The present study was aimed at investigating the effects of ability grouping on Sunny Junior High English teaching. The results from student and parent

(1)

Chapter 4 Analyses and Results of Questionnaire Data

The present study was aimed at investigating the effects of ability grouping on Sunny Junior High English teaching. The results from student and parent

questionnaires are analyzed and presented in this chapter.

Results from Student Questionnaires Background Information

The valid returned questionnaires used for the analysis in the present study were 263 in total. As Table 12 shows, there were 145 boys and 118 girls in the student participants. One hundred and forty-two of them were from Colin Elementary School, 65 from Raymond Elementary School, and 56 from the other 31 elementary schools which are out of the school district of Sunny Junior High School.

Seventy-seven students who came from Raymond and the other 6 elementary

schools had experienced ability-grouped elementary English class, but the rest of 186

did not. Among the 263 students, 134 of them had 2 or 3 years of English learning

experience before they entered junior high school, 65 of them had learned English for

4 years or more, and 64 of them had only one year of learning experience. In terms of

their grouping experience in 7

^th

–grade English class, 59 of them stayed in Group A for

the 1

^st

and 2

^nd

semesters, 134 of them in Group B, and 70 of them had shifted their

groups. Thirty-four students shifted from Group A to Group B in the 2

^nd

semester, and

36 students vice versa. Those who had ever transferred their groups were categorized

as Group Transfer.

(2)

Table 12 Background information of the student participants

Students’ background Number

(263 in total)

Percentage

(100%)

Sex Boy

Girl

145 118

55.1﹪

44.9﹪

Elementary school students were from

Colin Raymond

Others (31 elementary schools)

142 65 56

54.0﹪

24.7﹪

21.3﹪

Ability grouping in elementary English class

Yes (Raymond and the other 6 schools) No (Colin and the other 25 schools)

77 186

29.3﹪

70.7﹪

English learning experience before junior high

1year 2 to 3 years 4 years or more

64 134

65 24.3﹪

51.0﹪

24.7﹪

Group A for both semesters 59 22.4﹪

Group B for both semesters 134 51.0﹪

Group A to Group B 34 Ability grouping

experience in 7

^th

English class

Group B to Group A 36 70 26.6﹪

Students’ Perceptions about the Groups

Questions 2, 3, 4, 23, 25, 26, 45 were aimed to investigate students’ perceptions about the superiority and/or inferiority, of their assigned groups, and their general feelings about the groups. Responses were scored on a four-point Likert scale:

“strongly agree” was scored 4, “agree” 3, “disagree” 2, and “strongly disagree” 1. The

mean scores on these questions are shown in Table 13. All except 2 the mean scores

were below 3 but higher than 2, which indicate that grouped or ungrouped English

classroom did not cause strong feelings about the superiority and/or inferiority, of

students’ assigned groups, or feelings about the groups. The two exceptions were

Group A on Question 4 (M=1.88) and Group B on Question 45 (M=3.04). That is,

students of Group A generally were not sad about their assigned groups; students of

Group B showed stronger positive responses to ungrouped classrooms.

(3)

Table 13 Means on Q2, Q3, Q4, Q23, Q25, Q26, Q45

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q23 Q25 Q26 Q45 Group A

(N=59)

M SD

2.19 .80

2.05 .78

1.88 .70

2.80 .87

2.29 .72

2.14 .63

2.41 .96 Group B

(N=134)

M SD

2.65 .88

2.22 .82

2.16 .81

2.30 .94

2.50 .84

2.26 .77

3.04 .86 Transfer

(N=70)

M SD

2.64 .89

2.00 .66

2.03 .78

2.67 .94

2.41 .86

2.17 .78

2.70 .94 Total

(N=263)

M SD

2.54 .88

2.12 .77

2.06 .78

2.51 .95

2.43 .82

2.21 .74

2.81 .93

Note: Q2: Students of Group A showed their superiority.

Q3: Students of Group B showed their inferiority.

Q4: I felt sad about my assigned group when ability grouping was practiced.

Q23: I was happy that ability grouping was practiced in the 7^th-grade English class.

Q25: Students who got good English grades in ungrouped class showed their superiority.

Q26: Students who got bad English grades in ungrouped class showed their inferiority.

Q45: I was happy that ability grouping was canceled in the 8^th-grade English class.

To examine whether the difference was significant by students’ groups, one-way

ANOVA was conducted, as shown in Table 14. The data indicate that there was no

significant difference among groups in Questions 3, 4, 25, and 26. There were

significant differences among groups in Questions 2, 23, and 45 (p<.01).

(4)

Table 14 One-way ANOVA for mean scores on Q2, Q3, Q4, Q23, Q25, Q26, Q45

SS DF MS F P

Q2 Between groups Within groups

9.712 193.536

2 260

4.856 .744

6.523 .002**

Q3 Between groups Within groups

2.535 153.571

2 260

1.268 .591

2.146 .119

Q4 Between groups Within groups

3.401 156.500

2 260

1.700 .602

2.825 .061

Q23 Between groups Within groups

12.664 223.062

2 260

6.332 .858

7.381 .001**

Q25 Between groups Within groups

1.861 174.587

2 260

.931 .671

1.386 .252

Q26 Between groups Within groups

.782 142.716

2 260

.391 .549

.712 .492

Q45 Between groups Within groups

17.336 210.500

2 260

8.668 .813

10.665 .000**

*p<.05 **p<.01

Q3: Students of Group B showed their inferiority.

Q4: I felt sad about my assigned group when ability grouping was practiced.

Q23: I was happy that ability grouping was practiced in the 7^th-grade English class.

