Effects of the top-down writing instruction

In order to capture the effects of the top-down instruction (concept mapping) in the experiment, i.e., quantitative changes in the free compositions written by the experimental group and the control group, the numbers of words produced by the participants of each group in the pre-test and post-test were counted and compared. Table 9.2 summarises the results.

Table 9.2. Changes in the Number of Words

Whole M SD Whole M SD Whole M

Experimental (40) 1321 32.15 22.93 1507 37.68 22.67 186 5.53

Control (40) 1300 33.18 14.84 1836 46 13.83 536 12.8

group n pre post dif

127

Concerning the experimental group, the participants increased the number of words in the post-test by 186 words as a whole group, i.e., 1.14 times the number of words in the pre-test. On an individual basis, the participants increased the number of words in the post-test by 5.53 words on average.

Concerning the control group, the participants increased the number of words in the post-test by 536 words as a whole group, i.e., 1.41 times the number of words in the pre-test. Individually, the participants increased the number of words in the post-test by 12.82 words on average.

In order to verify the effectiveness of this treatment in increasing the number of words statistically, the number of words of the two groups in the pre-test and the post-test was analysed by a two-way ANOVA. The two-way ANOVA uncovered no interaction between the top-down instruction (concept mapping) and Interactive Writing Instruction (concept mapping and keywords-based composition) (F (1, 78) = 1.64, p=0, 20). However, the two-way ANOVA disclosed the main effects of the increase in the number of words within the groups (F (1, 78) =17.55, p=0, 00). A subsequence Bonferroni test indicated that a statistically significant difference exists between the average number of words produced by the participants in the pre-test and the post-test.

The experimental group significantly increased the average number of words by 5.52 words in the post-test (from 32.15 to 37.68, t=2.52, df=39, p=0.01) while the control group significantly increased the average number of words by 12.83 words in the post-test (from 33.18 to 46.00, t=5.86, df=39, p=0.00). Even though the interaction effects were not statistically significant, both the experimental

128

group and the control group increased the number of words significantly although the increase in the number of words was greater for the control group (see Figure 9.2).

Figure 3: Changes of the number of tokens

Figure 9.2. Changes in the Number of Words (Tokens) 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pre post

Experimental Control

Table 9.3 maps out the number of the participants in terms of the degree of increase and decrease in the number of words in the post-test. The figure “9”

in the column of the number of the participants of the experimental group, for example, means that nine participants of the experimental group increased the number of words in the second composition up to five words.

Table 9.3. Distribution of the Increases and Decreases in the Number of Words

group n less than 10 -10 -5 0 5 10 20 more than 30

Experimental (40) 11 1 3 1 9 6 6 3

Control (40) 3 3 3 1 6 8 9 7

Concerning the experimental group, 24 participants increased the number of words, 15 participants decreased the number of words and one participant used the same number of words in the second composition. Concerning the control group, 30 participants increased the number of words, nine participants decreased the number of words and one participant used the same

129

number of words in the second composition (post-test). Table 9.3 indicates that the significant increase in the number of words as a whole group has been realised, not by a small number of able participants, but by a wide range of participants with varying competence in English.

Surprisingly, the number of the participants of the experimental group who decreased the number of words in their compositions is about double the number of the participants of the control group who decreased the number of words in their compositions. The reason why 15 participants in the experimental group decreased the number of words in their composition is probably because they decreased their motivation for writing during the treatment, according to the teacher who conducted this treatment. The reflection in the previous experiments reported in Chapter VIII has hinted that the feedback on their compositions during the treatment might have been one of the variables which had affected the participants’ performance in the post-test. Therefore, the present researcher decided not to give any feedback on the participants’ compositions during this treatment. This may have caused the decrease of the participants’ motivation for writing and led the participants to write less in the post-test.

Next, the numbers of sentences produced by the participants of each group in the pre-test and the post-test were compared. Table 9.4 below summarises the result of the comparison.

130 Table 9.4. Changes in the Number of Sentences

Whole M SD Whole M SD Whole M

Experimenta

l (40) 173 4.53 2.94 204 5.10 2.66 31 0.57

Control (40) 171 4.28 1.60 232 5.80 1.74 61 1.52

group n pre post dif

Both the experimental group and the control group significantly increased the number of sentences in the post-test. Concerning the experimental group, the participants increased the number of sentences in the post-test by 31 sentences as a whole group, i.e., 1.18 times the number of sentences in the pre-test. On an individual basis, the participants increased the number of sentences in the post-test by 0.57 sentences on average. Concerning the control group, the participants increased the number of sentences in the post-test by 61 sentences as a whole group, i.e., 1.36 times the number of sentences in the pre-test.

Individually, the participants increased the number of sentences in the post-test by 1.52 sentences on average.

In order to verify the effectiveness of this treatment in increasing the number of sentences statistically, the number of sentences of the two groups in the pre-test and the post-test were analysed by a two-way ANOVA. The two-way ANOVA uncovered no interaction between the experimental treatment for the control group featuring concept mapping and that for the experimental group featuring concept mapping and keyword-based composition (F (1, 78)

=0.27, p=0.61). However, it disclosed the main effects of the increase in the number of sentences within the groups (F (1, 78) = 14.34, p=0.00). A subsequent Bonferroni test indicated that significant differences exist between the average numbers of sentences produced by the participants in the pre-test

131

and the post-test. To be more specific, the experimental group significantly increased the average number of sentences by 0.57 sentences in the post-test (from 4.53 to 5.10; t=2.07, df=39, p=0.04). Similarly, the control group significantly increased the average number of the sentences by 1.52 sentences in the post-test (from 4.28 to 5.80; t=5.50, df=39, p=0.00). Figure 9.3 in the next page shows the results reported in Table 9.4 schematically.

Figure 9.3. Changes in the Number of Sentences 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

pre post

Experimental Control

Table 9.5 maps out the number of the participants in terms of the degree of increase and decrease in the number of sentences in the post-test.

Table 9.5. Distribution of the Increases and Decreases in the Number of Sentences

group n less -1 0 1 2 3 4 more

Experimental (40) 9 7 5 6 2 4 3 4

Control (40) 5 2 2 9 9 8 3 2

Concerning the experimental group, 19 participants increased the number of sentences, five participants produced exactly the same number of sentences, and 16 participants decreased the number of sentences in the post-test.

132

Concerning the control group, 31 participants increased the number of sentences, two participants produced exactly the same number of sentences, and seven participants decreased the number of sentences in the post-test.

From Table 9.5, it is clear that a significant increase in the number of sentences as a whole group has been realised, not by a small number of the participants, but by a wide range of the participants with varying competence in English. Even though the interaction effects were not statistically significant, the two groups increased the number of sentences significantly in the post-test. The control group, who received only top-down instruction (concept mapping), increased the number of sentences to a greater extent than the experimental group did. This is not surprising at all because they received twice as much top-down instruction as the experimental group.