Chapter II　Realistic Basis

2.1　Data Collection and Analysis

2.1.1　Data Collection of Questionnaire

The questionnaire was collected together with the help of the author’s classmate，who is now a counselor in this school and is also in management of the participants’colleges.She also assisted the author to contact with the participants’English teacher，who gave the author a hand during the experiment.Aswe know，all the subjects have their personal things except for attending classes and exams，it is difficult to get theMtogether，so both the questionnaire and the two tests were carried out at night.112 copies were handed out to the participants froMtwo respective classes in Shandong Economic School on September 5th，2010.Since two subjects froMEconomic Management College were not present，only 110 copieswere available for further study.

All the participants froMtwo groups were asked to finish the questionnaire according to their real situation，and they were informed in advance that this was just an investigation and there was no true or false in their answers，so they need not concern about the outcome of their answers.The whole process which lasted 15 minutes was under thewitness of the author and the author’s classmate.Next table shows the numerical description coming froMpart one of the questionnaire which can give us a clear understanding of some background information of the participants.

2.1.1.1　Results froMPart One of the Questionnaire

FroMthe abovetable，we can have a general learning about the basic information about the subjects.To be specific，the distributions of male and female of the two groups are almost the same，and the average ages of the two groups are both around twenty，which at the same time laid the foundation for the similar studying years of the subject，for the average English studying years of the two groups is the same，that is 7.5 years.

What’s more，in order to make an investigation into the general conditions of the participants，the author also presented the rough percentages concerned about their attitudes towards English listening and English news listening in the following column.

As can be seen froMthe data in thecolumn，the participants who dislike English listening and English news listening froMexperimental group counts19.2％and 38.5％respectively，while the percentages of the ones froMthe controlled group are 17.2％and 36.7％;then the subjects who generally like English listening and English news listening froMexperimental group respectively take up 52.4％and 42.6％，whereas the ones froMcontrolled group cover 51.8％and 43.3％;as to the percentages of the participants who like English listening and English news listening in experimental group，they are 20.5％and 14.9％，meanwhile，they are 21.3％and 16.2％in the controlled group;the last portion comes froMthe ones who like English listening and English news listening very much The percentages of the experimental group are 7.9％and 4％respectively，and they are 9.7％and 3.8％in the controlled group.So，according to these data，two conclusions can be drawn:Firstly，more than half participants froMboth the two groups showed dislike and general like attitudes towards listening and news listening，and there is no or only a slight difference in the two groups’attitudes towards English listening and English news listening;the second conclusion is that the number of the subjects froMboth groups who dislike English news listening is obviously larger than that of those who like English listening，which can be seen froMthe percentages presented in the column，thus we can deduce that the participants froMboth of the two groups showed more repugnant attitudes towards news listening.However，the two groups show little difference in their attitudes towards English news listening

2.1.1.2　Results froMPart Two of the Questionnaire

After a general introduction of a rough status of news listening among the subjects，this thesis will mainly get down to investigating subjects’awareness of discourse markers in the process of news listening comprehension.But what is the awareness of discourse markers？It，in this thesis，refers to students’understanding and realization of discourse markers，including their meanings，functions and especially their applications in listening.Due to the fact that the students have not received some training of discourse markers，they are not familiar with the use of discourse markers.Now，the following table will present a clear description.

FroMthe above chart，we can clearly see the percentage of each iteMinvestigated.Now this thesis will illustrate the items one by one to manifest the status of current students’awareness of discourse markers during news listening comprehension based on the percentage presented.

IteM1:Iwant to hear every word and sentence clearly when listening.This iteMis used to investigate whether the common way of listening still exists among the students.However，according to the data we can clearly see that clearly hearing every word and sentence is still themain purpose in the process of news listening in both of the two groups，for the percentage of such phenomenon has reached 84.6％and 81.5％respectively，which is very high.

IteM2:Iwant to catch the key information in the process of listening.Such iteMis designed to find out the ratio of the subjects who tend to realize the importance of the key information during news listening，and the result shows that67.1％and 67.8％of the subjects respectively froMthe two groups have noticed the key information in the process of their news listening.However，as to the subjects who usually and always incline to catch the key information take up only 27.9％and 28.8％respectively，thus we can see that most students have not realized the importance of catching information in news listening comprehension.

IteM3:Ialwayshear some conceptionsabout discourse markers inmy study.This iteMis to investigate the subjects who have a hearing of the discourse markers，the data shows that the number of the subjects of the two groups who have ever heard of the discourse markers respectively takes up 83.4％and 84.5％，however，the percentages of the subjects who usually and always hear of these are just44.5％and 46.1％respectively.FroMthis we can see that the students who have general knowledge about discourse markers take a larger portion while the ones who are familiar with theMtake up less than a half of the whole.

