您可以在百度里搜索“元认知策略研究：二语听力理解与附带词汇习得（英文版） 艾草文学(www.321553.xyz)”查找最新章节！

　　3.8.2 The Experimental Study

　　The experimental study aimed to investigate the effects of the three different listening conditions on learners' listening comprehension and incidental vocabulary acquisition. This section will first report the effects of listening conditions on the participants' listening comprehension and then the effects of listening conditions on the participants'incidental vocabulary acquisition.

　　3.8.2.1 Effects of the Three Different Conditions on Listening Comprehension

　　Table 20 ANOVA of the Participants' Listening Comprehension Scores of Task One under Three Listening Conditions

　　Table 21 ANOVA of the Participants' Listening Comprehension Scores of Task Two under Three Listening Conditions

　　The above ANOVA tables list whether the difference between groups is significantly higher than the deviations within each condition group. The significance value .000 in both tables indicates that listening comprehension scores varied significantly with the various listening conditions. It can thus be inferred that in both tasks listening conditions affected the students' listening comprehension. Differences between groups in terms of listening comprehension were further revealed by using Scheffe multiple comparisons.

　　Table 22 Multiple Comparisons of the Participants' Listening Comprehension Scores of Task One under Three Conditions

　　* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

　　Table 23 Multiple Comparisons of the Participants' Listening Comprehension Scores of Task Two under Three Conditions

　　* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

　　Figure 2 and Figure 3 report Post hoc multiple comparison of the average listening comprehension scores of Task One and Task Two respectively under every two conditions which can determine which means differ.

　　Figure 2 Test Mean Plots of Listening Comprehension Scores of Task One under Three Listening Conditions

　　Figure 3 Test Mean Plots of Listening Comprehension Scores of Task Two under Three Listening Conditions

　　As the tables and figures show, the differences between groups in terms of listening comprehension were considerable, with dramatic significance between Group A and the other two groups. This indicates that when varying treatment times had been controlled for, the condition of listening only once is more efficient than listening three times in terms of listening comprehension.

　　3.8.2.2 Effects of Three Different Conditions on Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition

　　(a) ANOVA of Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition under Three Listening Conditions

　　Table 24 ANOVA of the Participants'Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition under Three Listening Conditions of Task One

　　Table 25 ANOVA of the Participants'Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition under Three Listening Conditions of Task Two

　　The two tables above give ANOVA of the vocabulary acquisition test scores under the three listening conditions of each task. Apart from the production test scores in Task Two, values of each vocabulary acquisition test scores reach the significance level. Because scores from the form and reception vocabulary acquisition tests varied significantly with different listening conditions, a conclusion then may be safely drawn that listening conditions had an effect on incidental vocabulary acquisition, especially in terms of form and reception. By using Scheffe multiple comparisons, differences between groups in terms of form, reception and production were studied.

　　(b) Multiple Comparisons of Vocabulary Form Tests under Three Listening Conditions

　　Table 26 Multiple Comparisons of the Participants'Form Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Task One

　　* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

　　Table 27 Multiple Comparisons of the Participants'Form Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Task Two

　　* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

　　Figure 4 Test Mean Plots of Form Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Listening Task One

　　Figure 5 Test Mean Plots of Form Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Listening Task Two

　　Figure 4 and Figure 5 report Post hoc multiple comparison of the average from the form test scores of Task One and Task Two respectively under every two conditions which can determine which means differ.

　　In the above tables and figures, mean differences between Groups A and B, and Groups C and A were statistically significant, which shows that the students who listened only once had, in terms of vocabulary tests on form, outscored those who listened to the same texts three times. Mean differences between Groups B and C did not reach a significant level, which reveals that there was little difference in form acquisition between the students who listened three times and those who engaged in a topic-familiarization activity before listening three times.

