Concerning the evolution within Group B, the hypothesis is also confirmed, as can be seen in
Table 5, which presents the detailed mean scores before and after the suprasegmental
training and the evolutions in percentage, whether it is an increase (+) or a decrease (-):
Table 5: Pre-training to post-training evolution of Group B
Surprisingly enough, the mean scores of Judge 1 alone invalidate our hypothesis. They
show that Group B has a lower mean score after the training, however little the difference
may be, i.e. -1.5%. This may be due to the fact that the scores of one subject of Group B
(Subject 7) significantly decreased from the pre-training session to the post-training session,
and according to all three judges. While this surprising decrease has lowered the overall
mean score of the group, it may be explained by many extra-linguistic factors, such as the
excitement, tiredness, or real comprehension difficulty of the participant. All this is discussed
later, in the subsection devoted to the discussion of the results. The evolutions as presented
by the mean scores of Judge 2 and Judge 3 are in agreement. Following Judge 2’s scores,
Group B’s score has changed from 3.79 to 4.24, with an evolution rate of +11.9%. Judge 3’s
scores present a slightly weaker evolution of +13.8%, i.e. from 2.96 to 3.37.
Despite the decrease in mean score of Judge 1, Group B globally has a higher score after
the training (from 3.37 to 3.67). The evolution of +8% confirms Hypothesis 3 #2, and the
prosodic training has helped the learners improve their read production skills.
Although both groups increased from the pre-training recordings to the post-training
recordings, the rates of evolution of the two groups are quite different, which is why a
comparison of the two evolutions is relevant.