Unit 5 Reporting Results Objectives:-Understand the function and the major elements of the results section;-Learn the major steps to deal with the results section;-Use the tips for describing graphic information;-Grasp the tips for making comparison and contrast;-Learn the skills for choosing appropriate graphs and making graphs.Contents:- Teachers introduction;- Reading and discussion: Types of Language for Thinking and Lexical Collocational Errors;- Language focus: graphic description; comparison and contrast;-Writing practice: using graphs and describing graphs (tables and charts);- Rewriting practice: grasping the major moves for outlining the results section;- Classroom extension: descriptions of data and graphs when reporting results. 1. Reading Activity 1.1 Pre-reading Task Do you know how to report the results of your research? The standard approach to the results section of a research paper is to present the results with the statistical techniques such as tables and charts. This does not mean that you do not need any text to describe data presented in graphs. Think about the following questions before reading the text and then have a discussion with your classmates.1. What is the function of the results section? 2. What are the major elements included in the results section? 3. What are the major steps for you to deal with the results section? 4. How do you describe graphic information in the results section?5. How do you compare and contrast the data presented in graphs?The following is part of the results section of a research paper which investigated how EFL learners types of language for thinking influence their lexical collocational errors in speech. 1.2 Reading PassageResultsTypes of Language for Thinking and Lexical Collocational Errors1One key issue in this study was whether a learners type of language for thinking influences lexical collocational production. 2 This issue was explored by examining one retrospective report on the questionnaire, When tape recording, what language did you mainly use for inner speech? 3Based on their responses, the 42 participants were classified into four language groups: Chinese, English, Chinese mingled with English, and other languages. 4The participants inaccuracy rates were compared, which were obtained by dividing the number of errors by the overall number of lexical collocations they produced individually, among the language groups.The preliminary analysis discovered that the 42 participants produced a total of 2,491 lexical collocations, and each participant created approximately 29 lexical collocations per minute. Regarding learner errors, 263 incorrect collocations were found among the 2,491 lexical collocations, resulting in an inaccuracy rate of 10.56. To report the effect of language for thinking on the production of lexical collocations in speech, Table 1 records the fact that 5 students stated that their type of language for thinking was for the most part Chinese. As Table 1 shows, 17 mainly used English for thinking, 20 primarily thought in Chinese mingled with English, and none thought in other languages. The inaccuracy rate of oral lexical collocations in each language group was calculated by dividing the total number of lexical collocational errors by the total number of lexical collocations produced. Descriptive statistics demonstrated that those who mainly thought in their native language (Mandarin Chinese) produced the highest inaccuracy rate of lexical collocations (M=15.17), followed by those who primarily thought in English (M=12.40) and those using a combination (M=8.44). Results of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) further displayed that the difference among these three groups reached a significant level, F(2,39)=4.07, pCE*English (EN)1712.406.72ENCE*Chinese mingled with English (CE)208.444.32Others0Note: Mean shows the average inaccuracy rate of collocations in each group.*P.05