　　(c) Multiple Comparisons of Vocabulary Reception Tests under Three Listening Conditions

　　Table 28 Multiple Comparisons of the Participants'Reception Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Task One

　　* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

　　Table 29 Multiple Comparisons of the Participants'Reception Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Task Two

　　* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

　　Figure 6 Test Mean Plots of Reception Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Listening Task One

　　Figure 7 Test Mean Plots of Reception Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Listening Task Two

　　Figures 6 and 7 report Post hoc multiple comparison of the average from the reception test scores of Task One and Task Two respectively under every two conditions which can determine which means differ.

　　In the above tables, mean differences between Groups A and B, and Groups C and A were statistically significant, which shows that, in terms of vocabulary tests in reception, the students who listened only once had far outscored those who listened to the same texts three times. Mean differences between Groups B and C seemed less marked, which indicates not much difference in reception acquisition between those listening three times and those with a topic-familiarization activity before listening three times.

　　(d) Multiple Comparisons of Vocabulary Production Tests under Three Listening Conditions

　　Table 30 Multiple Comparisons of the Participants' Production Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Task One

　　Table 31 Multiple Comparisons of the Participants' Production Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Task Two

　　Figure 8 Test Mean Plots of Production Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Listening Task One

　　Figure 9 Test Mean Plots of Production Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Listening Task Two

　　Tables 30 and 31 show that mean differences between groups did not reach a significant level except between Group C and A in listening Task One. Figures 8 and 9 report Post hoc multiple comparison of the average of the production test scores of Task One and Task Two respectively under every two conditions which can determine which means differ.

　　Just like the general findings from the form and reception tests, in Task Two the results showed that the students who listened only once outscored those students who listened to the same texts three times in reception vocabulary tests. Nevertheless, the findings of Task One were exactly the opposite, with reception performance strongly in favor of Group C, and the mean difference between Group C and Group A was statistically significant. This effect can also be clearly seen from the two figures.

　　It is interesting to see the contrasting production test results between Task One and Task Two. Why did not the multiple comparison scores of the production test maintain consistency in the two listening tasks just as those of the form and reception tests? Or, to be more specific, why in Task One were the multiple comparison scores of production in favor of Group C, when in Task Two, the favor shifted to Group A? Does it mean that in Task Two Group C performed worse, or Group A performed better? One reason for this may lie in the different orientation of the students in Group A, whose experience from Task One helped them to realize that they would be tested on vocabulary again after finishing Listening Task Two. Thus, chances were that during the second listening task the students would tend to purposefully prepare for the vocabulary tests that would follow. Therefore, students may have paid special attention to vocabulary while listening. The descriptive statistics have shown that students scored better in almost all the vocabulary tests with Listening Task Two than Task One, which might be a result of the purposeful focus on vocabulary that students had in Task Two. What should be specially noted here is that though the scores of all the participants might be improved in Task Two, due to the fact of listening time consumed, this effect applied most significantly to Group A. This may account for the discrepancy between production test results in Task One and Task Two. And if now it can be believed that Figure 3-7 reflects the true picture of production under different listening conditions, we may draw the conclusion that listening three times with a pre-listening activity aided vocabulary acquisition in production.

　　3.8.2.3 Summary of the Experimental Study Results

　　The main finding of the effects of the three listening conditions on the participants' listening comprehension and incidental vocabulary acquisition can be summarized as follows:

　　(a) Listening conditions had an effect on students' listening comprehension. Dramatic significance was found in between Group A and the other two groups, with results in favor of Group A. This indicates that, considering repetition of listening, the condition of listening only once had absolute advantage over listening three times.

　　(b) Listening conditions had an effect on incidental vocabulary acquisition. Significance was found between Group A and the other two groups, with results in favor of Group A, especially in terms of form and reception.

　　(c) In terms of production vocabulary acquisition, significance was found in favor of Group C in Listening Task One, but no between-group significance was found in Listening Task Two. 元认知策略研究：二语听力理解与附带词汇习得（英文版）