Q25: Students who got good English grades in ungrouped class showed their superiority.

Q26: Students who got bad English grades in ungrouped class showed their inferiority.

Q45: I was happy that ability grouping was canceled in the 8^th-grade English class.

To see exactly where the differences lay, multiple comparisons were made. As Table 15 shows, significant differences existed between Group A and Group B (p<.01) and between Group A and Transfer (p<.05) on Question 2. That is, students from both Group B and Transfer agreed more strongly that ability grouping would make Group A have a feeling of superiority than Group A did.

For Question 23, significant differences existed between Group A and Group B

(p<.01) and between Group B and Transfer (p<.05). Group A and Transfer showed

stronger positive responses to ability grouping practiced in 7

^th

-grade English class

than Group B. There was no significant difference between Group A and Transfer.

(5)

For Question 45, significant differences existed between Group A and B (p<.01) and between Group B and Transfer (p<.05). Group B showed much stronger positive responses to ungrouped 8

^th

-grade English class than Group A and Transfer. There was no significant difference between Group A and Transfer.

The result of Question 23 corresponded to the result of Question 45. Those who had experienced Group A favored ability grouping practiced in English class; however, Group B favored ungrouped English class.

Table 15 Multiple comparisons of means on Q2, Q23, Q45

Scheffe (I) (J) MD (I-J) Std. Error p Group A Group B

Transfer

-.46 -.46

.13 .15

.003**

.012*

Q2

Group B Transfer 6.40E-03 .13 .999 Group A Group B

Transfer

.50

.13

.14 .16

.003**

.747 Q23

Group B Transfer -.37 .14 .025*

Group A Group B Transfer

-.63 -.29

.14 .16

.000**

.204 Q45

Group B Transfer .34 .13 .036*

*p<.05 **p<.01

Q23: I was happy that ability grouping was practiced in 7^th-grade English class.

Q45: I was happy that ability grouping was canceled in 8^th-grade English class.

Students’ Perceptions of Stigma Attachment Effect

Questions 1 and 24 were aimed to investigate stigma attachment effects of

grouped and ungrouped English classrooms. Table 16 shows descriptive statistics on

the two questions. The mean scores of Question 1 were slightly higher than those of

Question 24. That is, students of all groups tended to perceive labeling effects in

grouped learning situations. To see whether interaction effects existed between

students’ groups and their responses to Questions 1 and 24, ANOVA repeated

measures were further conducted.

(6)

Table 16 Descriptive statistics on Q1 and Q24

Q1 Q24

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

2.39 2.43 2.37 2.41

.83 .85 .85 .85

2.25 2.17 2.21 2.20

.76 .76 .78 .76

Note: Q1: Students were easily labeled as good or bad students in grouped English class.

Q24: Students were easily labeled as good or bad students in ungrouped English class.

As Table 17 shows, there were no interaction effects existing between students’

groups and their responses to Questions 1 and 24. However, there were significant differences between the two questions (p<.01). To further examine where the differences lay, repeated measures was carried out to test the simple main effects.

Table 17 Summary of analysis of variance on Q1 and Q24

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p

Groups Stigma

Stigma

^＊

groups Error (Groups) Error (Stigma)

SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

5.657E-02 3.965 .434 229.274 110.022

2 1 2 260 260

2.829E-02 3.965 .217 .882 .423

.032 9.369 .513

.968 .002**

.600

*p<.05 **p<.01

As Table 18 shows, there was significant difference existing in Group B. The mean score of Group B on Question 1 were significantly higher than their mean score on Question 24 (p<.01). That is, only Group B generally agreed that the effect of stigma attachment was stronger in grouped classrooms than in ungrouped classrooms.

However, Group A and Transfer did not show significantly different responses to the

two classrooms.

(7)

Table 18 Summary of analysis of variance of simple main effects on Q1 and Q24 Sources of variance SS DF MS F p

Stigma (SS

_b

) In Group A In Group B In Transfer

.542 4.571 .864

1 1 1

.542 4.571 .864

1.341 9.083 3.037

.252 .003**

.086

*p<.05 **p<.01

Students’ Perceptions of Pressure of Competition

Questions 5 and 27 were aimed to investigate the pressure of competition in the two classrooms. As Table 19 shows, students of Group A perceived more pressure of competition in grades in grouped class than in ungrouped class. On the contrary, students of Group B perceived more pressure of competition in grades when they were in ungrouped class. Students of Transfer perceived the same level of pressure in the two learning situations.

Table 19 Descriptive statistics on Q5 and Q27

Q5 Q27

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

2.83 2.54 2.81 2.68

.97 .81 .79 .85

2.78 2.79 2.81 2.79

.72 .88 .82 .83

Note: Q5: There was pressure of competition in grades in grouped class.

Q27: There was pressure of competition in grades in ungrouped class.

Table 20 indicates that there were no interaction effects existing between

students’ groups and their responses to Questions 5 and 27. Besides, there was no

significant difference existing between subjects or within subjects. That is, students

from different groups did not show significantly different responses to either grouped

or ungrouped classroom in terms of the pressure of competition. Furthermore,

(8)

students of the same group did not show significantly different responses to the two classrooms.

Table 20 Summary of analysis of variance on Q5 and Q27

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p

Groups Pressure

Pressure

^＊

groups Error (Groups) Error (Pressure)

SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

2.804 .532 2.563 231.964 131.110

2 1 2 260 260

1.402 .532 1.281 .892 .504

1.571 1.055 2.541

.210 .305 .081

*p<.05 **p<.01

Note: Q5: There was pressure of competition in grades in grouped class.

