Analysis of raw test data

The raw interactive ability, discourse management and global scores indicate that the

performance of all three groups was weaker in each area from pre- to post-test in terms of gains made in these areas. The control group in particular posted a much weaker score in terms of interactive ability from pre-test (M = 4.2500) to post-test (M= 3.3542) but both experimental groups also posted weaker scores. The III group‘s score, for example, was M = 3.3333 for discourse management in their post-test and M = 2.9375 in the delayed test. This meant that the ‗gain‘ was in fact a decline of M = -0.3958.The PPP group‘s global score was M = 3.8125 in the pre-test and M = 3.3542 in the post-test, which indicates a decline of M = -0.3958.

This is a somewhat surprising result, as we might presume that teaching would have a positive impact on these scores, particularly in the post-test. It is possible to suggest that this change could be accounted for by a deviation in the markers‘ scores but as we described in chapter four, all scores were standardised and the top, middle and bottom scores blind second-marked. These scores did not indicate large deviations in any markers‘ scores in either pre-, post- or delayed tests. It is hard to account for these weaker scores but perhaps they were a result of the immediate post-tests coming at the end of the experimental input and pre-sessional course. Students may have been tired and produced weaker performances.

All groups made gains from post- to delayed test and from pre- to delayed tests but the gains were larger from post- to delayed test, shown most clearly in the gains made in interactive ability by the PPP group from immediate post- to delayed test (M = 1.2292) and the III group‘s discourse management score from post- to delayed test (M = 1.0147). This suggests that the two experimental groups made gains over time to a greater extent than the control group, indicating that that the teaching of DMs did have a positive impact in these areas in the longer term.

In terms of the raw usage of the target DMs and gains made, both experimental groups increased the number of target DMs used, particularly when we compare their pre- and immediate post-test scores. The control group‗s gain scores did not improve from pre- to post- test and in fact declined (M =.-0.5833) but did improve from post- to delayed test (M = 0.6667) and from pre- to delayed test (M = 0.0833). However, these gains were weaker than those of either of the experimental groups, indicating, as we might expect, that the teaching did have an impact on the learning of the target DMs. In terms of the raw gains made in the amount of DMs used per group, this impact is most notable in the PPP group. Their usage increased the most from the pre- to immediate post-test with a raw gain score of M = 1.8333. They also made a gain from the pre- to delayed test (M = 1.3333). The III group made weaker gains in the amounts of target DMs used, M = 1.000 from pre- to post-test and M = 0.5000 from pre- to delayed test.

What is also of note is that although usage of the target DMs increased for the experimental groups, this was not matched by increased scores for interactive ability, discourse management

and global marks. For example, whilst the PPP group made a gain of M = 1.8333 in their usage of the target DMs from the pre- to post-test, their scores in interactive ability, discourse management and global marks decreased by M = -0.4792, M = -0.7083 and M = -0.4583 respectively. This suggests that there was no correlation between increased DM usage and interactive ability, discourse management and global scores.

The delayed test results also chime with other studies following a similar experimental design (for example, Halenko and Jones 2011) which demonstrate that impact of instruction tends to decline over time. Whilst the experimental groups increased their usage of the target DMs from pre- to post-test, the gains declined when we compare the immediate and delayed post-tests. The III group‘s mean usage declined by M = -0.3333 from post- to delayed test and the PPP group‘s mean usage declined by M = -0.5000.This can be seen clearly in table twenty four, which gives the total number of DMs used per group

Table 24 Number of target discourse markers used: Pre-, post- and delayed tests (main study)

Pre-test Immediate post- test

Delayed post-test

III group 3 15 11

PPP group 19 39 34

Control group 10 3 11

The scores in table twenty four and in tables twenty two and twenty three above show that the experimental teaching did have an impact on both groups. In terms of the raw scores only, the impact was greater on the PPP group. Although the control group also increased their usage over time, the increase was by only one DM from pre- to delayed test, compared to an increase of eight DMs in the III group and fifteen DMs in the PPP group. In addition, the control group‘s usage of DMs decreased in the post-test, indicating that input from the English- speaking environment alone did not produce consistent results in terms of how the target language was acquired.

