discussed in the Chapter Five (p. 73).

For the detail recall within Group D during the training, a significant difference was found in Table 16 (p= .00) measured by one-way repeated measure ANOVA. A post hoc analysis of multivariate analysis of variance (MAVOVA) was therefore conducted. As given in Table 17, the significant differences were from the

comparisons between the third week and the first week (p= .000), the third week and the second week (p= .000), and between the third week and fourth week (p= .000). By referring back to Table 16, the detail scores of Group D in the third week (M=1.508) Table 14: Results of one-way repeated measure ANOVA analyzing main idea scores of Group D

SS DF MS F

Between Subjects 946.53 17 55.68

Within Subjects 4881.25 54

A Difference 204.17 3 68.06 .532

Residuals 4677.08 51 91.71

Note. A=Time Differences

were much higher than those in the first week (M=.563) and the second week (M= .681), which revealed a significant increase of listening comprehension in the third week compared to the first two weeks of the training. However, a noteworthy decrease of detail scores in the third week (M=1.508) to the fourth week (M=.627) was observed. In other words, the listening comprehension level of listening for main idea increased gradually for the first three weeks of the training, and yet was followed by a drastic drop in the last week of the training.

Table 15:Results of one-way repeated measure ANOVA analyzing the detail scores of Group D

SS DF MS F

Between Subjects 12.13 17 .71

Within Subjects 21.55 54

A 10.69 3 3.56 .000

Residuals 10.86 51 .21

Note. A=Time Differences

Table 16: Results of MANOVA analyzing detail scores of Group D dependent

variables

parameter B Std. Error t Sig

W4-W2 Intercept .073 6.108 -.630 .657

W4-W1 Intercept .073 6.108 -3.832 .657

W4-W3 Intercept 13.974 11.276 -4.312 .000*

W3-W2 Intercept 12.317 9.336 2.252 .000*

W3-W1 Intercept 16.074 8.862 .586 .000*

W1-W2 Intercept .250 4.154 2.082 .326

Concerning the main idea recall within Group E during the training, the results of one-way repeated measure ANOVA given in Table 18 show a significant difference, leading to a post hoc analysis via MAVOVA. As Table 19 delineates, the significant differences are from the comparisons between the fourth week and the first week (p= .002), the fourth week and the third week (p= .004), the third week and the second week (p= .013), and between the first week and the second week (p= .003). By

referring back to Table 13, it shows that the mean score of Group E in the fourth week (M= 2.884) was not only considerably lower than the first week (M= 7.115), and the third week (M= 6.92), but also the lowest mean compared to the group itself and to Group D.

This outcome demonstrates a significant decrease in listening comprehension from the first week to the second week of the training, followed by a significant increase to the third week. In the last week of the training, though, the score suddenly dropped greatly.

Table 17: Results of one-way repeated measure ANOVA analyzing the main idea scores of Group E

SS DF MS F

Between Subjects 493.27 12 41.11

Within Subjects 456.25 39

A 194.71 3 64.90 .000

Residuals 261.54 36 7.26

Note. A=Time Differences

Table 20 shows a significant difference (p= .001) of the detail scores within Group E during the training utilizing one-way repeated measure ANOVA. A post analysis of MAVOVA was then conducted. As shown in Table 21, the significant differences were from the comparisons between the third week and the first week (p= .004), the third week and the second week (p= .027), and between the fourth week and the third week (p= .019). As can be seen in Table 14, the mean score from Group D in the third week (M=1.025) was much higher than the second week (M=.502) and the first week (M=.344), illustrating a significant increase in listening comprehension compared to the first two weeks of the training. Another significant difference was a striking decrease of listening comprehension from the fourth week (M= .272) to the third week (M= 1.025), showing a decrease of mean score. This outcome reveals a similar detail scores distribution in Group D showing a gradual increase of detail recall for the first three weeks of the training, followed by a decrease of score in the last week of the training.

Table 18: Results of MANOVA analyzing the main idea scores of Group E

dependent variables

parameter B Std. Error F Sig

W4-W2 Intercept 4.327 151.923 .342 .570

W4-W1 Intercept 232.692 167.308 16.690 .002*

W4-W3 Intercept 212.019 6.187 7.290 .004*

W3-W2 Intercept 155.769 219.231 8.526 .013*

W3-W1 Intercept .481 168.269 .034 .856

W1-W2 Intercept 173.558 145.192 14.344 .003*

According to the analysis of temporal difference of Group D and Group E illustrated above, neither the training of gradually-increasing speech rate nor the training of steady average speech rate facilitated participants’ listening

comprehension.

The Conditional Difference within Group D and Group E:

The scores of listening comprehension test were analyzed through

Table 19: One-way repeated measure ANOVA of detail scores for Group E

SS DF MS F

Between Subjects 5.55 12 .46

Within Subjects 9.37 39

A 3.48 3 1.16 .001

Residuals 5.89 36 .16

Note. A=Time Differences

Table 20: Results of MANOVA analyzing detail scores of Group E

dependent variables

parameter B Std. Error F Sig

W4-W2 Intercept .003 1.692 .020 .891

W4-W1 Intercept .266 1.887 1.692 .218

W4-W3 Intercept 3.758 6.187 7.290 .019*

W3-W2 Intercept 3.557 6.700 6.371 .027*

W3-W1 Intercept 6.025 5.947 12.158 .004*

W1-W2 Intercept .323 1.165 3.330 .093

Independent-Sample t-test to examine the conditional difference between Group D and Group E. As Table 22 indicates, the mean score of Group D (M= 153.18) was higher compared to Group E (M=140.41). However, no significant difference was found between the two groups (p= .21).

In summary, as could be inferred from the results inclusive of the temporal difference and the conditional difference of Group D and Group E, the

gradually-increasing speech rate, compared with the steady average speech rate, could merely enhance the listening comprehension of listening for the gist.