Q27: There was pressure of competition in grades in ungrouped class.

Students’ Confidence in English Learning

Questions 6 and 28 were aimed to investigate students’ confidence in English learning in the two classrooms. Table 21 shows descriptive statistics on the two questions. Group A had more confidence in English learning when they were in grouped class, while Transfer had more confidence in English learning when they were in ungrouped class. Group B had the same level of confidence in the two learning situations.

Table 21 Descriptive statistics on Q6 and Q28

Q6 Q28

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

2.97 2.60 2.63 2.69

.74 .88 .78 .83

2.80 2.60 2.83 2.70

.74 .82 .72 .78

Note: Q6: I had confidence in English learning when I was in grouped class.

Q28: I had confidence in English learning when I was in ungrouped class.

The data in Table 22 indicate that there were no interaction effects existing

between students’ groups and their responses to Questions 6 and 28. However, there

were significant differences existing among different groups (p<.05). Thus, one-way

(9)

ANOVA and multiple comparisons were conducted to find out where the differences lay.

Table 22 Summary of analysis of variance on Q6 & Q28

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p

Groups Confidence

Confidence

^＊

groups Error (Groups) Error (Confidence)

SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

6.633 6.862E-03 2.234 228.805 105.249

2 1 2 260 260

3.316 6.862E-03 1.117 .880 .405

3.769 .017 2.759

.024*

.897 .065

*p<.05 **p<.01

As Table 23 shows, there was significant difference existing in Question 6 (p<.05). That is, students from different groups showed significantly different confidence levels in English learning when they were in grouped classrooms.

Table 23 Summary of analysis of variance of simple main effects on Q6 and Q28 Sources of variance SS DF MS F p

Groups (SS

_a

) In Q6 In Q28

5.741 3.126

2 2

2.870 1.563

4.233 2.576

.016*

.078

*p<.05 **p<.01

The data in Table 24 further indicate that the significant difference existed

between Group A and Group B (p<.05) on Question 6. Group A showed higher

confidence in English learning than Group B in 7

^th

grouped English class. However,

there was no significant difference between Group A and Transfer or between Group

B and Transfer.

(10)

Table 24 Multiple comparisons of means on Q6

Scheffe (I) (J) MD (I-J) Std. Error p Group A Group B

Transfer

.36 .34

.13 .15

.020*

.070 Q6

Group B Transfer -2.41E-02 .12 .981

*p<.05 **p<.01

Note: Q6: I had confidence in English learning when I was in grouped class.

The Fun of English Class

Questions 7 and 29 were aimed to investigate whether English was interesting for students in grouped and ungrouped classrooms. As Table 25 shows, having English in grouped class was more fun for Group A while having English in ungrouped class was more fun for Group B and Transfer.

Table 25 Descriptive statistics on Q7 and Q29

Q7 Q29

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

3.08 2.59 2.77 2.75

.75 .83 .76 .82

2.80 2.79 2.91 2.83

.74 .80 .79 .78

Note: Q7: It was fun to have English in grouped class.

Q29: It was fun to have English in ungrouped class.

Table 26 indicates that there were interaction effects existing between students’

groups and their responses to Questions 7 and 29 (p<.01). From Figure 2, we can see

that disordinal interaction effects existed between Group A and Transfer on the two

learning situations. That is, students of Group A felt grouped class more interesting

than students of Transfer did, but students of Transfer felt ungrouped class more

interesting than Group A. Besides, Group B generally had less fun in English learning

than Group A and Transfer, but Group B felt ungrouped class more interesting than

grouped class.

(11)

Table 26 Summary of analysis of variance on Q7 and Q29

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Groups

Fun

^＊

groups Error (Groups) Error (Fun)

SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

5.730 4.083E-02 5.123 209.422 115.116

2 1 2 260 260

2.865 4.083E-02 2.562 .805 .443

3.557 .092 5.786

.030*

.762 .003**

*p<.05 **p<.01

Estimated Marginal Means of Measure_1

2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2

Grouped Ungrouped Fun

Estimated Marginal Means

Group A Group B Transfer

Figure 2 The Interaction effects between groups and perception of fun in grouped/ungrouped classes

One-way ANOVA and repeated measures were conducted further to test simple

main effects. Table 27 shows significant differences within Group A and Group B on

the two questions respectively (p<.05). Group A tended to agree that grouped English

class was more interesting than ungrouped English class. On the contrary, Group B

tended to agree that ungrouped English class was more interesting than grouped

English class.

(12)

Table 27 Summary of analysis of variance of simple main effects on Q7 and Q29 Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Groups (SS

_a

)

In Q7 In Q29 Fun (SS

_b

)

In Group A In Group B In Transfer

10.093 .706 2.449 2.720 .714

2 2 1 1 1

5.046 .380 2.449 2.720 .714

7.935 .621 5.453 5.040 2.851

.000**

.538 .023*

.026*

.096

*p<.05 **p<.01

Besides, it was also found that students of different groups showed significantly different responses to Question 7 (p<.01). The data in Table 28 indicate that the significant differences existed between Group A and Group B (p<.01). Students in Group A perceived that grouped English class was much more interesting (M=3.08) than students in Group B perceived theirs (M=2.59).

Table 28 Multiple comparisons of means on Q7

Scheffe (I) (J) MD (I-J) Std. Error p Group A Group B

Transfer

.50 .31

.12 .14

.000**

.086 Q7

Group B Transfer -.18 .12 .304

*p<.05 **p<.01

The Understanding of Instruction

Questions 8 and 30 were aimed to investigate whether teachers’ instruction was

easy for them to understand in grouped and ungrouped classrooms. Table 29 shows

descriptive statistics on the two questions. Students of all groups tended to agree that

instruction was easy to understand when they were in grouped class.