IteM4:I aMfamiliar with the functions of discourse markers.IteM4 is carried out to investigate the subjects’general understanding of their functions.In fact，the statistics has shown that the subjects who have general understanding of their functions respectively take up 44.5％and 44.3％of the two groups.Besides，the percentages of the subjects who usually and always know the functions of the discourse markers are 18.6％and 18.4％.Thus，it is obvious to see that the students who have general understanding of the discourse markers’functions are less than a half of the whole，and the ones who are familiar with theMtake up a much smaller portion.

IteM5:The difficulty in the process of listening is I can’t find the discourse markers.This iteMis used for getting a knowledge of the difficulty students encountered in the process of news listening.The result presents that as to the percentages of the students who can not find the discourse markers in the process of their news listening，they are 72.3％and 73.1％respectively，these data have shown that more than a half students can not find the discourse markers during their news listening comprehension.

IteM6:Iusually focus on some discourse markers occasionally interpreted by teacher in class.This iteMis employed to have a general investigation into the students who have noticed discourse markers sometimes interpreted by teachers in class，froMthe above data we can see that only 26％and 25.1％of the students froMthe two groups can usually and always aware of something related to discourse markers.So，we can conclude that in class most students’awareness of discourse markers has not been aroused.

IteM7:I can notice some discourse markers whether in reading or writing.This iteMis adopted to find out the subjects’awareness of the discourse markers in their daily studies.The result shows that there are 29.6％and 28.8％of the subjects froMthe two groups can usually or always take notice of the discourse markers whether in their reading or in their writing.Thus we can see most students have not realized the appearance and the function of discourse markers in their daily studies.

IteM8:I pay great attention to discourse markers inmy study.This iteMis to find out whether there are students have noticed the importance of discourse markers in their studies.However，concerning the data given，there are still fewer students who can pay great attention to the discourse markers，for the percentage of the students who usually and always pay great attention to the discourse markers are just 20.3％and 21.3％respectively of the two groups. Accordingly，we can suMup that the recognition of discourse markers exists in fewer students’consciousness.

IteM9:I take note of the discourse markers in the process of news listening.This iteMis designed to find out the state of the students who can always take note of the discourse markers during their news listening，and the number 25.9％and 23.3％of the two groups have clearly clarified that only a small portion of the students can take note of the discourse markers during their news listening comprehension.

IteM10:Ideduce themain idea of discourse with the help of some discourse markers in the process of news listening.This iteMis carried out to investigate whether they can comprehend the news with the help of the discourse markers，however，the results show that there are just16.6％and 17.3％of the subjects of the two groups can apply the discourse markers to the news listening comprehension.

FroMthe data above，we can obviously see that，comparing the percentages of the two groups，there is no significant difference between them，which presents that the general state of the two groups is almost the same.Besides，most of the subjects are in the state of wandering during the process of news listening comprehension and they are lack of a way effectively guiding theMto better understand the discourse，and the strategy of listening word for word，and sentence for sentence is still adopted by most of them.However，the research subjects’awareness discourse markers’of was relatively weak.Most students displayed weak awareness of discourse markers in general.

The analysis above clearly clarified that most students showed disgusting attitudes towards listening，particularly news listening.Moreover，based on the research results froMthe second part of the questionnaire the author also observed that only a small part of the subjects can pay attention to discourse markers in their daily studies，such as reading，writing and speaking，and the subjects who can focus on theMin the news listening process are still less.

2.1.2　Data Collection of Test on Discourse Markers

In this mini test，ten multiple choices are all concerned with the use of discourse markers and the subjects are expected to choose the appropriate word to complete the sentence meaning.All the sentences needed to be dealt with involving discourse markers.Through this part，the author can have a deep investigation into the students’current understanding and awareness of discourse markers，which can do the author a favor in interpreting the result of the experiment.

2.1.2.1　Results froMTest on Discourse Markers

This section consists of tenitems consisting of ten sentences selected froMnews discourse，which will be carried out to generally investigate subjects’mastery of discourse markers’meanings and functions.Next chart is about the percentage of the subjects who can give correct answers to the ten items.

