论文

这份论文methods思维导图模板，是学术研究考生、正在撰写论文的学子以及备考相关学术课程人士的实用指南。在学术领域，论文写作是衡量研究能力与学术水平的关键环节，而方法部分（methods）更是论文的核心支柱，它详细阐述了研究是如何开展的，对于确保研究的科学性、可重复性和可信度至关重要。然而，许多考生和学子在撰写论文方法部分时往往感到无从下手，思路混乱，此时这份模板便能发挥巨大的作用。该模板围绕论文方法部分，全面且细致地涵盖了参与者（participants）、材料（materials）、程序（procedures）和分析（analysis）等多个关键方面。在参与者部分，明确了样本的数量、年龄、语言背景、英语水平等详细信息；材料部分则介绍了故事讲述、经验分享等任务内容以及不同熟悉度下的任务差异；程序方面，详细说明了测试流程、渐进重复和刺激回忆访谈等环节；分析部分更是区分了定量数据和定性数据，并列举了如行为参与度、认知参与度、情感参与度等具体指标以及相应的分析方法。对于考生和备考学术课程的人士来说，这份模板就像是一位无声的导师。

论文

• methods
  • participants
    • sixty undergraduate students from Chinese university （35 male and 25 female） 18～19 years old
    • L1 is Chinese； had been learning English over six years; be abroad for less than 3 months ； English proficiency levels:low-intermediate to intermediate
    • C- test （5 short passages with 102 deletions）； average accuracy：56.34%； standard deviation：15.20
  • materials
    • tell a story based on six picture frames(two tasks
      • familiar:prepare a gift for Chinese wedding
      • Unfamiliar: prepare a gift for western wedding
    • share personal experiences in an open context (two tasks
      • familiar：find lost things
      • unfamiliar：find a job
    • M/SD
      • Higher M indicates a higher overall level and greater familiarity
      • Higher SD means greater dispersion and wider differences
  • procedures
    • polit study
      • 10 participants suggested they Ned three minutes to plan each task
    • test
      • three groups ；n=20
      • first author served as the interlocutor and give responsive words like hmm，okay
      • oral performances were audio- recorded or videoraped
    • gradual repetition
      • after 3 days
      • after one week
    • stimulated recall interview
      • 21 participants attended
      • first author played the videos and paid attention to participants‘ long pauces，repairs，reformulations and other unnatural expressions
      • ask participants questions about their inner thoughts about speech production and affective responses
  • analysis
    • quantitative data（four indicators）
      • behavioral engagement
        • the total number of pruned words or word count
        • time on task
      • cognitive engagement
        • self- repairs per 100 words
        • the number of elaborative clauses
      • non-parametic tests（ the homogenerity of data was not supported
      • Bonferrioni correction（to aviod error
    • qualitative data（no pre- defined theme ） in stimulated recalls
      • emotional engagement
        • 21（12 participants shared affective responses ，9 shared responses that were irrelevant to emotional engagement or forgot）
        • task- facilitating emotions（enthusiasm，interest，enjoyment
        • task- withdrawing emotions（anxiety，frustration，boredom