(13)

Table 29 Descriptive statistics on Q8 and Q30

Q8 Q30

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

3.22 2.75 2.91 2.90

.67 .80 .74 .78

3.05 2.71 2.89 2.83

.63 .79 .81 .77

Note: Q8: The teacher’s instruction in grouped class was easy to understand.

Q30: The teacher’s instruction in ungrouped class was easy to understand.

Table 30 further shows that there were no interaction effects existing between students’ groups and their responses to Questions 8 and 30. However, there was significant difference existing between different groups in their responses to the 2 questions (p<.01).

Table 30 Summary of analysis of variance on Q8 and Q30

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p

Groups Understand

Understand

^＊

groups Error (Groups) Error (Understand)

SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

13.597 .762 .394 209.087 90.990

2 1 2 260 260

6.799 .762 .197 .804 .350

8.454 2.177 .563

.000**

.141 .570

*p<.05 **p<.01

One-way ANOVA and multiple comparisons were conducted to find out where the differences lay. As Table 31 shows, there were significant differences in Question 8 (p<.01) and Question 30 (p<.05).

Table 31 Summary of analysis of variance of simple main effects on Q8 and Q30 Sources of variance SS DF MS F p

Groups (SS

_a

) In Q8 In Q30

8.935 5.056

2 2

4.468 2.528

7.822 4.336

.001**

.014*

*p<.05 **p<.01

(14)

Table 32 shows that there were significant differences between Group A and Group B on both Question 8 (p<.01) and Question 30 (p<.05). Either in grouped or ungrouped class, Group A tended to perceive that teachers’ instruction was easier to understand than Group B. However, there was no significant difference between Group A and Transfer or between Group B and Transfer.

Table 32 Multiple comparisons of means on Q8 and Q30

Q8 Q30

(I) (J) MD(I-J) SE P MD(I-J) SE p

Group A Group B Transfer

.47 .31

.12 .13

.001**

.074

.34 .17

.12 .13

.018*

.474 Group B Transfer -.16 .11 .356 -.18 .14 .293

*p<.05 **p<.01

Students’ Perceptions of Teachers’ Encouragement

Questions 9 and 31 were aimed to investigate whether students perceived teachers’ encouragement when they were learning in different situations. As Table 33 shows, the mean scores of each group on the two questions were very close to one another.

Table 33 Descriptive statistics on Q9 and Q31

Q9 Q31

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

2.54 2.46 2.54 2.50

.82 .83 .81 .82

2.54 2.47 2.51 2.50

.68 .77 .68 .73

Note: Q9: I usually received the teacher’s encouragement in grouped class.

Q31: I usually received the teacher’s encouragement in ungrouped class.

Table 34 indicates that there were no interaction effects between students’ groups and their responses to Questions 9 and 31. Neither were there significant group effects.

Students of the three groups showed similar responses to the two questions. They did

(15)

not perceive obvious encouragement from English teachers no matter what kind of English learning class they were in.

Table 34 Summary of analysis of variance on Q9 and Q31

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Groups

Encouragement

^＊

groups Error (Groups)

Error (Encouragement) SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

.628 5.757E-03 3.040E-02 200.372 112.468

2 1 2 260 260

.314 5.757E-03 1.520E-02 .771 .433

.408 .013 .035

.666 .908 .965

*p<.05 **p<.01

Note: Q9: I usually received the teacher’s encouragement in grouped class.

Q31: I usually received the teacher’s encouragement in ungrouped class.

Students’ Perceptions of Te achers’ Low Expectation

Questions 10 and 32 were aimed to investigate if students perceived that teachers had low expectation about them because of their groups. The mean scores of Group A were particularly low on the two questions (Q9=1.80; Q31=1.88), as shown in Table 35.

Table 35 Descriptive statistics on Q10 and Q32

Q10 Q32

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

1.80 2.17 2.17 2.09

.58 .77 .68 .72

1.88 2.19 2.21 2.13

.49 .65 .68 .64 Note:

Q10: I felt the teacher had low expectation about me in grouped class.

Q32: I felt the teacher had low expectation about me in ungrouped class.

Table 36 shows that there were no interaction effects between students’ groups

and their responses to Questions 10 and 32. However, the data indicate there were

significant differences among groups on the two questions (p<.01). Thus, one-way

ANOVA and multiple comparisons were conducted to test where the differences lay.

(16)

Table 36 Summary of analysis of variance on Q10 and Q32

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Groups

Low expectation

Low expectations

^＊

groups Error (Groups)

Error (Low expectation) SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

11.049 .291 7.969E-02 167.275 66.190

2 1 2 260 260

5.524 .291 3.985E-02 .643 .255

8.587 1.142 .157

.000**

.286 .855

*p<.05 **p<.01

Note:

Table 37 indicates there were significant differences existing in Questions 10 and 32 (p<.01). To see where the differences lay, multiple comparisons were further conducted.

Table 37 Summary of analysis of variance of simple main effects on Q10 and Q32 Sources of variance SS DF MS F p

Groups (SS

_a

) In Q10 In Q32

6.434 4.694

2 2

3.217 2.347

6.407 5.930

.002**

.003**

*p<.05 **p<.01

Note:

Table 38 indicates the significant differences existed between Group A and Group B (p<.01) and between Group A and Transfer (p<.05) on the two questions.

That is, students in Group B and Transfer perceived teachers’ low expectation about them more strongly than Group A in both grouped and ungrouped classes.