FroMtable 4.4，the general overview of performance that subjects of the two groups did in the third part of the questionnaire，that is，discourse markers’comprehension can be seen clearly.What can be found froMthe table above is that more than 60％of the subjects froMthe two groups can give correct answers in items 3，4，5，6，7 and 8.But for items1 and 2，only 55.6％and 54.3％，53.6％and 53.9％of the subjects of the two groups give the correct answer respectively.What can be shown froMthese figures is thatalmost more than half of the subjects can choose the correct answers for items 3，4，5，6，7 and 8.And we can also easily find that the percentages in items 3，4，5，6，7 and 8 are higher than other ones.In fact，in these items the discourse markers involved to be tested are common ones，such as for example，if，but，after， because and so，which concerning with the common discourse markers that appear of high frequency.Accordingly，we can draw a conclusion that most of the subjects are familiar with the common discourse markers and they can have a better understanding of their meanings and functions in sentences.However，as to the discourse markers which appear of low frequency are difficult for students to figure out，just as the two discourse markers including and that is in items 1 and 2.Concerning these two items，less than a half subjects can give the right answers，for such kind of discourse markers are not adopted frequently in discourse.Besides，another phenomenon needed to be paid attention to is that the percentage of iteM9 and iteM10 is only 40.1％％and 39.8％，36.4％ and 35.9％respectively of the two groups give the correct answers.These two items are carried out in such a way that the subjects are required to choose one of the choice has the closest meaning with the word underlined in the above sentence，however，the result of these two items are not so satisfied，for there are still less subjects can give the rightanswers.In the two items，two discourse markers as well and meanwhile are underlined which are respectively required to be given another word has the similar meaning.Maybe some of the students understand the meaning of the words，but when it comes to their practical use and functions in sentences or discourse，they feel a little blurred.Considering these two items，subjects are supposed to be skilled not only at understanding the meanings of discourse markers but also interpreting theMin another way，which can give the Ma hand to properly comprehend the news discourse and the sentences in it.

FroMthe statistics of this part，we can obviously see the overall state among the subjects is that most of the Mare not so skilled at discourse markers involving their meanings and functions，in particular，when it comes to their practical functions and application in news listening discourse，the ratio of the subjects who can give correct answers is even lower.So when they meet with these items，they can not answer theMcorrectly and easily.Hence，the result of this part further manifested that students’general level of awareness of discourse markers is relatively low.The reason for such phenomenon may include various factors involving both the factors of the teachers，as well as the students themselves.

2.1.2.2　Discussions of the Results froMTest on Discourse Markers

As the result froMtest on discourse markers presented above，it is safe to say only a small part of the subjects can master the meaning and the use ofdiscourse markers.Thus，according to the above analysis，we can get the answer to the first research question:the general level of students’awareness of discourse markers is low.Meanwhile，the author had also noticed that the subjects got higher scores in the test can also pay more attention to the use of discourse markers seen froMthe questionnaire.However，in order to confirMthe impact of discourse markers on news listening comprehension，it needs further research which will be conducted in the following two tests.So in order to see whether the improvement of learners’awareness of discourse markers can affect their news listening comprehension，some important features，functions and other basic knowledge of discourse markers should be trained comprehensively.

2.1.3　Data Collection of the Two Tests

Questionnaire assists the author in getting a basic idea of the present situation of students’consciousness of discourse markers’application in news listening.In order to do a more detailed study in this aspect，the author also carried out two tests for both groups to analyze the differences and changes between the experimental group and the controlled group so that the interrelationship between discourse markers and news listening can be further clarified.The first test was carried out on September，11，2010.Three months later，both the two groups received a second test(posttest).Both the two tests were conducted under the same condition.

2.1.3.1　Pretest

The first test was conducted in order to evaluate the students’performance before training.The pretest was selected froMVOA special English and the participants finished the paper without knowing the purpose.When the test was finished，all the papers were collected for further analysis.Besides，concerning other various factors influencing the listening results，here the author took the participants’background information into consideration.Therefore，after the test the author gave every subject a note on which there is such a question as“are you familiar with the topic of any report you had just heard”，then the participants were required to write down their real condition on the notes，which were also collected after their test.If there is anyone of the subjects had heard about anyone of the listening materials tested，then his score will not be analyzed as the valid data.

2.1.3.2　Posttest

After three months of discourse markers’training，the participants were given a second test.In this test，the type and distribution of all the examination questions are identical with the first one.And all the requirements for the participants are also the same as the first one.However，due to the personal things of the subjects，there are three subjects froMEconomic Management college and three froMaccounting college absent froMthis test，so the valid test papers is 104.What’s more，just as the requirement in pretest，each of the participants is also given a note to write down if they are familiar with the topic or not.

At this stage，qualitative and quantitative method will be employed in analyzing the results froMthe research.Firstly，the results froMquestionnaire and test on discourse makers will be generally analyzed by the method of percentage description，according to which a rough understanding of subjects’background information，news listening status and their awareness of discourse markers in the process of news listening will be presented.Next，SPSS 16.0 is used to analyze the data collected froMthe two tests.The data froMboth the pretest and the posttest was carried through descriptive statistics，Independent Samples t－test and Paired Samples t－test.Descriptive statistics involves the number of the participants，the minimuMand maximuMscores，means，and standard deviations.Paired Samples t－test was employed to find out whether there is difference between the experimental group and the controlled group and whether there is any significant change in the subjects‘performances after three months’training，as well as the difference between the high－proficiency students and the low－proficiency students.