Mechanics of writing Writing results

Table 4.30. Concepts about Print: Means and SDs for the two instructional groups Variable Group M SD Occas. 1 n M SD Occas. 2 n M SD Occas. 3 n M SD Occas. 4 n Word GM 0.24 33 0.35 23 0.27 15 0.35 23 Breaks 0.44 0.49 0.46 0.49 MSM 0.54 92 0.45 73 0.61 70 0.38 57 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.47 Capital GM 0.06 0.35 0.27 0.44 Letters 0.24 0.49 0.46 1.88 MSM 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.25 0.40 0.39 0.31 Full GM 0.12 0.04 0.20 0.48 Stops 0.55 0.21 0.41 1.88 MSM 0.09 0.01 0.13 0.12 0.28 0.12 0.34 0.33 Complete GM 0.21 - 0.33 0.57 Sentence 0.42 - 0.49 1.88 MSM 0.31 - 0.47 0.61 0.47 - 0.50 0.49 Taking the variables Word Breaks, Capitals, Full Stops, and Complete Sentences as a multivariate set, the MANOVA yielded the results for occasions 1, 3, and 4 shown in Tables 4.31–4.33. Table 4.31. Concepts about Print—Occasion 1 df Effect Size F P Multivariate Effect Method 4 0.08 2.71 0.033 Error 129 Univariate Follow-up Variable Word Breaks 1 0.07 9.37 0.003 Error 123 Table 4.32. Concepts about Print—Occasion 3 Table 4.33. Concepts about print—Occasion 4 On occasions 1 and 4, the MANOVA showed a significant effect for the Concepts about Print multivariate set of variables, and on occasion 3 there was a strong trend toward significance. On occasion 2 there was no significant difference between groups: the F value had a probability of 0.10. On occasions 1, 3, and 4, the univariate follow-up analyses showed significant differences between groups for the variable Word Breaks. Examination of the table of means reveals that the Multi-Strategy group, on average, scored higher than the Gudschinsky group on the three occasions for this variable. This result indicates that the Multi-Strategy learners showed more of an understanding of the concept of a word than the Gudschinsky learners early in the program and sustained that advantage. For the test on occasion 2, the learners were told a sentence of three words and asked to write it: there was no scope for self- generated writing. For the other three variables in the multivariate set, there were no significant differences between the two groups on all occasions: the F values on these results had probabilities 0.10. The second variable division is concerned with Form of Print, Letters Attempted and Correct, and Different Letters Attempted and Correct. For the MANOVA used in this analysis, the following set of variables is entered into the MANOVA: df Effect Size F P Multivariate Effect Method 4 0.11 2.41 0.056 Error 80 Univariate Follow-up Variable Word Breaks 1 0.07 6.35 0.014 Error 83 df Effect Size F P Multivariate Effect Method 4 0.28 7.12 0.001 Error 75 Univariate Follow-up Variable Word Breaks 1 0.22 21.58 0.001 Error 78 Dependent variables: Form of Print, Letters • Letters Attempted • Letters Correct • Different Letters Attempted • Different Letters Correct Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method Multi-Strategy Method The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in Table 4.34. Table 4.34. Form of Print, Letters: Means and SDs for the two instructional groups Variable Group M SD Occas. 1 n M SD Occas. 2 n M SD Occas. 3 n M SD Occas. 4 n Letters GM 19.91 33 9.96 23 15.33 15 28.57 23 Attempted 24.84 5.35 10.55 18.87 MSM 15.41 92 8.19 73 26.37 70 71.90 57 9.38 3.23 16.21 54.91 Letters GM 14.97 8.61 12.27 24.65 Correct 19.41 4.77 10.07 20.52 MSM 14.11 7.51 24.36 69.60 9.36 3.01 16.51 55.90 Letters GM 12.85 7.35 9.40 12.35 Different 16.25 2.99 4.15 3.08 Attempted MSM 9.49 6.40 11.86 15.65 5.52 2.09 3.64 3.24 Letters GM 7.36 6.22 7.07 9.57 Different 4.03 2.56 3.28 4.14 Correct MSM 7.97 5.86 10.59 14.47 3.49 1.92 3.73 4.11 Considering the variable division Form of Print, with Letters Attempted and Correct, and Different Letters Attempted and Correct as a multivariate set, the MANOVA yielded the results shown in Table 4.35 for occasion 1. Table 4.35. Form of Print, Letters—Occasion 1 df Effect Size F P Multivariate Effect Method 4 0.08 2.72 0.033 Error 120 Univariate Follow-up Variable Letters Different 1 0.02 3.00 0.086 Attempted Error 123 Figures 4.1 to 4.4 clearly graph the difference between the Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy methods on the four variables: Letters Attempted, Letters Correct, Different Letters Attempted, and Different Letters Correct for the four occasions. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Occas. 1 Occas. 2 Occas. 3 Occas. 4 GM MSM 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Occas. 1 Occas. 2 Occas. 3 Occas. 4 GM MSM Figure 4.1. Letters attempted Figure 4.2. Letters correct 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Occas. 1 Occas. 2 Occas. 3 Occas. 