Table 38 Multiple comparisons of means on Q10 and Q32

Q10 Q32

(I) (J) MD(I-J) SE p MD(I-J) SE p

Group A Group B Transfer

-.38 -.37

.11 .13

.004**

.012*

-.31 -.33

9.83E-02 .11

.007**

.012*

Group B Transfer 2.13E-04 .10 1.000 -2.03E-02 9.28E-02 .976

*p<.05 **p<.01

Note:

(17)

Students’ Perceptions of Teachers’ High Expectation

Questions 11 and 33 were aimed to investigate if students perceived that teachers had high expectation of them because of their groups. As Table 39 shows, all the mean scores were not very high, and the mean score of Group B on Question 33 was

particular low (M=1.98).

Table 39 Descriptive statistics on Q11 and Q33

Q11 Q33

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

2.14 2.01 2.16 2.08

.60 .60 .50 .58

2.08 1.98 2.19 2.06

.50 .57 .67 .59

Note: Q11: I felt the teacher had too high expectation about me in grouped class.

Q33: I felt the teacher had too high expectation about me in ungrouped class.

Table 40 further shows that there were no interaction effects between students’

groups and their responses to Questions 11 and 33. Nor were there significant group effects. Students tended to disagree that teachers had high expectation of them either in grouped or ungrouped class, as the mean scores shown in Table 39 were not very high.

Table 40 Summary of analysis of variance on Q11 and Q33

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Groups

High expectation

^＊

groups Error (Groups)

Error (High expectation) SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

3.086 4.588E-02 .130 117.450 56.802

2 1 2 260 260

1.543 4.588E-02

6.484E-02 .452 .218

3.416 .210 .297

.050 .647 .743

*p<.05 **p<.01

Note: Q11: I felt the teacher had too high expectation about me in grouped class.

Q33: I felt the teacher had too high expectation about me in ungrouped class.

Students’ Perceptions of their Progress in English

Questions 12 and 34 were aimed to investigate whether students perceived their

progress in English learning when they were in the two different learning situations.

(18)

As Table 41 shows, Group A perceived greater progress in English in grouped class while Group B and Transfer perceived greater progress in ungrouped class.

Table 41 Descriptive statistics on Q12 and Q34

Q12 Q34

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

2.68 2.27 2.47 2.41

.75 .77 .76 .78

2.53 2.34 2.60 2.45

.57 .70 .69 .68

Note: Q12: I made greater progress in English in grouped class.

Q34: I made greater progress in English in ungrouped class.

Table 42 shows that there were no interaction effects between students’ groups and their responses to Questions 12 and 34. However, there were significant

differences existing among groups on the two questions (p<.01). Therefore, one-way ANOVA and multiple comparisons were conducted further to see where the

differences lay.

Table 42 Summary of analysis of variance on Q12 and Q34

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Groups

Progress

^＊

groups Error (Groups) Error (Progress)

SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

9.416 2.411E-02 1.413 149.120 118.933

2 1 2 260 260

4.708 2.411E-02

.707 .574 .457

8.209 .053 1.545

.000**

.819 .215

*p<.05 **p<.01

As Table 43 shows, there were significant differences in Question 12 (p<.01) and

Question 34 (p<.05). To see where the differences lay, multiple comparisons were

further conducted.

(19)

Table 43 Summary of analysis of variance of simple main effects on Q12 and Q34 Sources of variance SS DF MS F p

Groups (SS

_a

) In Q12 In Q34

7.173 3.657

2 2

3.586 1.829

6.189 4.050

.002**

.019*

*p<.05 **p<.01

Table 44 shows that there were significant differences between Group A and Group B on Question 12 (p<.01) and between Group B and Transfer on Question 34 (p<.05). In grouped class, students of Group A agreed significantly more than Group B that they made progress. In ungrouped class, Transfer had more positive responses to their progress than Group B did.

Table 44 Multiple comparisons of means on Q12 and Q34

Q12 Q34

(I) (J) MD (I-J) SE p MD (I-J) SE p

Group A Group B Transfer

.41 .21

.12 .13

.003**

.309

.19 -7.46E-02

.10 .12

.198 .821 Group B Transfer -.20 .11 .198 -.26 9.91E-02 .030*

*p<.05 **p<.01

Students’ Perceptions of their Own Concentration in Class

Questions 13 and 35 were aimed to investigate whether students concentrated in

grouped and ungrouped classes. As Table 45 shows, all the mean score of Question 13

were higher than those of Question 35. To see whether interaction effects existed

between students’ groups and their responses to the two questions, ANOVA repeated

measures were further conducted.

(20)

Table 45 Descriptive statistics on Q13 and Q35

Q13 Q35

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

2.83 2.56 2.83 2.69

.70 .76 .70 .74

2.53 2.53 2.71 2.59

.56 .72 .73 .69

Note: Q13: I concentrated in grouped English class.

Q35: I concentrated in ungrouped English class.

It was found that there were no interaction effects between students’ groups and their responses to Questions 13 and 35, as shown in Table 46. However, it was found that there were significant differences between the two questions in groups (p<.05).

To further examine where the differences lay, repeated measures was carried out to test the simple main effects.

Table 46 Summary of analysis of variance on Q13 and Q35

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Groups

Concentration1

^＊

groups Error (Groups)

Error (Concentration1)

SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

5.322 2.051 1.038 179.267 84.076

2 1 2 260 260

2.661 2.051

.519 .689 .323

3.860 6.341 1.604

.050 .012*

.203

*p<.05 **p<.01

The data in Table 47 indicate that students of Group A perceived that they paid

significantly more attention to teachers’ instruction when they were in grouped class

than in ungrouped class (p<.05). Students from Group B and Transfer did not show

significantly different responses to their concentration on teachers’ instruction when

they were in the two different learning situations.