We can demonstrate the positive impact instruction had with some samples from the tests of the experimental groups. Four samples are given from each post- and delayed test for each experimental group. Interaction patterns are shown as follows to reflect the interaction in each phase of the test : Teacher to students (T-SS) (part 1), student to student (S-S) (part 2) and

teacher to students and student to student (T –SS, S-S) (part 3).The function of teach target DM is indicated in brackets where there were different function taught. Each DM is highlighted in bold. Interviewer prompts (<S 00>) have been included for clarity where needed and students are shown as <S 01>, <S 02> etc. Students‘ responses have not been corrected. Full

transcription conventions are given in appendix nine

III group

Immediate post-test

Part 1 (T-SS)

<S 10>: I think my family is a helpful family, if err, if my family have something, like err, something, we will discuss together and err, they can show themselves ideas or something like that.

Part 2 (S-S)

<S 12>: To be honest, I don‘t agree that shopping online is not safe <S 01>: Why?

<S 12>: Be=you see, sometime, sometimes the product in the internet, I saw it but I can‘t touch it.

<S 06>: But the fee about email, fee about email, who pay?

<S 03>: Pay?

<S 06>: Fee about I send...Like facebox, like EMS.

Part 3 (T-SS, S-S)

<S 01>: If the problem is not serious, we will not complain because, you know, it‘s waste time.

Delayed post-test

Part 1 (T-SS)

<S 12>: It‘s kind of world war three, you know, it‘s like, it‘s a kind of computer game.

Part 2

<S 01>: I think fashion is, you know, you wear some clothes different from others.

< S 02>: So, (OPENING) do you like fashion magazines?

<S 04>: To what extent do you think wearing fashionable clothes makes you a popular person?

<S 10>: Maybe yes, you know, the girls wish ourselves the beautiful one.

PPP group

Immediate post-test

Part 1 (T-SS)

<S 00>: What do you do to keep healthy?

<S 16>: I think it‘s more healthy is much more important so you erm, have, like, green food.

Part 2 (S-S)

<S 19>: Always I think the internet is a safe place to shop (<S 20>: Right (RESPONDING)).

<S 19>: You know, I like shopping very much.

Part 3 (T-SS, S-S)

<S 00>: Who goes shopping the most in your family?

Delayed post-test

Part 1(T-SS)

<S 20>: Err, ‘cos I study out of the Jianshi for many years actually I don‘t know so much

Part 2 (S-S)

<S 07>: I think the world is more attention about the men‘s fashion

<S 20>: Right (RESPONDING).

< S 15>: So, do you think that men are more interested in fashion now?

Part 3 (T- SS, S-S)

<S 00>: Do you dress differently if you go out with your friends or your parents?

<S 22>: Differently? Not that much, just wear, err, like, everyday.

It is also interesting to note that although the teaching did increase output of the target DMs, the output of the target DMs was not consistent across all students, with some students accounting for a higher proportion of usage than others. This indicates that, as we might expect, the experimental teaching had greater impact on some learners than others, a result consistent with theories of second language acquisition which suggest that learners may only acquire items of language when they are ready to do so (Ellis 1990). Another factor, as we noted in chapter four, is that there are a number of variables which no study of this kind could control for, such as the learner‘s motivation and exposure to and use of English outside the classroom, which may also have had an impact on these results.

These raw scores also indicate that some DMs were used more than others. Table twenty five shows how the DMs were used by each group in each test. DMs not produced in the tests were not included in the table. The function of each DM is indicated in brackets.

Table 25 Target discourse markers used by each group (main study)

The function of each DM is indicated in brackets. C = closing a topic or conversation E =giving an example, M = monitoring shared knowledge, O = opening topics or conversations, P= pausing, J = justifying, REF = reformulating, RSP = responding, S = sequencing.

Group Pre-test Immediate post-test Delayed post-test III group You know (M) 2

Like (E) 1 You know (M) 5 Like (E) 6 Right(C) 1 You see (M) 1 So(O) 2 You know (M) 7 Like (E) 1 So (O) 3 PPP group So (O) 5 You know (M) 3 I mean (REF) 2 Well (P) 2 Like (E) 7 So (O) 2 You know (M) 10 You see (M) 1 I mean (REF) 1 Well (P) 8 Like (E) 5 Right (RSP) 11 Then (S) 1 So (O) 8 You know (M) 2 Cos (J) 7 I mean (REF) 1 Like (E) 12 Right (RSP) 4

Control group So (O) 2 You know (M) 5 I mean (REF) 1 First (S) 1 Like (E) 1 So (O) 1 You know (M) 2 So (O) 5 You know (M) 2 I mean (REF) 4