(21)

Table 47 Summary of analysis of variance of simple main effects on Q13 and Q35 Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Concentration1 (SS

_b

)

In Group A In Group B In Transfer

1.907 5.970E-02 .457

1 1 1

1.907 5.970E-02 .457

7.092 .181 1.285

.010*

.671 .261

*p<.05 **p<.01

Students’ Perceptions of their Peers’ Concentration in Class

Questions 14 and 36 were aimed to investigate students’ perceptions of their peers’ concentration on teachers’ instruction when they were in grouped and ungrouped classes. Table 48 shows descriptive statistics on the two questions.

Table 48 Descriptive statistics on Q14 and Q36

Q14 Q36

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

2.71 2.40 2.57 2.51

.64 .73 .63 .69

2.39 2.51 2.54 2.49

.67 .71 .61 .68

Note: Q14: My peers in grouped English class concentrated in class.

Q36: My peers in ungrouped English class concentrated in class.

The data in Table 49 indicate that there were interaction effects existing between

students’ groups and their responses to Questions 14 and 36 (p<.01). As Figure 3

shows, we can see that disordinal interaction effects existed between Group A and

Group B and between Group A and Transfer on the two learning situations. In

grouped class, peers of Group A concentrated more than Transfer’s peers and Group

B’s peers. In ungrouped class, Group A perceived that their classmates concentrated

less than Group B and Transfer perceived their classmates did. Furthermore, Group B

perceived their ungrouped peers concentrated more than their grouped peers, but

Group A and Transfer held opposite opinions. They perceived their ungrouped peers

(22)

concentrated less than their grouped peers. Group A perceived an especially sharp difference in their classmates’ concentration levels between the two learning situations.

Table 49 Summary of analysis of variance on Q14 and Q36

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Groups

Concentration2

^＊

groups Error (Groups)

Error (Concentration2)

SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

1.292 .691 3.996 147.700 92.457

2 1 2 260 260

.646 .691

1.998 .568 .356

1.137 1.942 5.618

.322 .165 .004**

*p<.05 **p<.01

Estimated Marginal Means of MEASURE_1

2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

Grouped Ungrouped Peers' concentration

Figure 3 The interaction effects between students’ groups and perception of the peers’

concentration in grouped/ungrouped classes

One-way ANOVA and repeated measures were conducted further to test simple main effects. Table 50 indicates that the simple main effects existed in Group A (p<.01). Students of Group A tended to perceived that their peers of Group A

concentrated more on teachers’ instruction than their peers of ungrouped class (p<.01).

Though Group B students tended to perceive that their peers of Group B concentrated

less on the teacher’s instruction than their peers of ungrouped class, there was no

significant difference found in Group B. In addition, the simple main effects also

(23)

existed in Question 14 (p<.05).

Table 50 Summary of analysis of variance of simple main effects on Q14 and Q36 Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Groups (SS

_a

)

In Q14 In Q36

Concentration2 (SS

_b

) In Group A

In Group B In Transfer

4.422 .866 3.059 .955 2.857E-02

2 2 1 1 1

2.211 .433 3.059 .955 2.857E-02

4.739 .010*

.947 .389 10.174 .002**

2.116 .148 .132 .718

*p<.05 **p<.01

For Question 14, Table 51 shows that the significant differences existed between Group A and Group B (p<.05). In grouped situation, students from Group A more strongly agreed that their grouped peers concentrated on teachers’ instruction than those from Group B.

Table 51 Multiple comparisons of means on Q14

Scheffe (I) (J) MD (I-J) Std. Error p Group A Group B

Transfer

.32 .14

.11 .12

.013*

.509 Q14

Group B Transfer -.18 .10 .220

*p<.05 **p<.01

Students’ Devotion to English Learning out of Class

Questions 15 and 37 were aimed to investigate if students devoted a lot of time to English learning out of class when they were in grouped and ungrouped classes.

The data in Table 52 indicate that Group B and Transfer devoted more time to English

learning out of class when they were in ungrouped class while Group A devoted more

time when they were in grouped class.

(24)

Table 52 Descriptive statistics on Q15 and Q37

Q15 Q37

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

2.29 2.17 2.29 2.23

.70 .70 .68 .69

2.20 2.36 2.37 2.33

.64 .73 .68 .70

Note: Q15: I spent a lot of time doing English homework and reviewing English when I was

in grouped class.

Q37: I spent a lot of time doing English homework and reviewing English when I was in ungrouped class.

Though Group B and Transfer devoted more time to English learning out of class when they were in ungrouped class, there was no significant difference among groups or between the two learning situations. In addition, there were no interaction effects between students’ groups and their responses to Questions 15 and 37 either, as shown in Table 53.

Table 53 Summary of analysis of variance on Q15 and Q37

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Groups

Homework

^＊

groups Error (Groups) Error (Homework)

SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

.526 .454 1.516 184.949 67.199

2 1 2 260 260

.263 .454

.758 .711 .258

.370 .691 1.758 .186 2.933 .055

*p<.05 **p<.01

Note: Q15: I spent a lot of time doing English homework and reviewing English when I was in grouped class.

Q37: I spent a lot of time doing English homework and reviewing English when I was in ungrouped class.

Students’ Perceptions of the Flow of In-class Activities

Questions 16 and 38 were aimed to investigate whether activities went smoothly

when they were in grouped and ungrouped classes. As Table 54 shows, the mean

scores of Question 16 were higher than those of Question 38. To see whether

interaction effects existed between students’ groups and their responses to the two

(25)

questions, ANOVA repeated measures were further conducted.

Table 54 Descriptive statistics on Q16 and Q38

Q16 Q38

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

2.75 2.64 2.97 2.75

.76 .83 .70 .79

2.49 2.63 2.81 2.65

.73 .78 .71 .76

Note: Q16: The activities, dialogue practices, and role-play went smoothly in grouped class.

Q38: The activities, dialogue practices, and role-play went smoothly in ungrouped class.

Table 55 indicates that there were no significant interaction effects between students’ groups and their responses to Questions 16 and 38. However, there were significant differences between subjects and within subjects (p<.05). To further examine where the differences lay, one-way ANOVA and repeated measures were conducted.

Table 55 Summary of analysis of variance on Q16 and Q38

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Groups

Activity

^＊

groups Error (Groups) Error (Activity)

SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

7.144 2.348 1.295 106.396 106.214

2 1 2 260 260

3.572 2.348

.648 .763 .409

4.681 .010*

5.748 .017*

1.586 .207

*p<.05 **p<.01

As Table 56 shows, the significant difference (p<.05) exited in Question 16, which

asked about whether the activities, dialogue practices, and role-play went smoothly in

grouped class.

(26)

Table 56 Summary of analysis of variance of simple main effects on Q16 and Q38 Sources of variance SS DF MS F p

Groups (SS

_a

) In Q16 In Q38

5.000 3.439

2 2

2.500 1.720

4.116 3.048

.017*

.050

*p<.05 **p<.01

Table 57 shows that the significant difference lay between Group B and Transfer (p<.05) in Question 16. That is, in grouped class, students of Transfer more strongly agreed than Group B that activities, dialogue practices, and role-play went smoothly in class.

Table 57 Multiple comparisons of means on Q16

Scheffe (I) (J) MD (I-J) Std. Error P Group A Group B

Transfer

.10 -.23

.12 .14

.695 .263 Q16

Group B Transfer -.33 .11 .017*

*p<.05 **p<.01

Note: Q16: The activities, dialogue practices, and role-play went smoothly in g

rouped class.

As Table 58 shows, the significant difference existed in Group A (p<.05). That is, students of Group A significantly perceived that in-class activities went more

smoothly in grouped class than in ungrouped class.

Table 58 Summary of analysis of variance of simple main effects on Q16 and Q38 Sources of variance SS DF MS F p

Activities (SS

_b

) In Group A In Group B In Transfer

1.907 1.493E-02 .864

1 1 1

2.500 1.493E-02 .864

4.895 .032 2.890

.031*

.859 .094

*p<.05 **p<.01

Students’ Pressure of Performance

Questions 17 and 39 were aimed to investigate whether students felt a lot of

(27)

pressure when they spoke or performed in front of the grouped and ungrouped classes.

As Table 59 shows, students tended to feel more pressure when they spoke or performed in grouped class than in ungrouped class.

Table 59 Descriptive statistics on Q17 and Q39

Q17 Q39

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

2.63 2.65 2.63 2.64

.83 .92 .82 .87

2.29 2.54 2.50 2.47

.77 .86 .85 .84

Note: Q17: I felt a lot of pressure when I spoke or performed in grouped class.

Q39: I felt a lot of pressure when I spoke or performed in ungrouped class.

The data in Table 60 shows that there were no significant interaction effects between students’ groups and their responses to Questions 17 and 39. However, it was found that there were significant differences within subjects (p<.01). Therefore, repeated measures were further conducted to find where the differences lay.

Table 60 Summary of analysis of variance on Q17 and Q39

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Groups

Performance

^＊

groups Error (Groups) Error (Performance)

SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

1.524 4.339 1.127 286.377 95.192

2 1 2 260 260

.762 4.339

.564 1.101 .366

.692 .502 11.851 .001**

1.540 .216

*p<.05 **p<.01

As Table 61 shows, students of Group A agreed that they were under

significantly much more pressure when they spoke or performed in front of the

grouped class than in ungrouped class (p<.01). Group B and Transfer did not show

significantly different responses to the two different learning situations.

(28)

Table 61 Summary of analysis of variance of simple main effects on Q17 and Q39 Sources of variance SS DF MS F p

Performance (SS

_b

) In Group A In Group B In Transfer

3.390 .840 .579

1 1 1

3.390 .840 .579

10.026 .002**

1.971 .163 2.110 .151

*p<.05 **p<.01

The Occupation of Speaking or Practice Chances

Questions 18 and 40 were aimed to investigate whether the speaking or practice chances would be occupied by a small group of certain students in grouped and ungrouped classes. Table 62 shows descriptive statistics on the two questions. To see whether interaction effects existed between students’ groups and their responses to Questions 18 and 40, ANOVA repeated measures were further conducted.

Table 62 Descriptive statistics on Q18 and Q40

Q18 Q40

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

2.25 2.36 2.59 2.40

.68 .74 .79 .75

2.42 2.32 2.49 2.39

.70 .74 .81 .75

Note: Q18: The speaking or practice chances were occupied by a small group of students in

grouped class.

Q40: The speaking or practice chances were occupied by a small group of students in ungrouped class.

It was found that there were no significant main effects or interaction effects

between students’ groups and their responses to Questions 18 and 40, as shown in

Table 63.

(29)

Table 63 Summary of analysis of variance on Q18 and Q40

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Groups

Chance

^＊

groups Error (Groups) Error (Chance)

SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

3.960 1.338E-02 1.283 197.363 92.709

2 1 2 260 260

1.980 1.338E-02

.642 .759 .357

2.609 .076 .038 .847 1.799 .167

*p<.05 **p<.01

Note: Q18: The speaking or practice chances were occupied by a small group of students in grouped class.

Q40: The speaking or practice chances were occupied by a small group of students in ungrouped class.

Students’ Willingness to Help Peers with English Learning

Questions 19 and 41 were aimed to investigate whether students were willing to help each other with English learning when they were in grouped and ungrouped classes. As Table 64 shows, students tended to agree that their ungrouped peers were more willing to help each other with English learning than their grouped peers.

Table 64 Descriptive statistics on Q19 and Q41

Q19 Q41

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

2.80 2.66 2.63 2.68

.74 .77 .73 .75

2.83 2.91 2.93 2.90

.72 .72 .77 .73

Note: Q19: The peers in grouped class were willing to help each other with English learning.

Q41: The peers in ungrouped class were willing to help each other with English learning.

Though the mean scores of Question 41 were higher than those of Question 19, there were no significant interaction effects between students’ groups and their

responses to the two questions, as shown in Table 65. However, there were significant

differences existing within subjects (p<.01). Therefore, repeated measures were

conducted to see where the differences lay.

(30)

Table 65 Summary of analysis of variance on Q19 and Q41

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Groups

Help

^＊

groups Error (Groups) Error (Help)

SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

8.531E-02 4.349 1.285 143.911 141.753

2 1 2 260 260

4.266E-02 4.349

.643 .554 .545

.077 .926 7.977 .005**

1.170 .309

*p<.05 **p<.01

It was found that students of Group B and Transfer showed significantly different responses to Questions 19 and 41 (p<.05), as shown in Table 66. Students of Group B and Transfer tended to agree that their peers in ungrouped class were more willing to help each other than their group members in grouped class. Students of Group A did not show significant different responses to the two different learning situations.

Table 66 Summary of analysis of variance of simple main effects on Q19 and Q41 Sources of variance SS DF MS F p

Help (SS

_b

) In Group A In Group B In Transfer

3.390E-02 4.063 3.150

1 1 1

3.390E-02 4.063 3.150

.082 .776 6.556 .012*

6.149 .016*

*p<.05 **p<.01

The Lack of Role Models of English Learning

Questions 20 and 42 were aimed to investigate whether students could find role

models of English learning in grouped and ungrouped classes. Table 67 shows

descriptive statistics on the two questions. To see whether interaction effects existed

between students’ groups and their responses to Questions 20 and 42, ANOVA

repeated measures were further conducted.

(31)

Table 67 Descriptive statistics on Q20 and Q42

Q20 Q42

Mean SD Mean SD

Group A (N=59) Group B (N=134) Transfer (N=70) Total (N=263)

1.85 2.15 2.07 2.06

.61 .69 .55 .65

1.92 1.88 2.07 1.94

.70 .76 .71 .73

Note: Q20: I could not find role models of English learning in grouped class.

Q42: I could not find role models of English learning in ungrouped class.

Table 68 indicates that there were interaction effects existing between students’

groups and their responses to Questions 20 and 42 (p<.05). As Figure 4 shows, the disordinal interaction effects existed between Group A and B and between Group B and Transfer on the two learning situations. Group A agreed less that they could not find role models in grouped class than in ungrouped class, whereas Group B agreed less that they could not find role models in ungrouped class than in grouped class.

However, Transfer expressed the same level of agreement on the issue.

Table 68 Summary of analysis of variance on Q20 and Q42

Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Groups

Role model

^＊

groups Error (Groups) Error (Role model)

SS

_a

SS

_b

SS

_ab

SS

_s/a

SS

_bs/a

2.435 .521 3.025 148.565 96.029

2 1 2 260 260

1.218 .521 1.512 .571 .369

2.131 .121 1.411 .236 4.095 .018*

*p<.05 **p<.01

Estimated Marginal Means of MEASURE_1

1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2

Grouped Ungrouped The Lack of Role Models

Figure 4 The interaction effects between groups and the lack of role models in

grouped/ungrouped classes

(32)

One-way ANOVA and repeated measures were conducted further to test simple main effects. Table 69 indicates that the simple main effects existed in Group B.

Students of Group B showed significantly different responses to Questions 20 and 42 (p<.01). That is, students of Group B tended to agree that it was more difficult to find role models of English learning in grouped class than in ungrouped class. However, Group A and Transfer did not show significantly different responses to the two different learning situations.

Table 69 Summary of analysis of variance of simple main effects on Q20 and Q42 Sources of variance SS DF MS F p Groups (SS

_a

)

In Q20 In Q42

Role model (SS

_b

) In Group A In Group B In Transfer

3.742 1.718 .136 4.836 .000

2 2 1 1 1

1.871 .859 .136 4.836 .000

4.620 .011*

1.603 .203 .377 .542 11.659 .001**

.000 1.000

*p<.05 **p<.01

In addition, the simple main effects were also found in Question 20 (p<.05), as shown in Table 69. Students of Group B showed stronger agreement that it was not easy to find role models of English learning in grouped class than students of Group A (p<.05), as shown in Table 70.

Table 70 Multiple comparisons of means on Q20

Scheffe (I) (J) MD (I-J) Std. Error p Group A Group B

Transfer

-.30 -.22

9.94E-02 .11

.011*

.509 Q20

Group B Transfer 7.78E-02 9.83E-02 .709

*p<.05 **p<.01

Note: Q20: I could not find role models of English learning in grouped class.