4 GM MSM 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Oc cas. 1 Oc cas. 2 Oc cas. 3 Oc cas. 4 GM MSM Figure 4.3. Different letters attempted Figure 4.4. Different letters correct The independent variable Method of instruction showed a significant effect on the multivariate set with the univariate follow-up showing a trend toward difference between groups on one variable which is not considered to be reliable. The probability shows a tendency for the two groups to be different on the attempts made to write different letters. Reference to the table of means indicates that, on average, the Gudschinsky learners scored higher than the Multi-Strategy learners. At this stage in the course, some learners tended to write long strings of letters with little or no reference to meaningful print. This result indicates that the tendency was more evident in the Gudschinsky group at the early stages of the program. On the second occasion, the MANOVA showed nonsignificant differences for the letter formation multivariate set: the F value had a probability of 0.10. The results of the MANOVA applied to data from occasion 3 are shown in Table 4.36. Table 4.36. Form of Print, Letters—Occasion 3 df Effect Size F P Multivariate Effect Method 4 0.14 3.19 0.017 Error 80 Univariate Follow-up Variable Letters Attempted 1 0.07 6.35 0.014 Error 83 Letters Correct 1 0.08 7.41 0.008 Error 83 Letters Different 1 0.06 5.35 0.023 Attempted Error 83 Letters Different Correct 1 0.12 11.44 0.001 Error 83 The MANOVA for occasion 3 yielded a significant main effect on the multivariate set. On this occasion the effect held for the four variables in the set. Reference to the table of means shows that, on average, the Multi-Strategy group scored higher on all variables. These results indicate that the Multi-Strategy learners wrote more clearly, with letters formed more accurately than the Gudschinsky group. A similar set of results is shown for occasion 4 shown in Table 4.37. Table 4.37. Form of Print, Letters—Occasion 4 df Effect Size F P Multivariate Effect Method 4 0.27 6.99 0.001 Error 75 Univariate Follow-up Variable Letters Attempted 1 0.15 13.58 0.001 Error 78 Letters Correct 1 0.15 14.02 0.001 Error 78 Letters Different 1 0.18 17.50 0.001 Attempted Error 78 Letters Different Correct 1 0.23 23.26 0.001 Error 78 Again, the MANOVA yielded a significant effect on the multivariate set for this occasion. For the univariate follow-up, the effect also held for all variables. The table of mean scores shows that, on average, the Multi-Strategy group scored higher on all variables. These results indicate that the Multi-Strategy learners wrote more text and wrote with more correct formation of letters than the Gudschinsky group. The final variable division in mechanics of writing is also concerned with form of print but with reference to words instead of letters: Words Attempted and Correct, and Different Words Attempted and Correct. One further variable is included: Words Incorrect but Recognisable. For this analysis, the following set of variables is entered into the MANOVA: Dependent variables: Form of Print, Words • Words Attempted • Words Correct • Different Words Attempted • Different Words Correct • Different Words Incorrect but Recognisable Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method Multi-Strategy Method The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in Table 4.38. Table 4.38. Form of Print, Words: Means and SDs for the two instructional groups Variable Group M SD Occas. 1 n M SD Occas. 2 n M SD Occas. 3 n M SD Occas. 4 n Words GM 3.88 33 - - 3.20 15 5.78 23 Attempted 3.42 - 2.21 4.67 MSM 3.49 92 - - 5.27 70 15.83 57 2.17 - 3.11 12.39 Words GM 2.12 - - 0.80 2.04 Correct 3.49 - 1.27 3.70 MSM 1.43 - - 1.76 9.37 2.22 - 2.91 11.70 Words GM 3.06 2.78 23 2.93 4.96 Different 2.21 1.28 1.91 3.42 Attempted MSM 3.17 2.37 73 4.74 11.77 1.99 0.95 2.64 7.45 Words GM 1.33 1.00 0.80 1.65 Different 2.29 1.34 1.27 2.89 Correct MSM 1.20 1.23 1.87 6.53 1.91 1.28 3.33 7.36 Words GM 0.70 0.61 0.87 1.35 Different 1.05 0.78 1.69 2.44 Incorrect but Recog- MSM 0.92 0.62 1.67 3.51 nisable 1.09 0.78 1.73 3.40 In reference to the empty cells, it will be recalled that this test was specifically related to the primers. In the writing component, students were asked to write a specific sentence of three words so there were no self- generated words expected. Taking the variables Words Attempted and Correct, Different Words Attempted and Correct, and Different Words Incorrect but Recognisable as a multivariate set, the MANOVA yielded a significant effect for occasion 1; MVF5,119=2.63, p=0.027. On examining the univariate analyses, there were no significant differences between the means on any of the variables: all F values had probabilities of 0.10. Reference to the table of means shows that the differences on the variables are not in favour of any one group, so on this first test it is considered that the differences are not sufficiently clear to allow conclusions about writing words correctly. On occasion 2, the MANOVA yielded a trend toward significance on the multivariate set as shown in Table 4.39. Table 4.39. Form of Print, Words—Occasion 2 df Effect Size F P Multivariate Effect Method 3 0.07 2.43 0.070 Error 92 Univariate Follow-up Variable Words Different Attempted 1 0.03 2.78 0.099 Error 94 The independent variable Method of instruction showed a trend toward significance on the variable division Formation of Words. The univariate follow-up showed a tendency toward a difference between groups on the variable Different Words Attempted. It is not considered that this is a noteworthy finding. Reference to the table of means indicates that, on average, the Gudschinsky learners scored higher than the Multi-Strategy learners on this variable. On this occasion, when the primer material was in focus, the learners were asked to write a three-word sentence. This result may indicate that the Gudschinsky group showed more of a tendency to write with more breaks between groups of letters than the Multi-Strategy group, resulting in more words than the three expected in the sentence, but this conclusion is not reliable. On the third occasion, the MANOVA was nonsignificant for the variable division Formation of Words: the F value had a probability of 0.10. On the fourth occasion, the MANOVA yielded the results shown in Table 4.40. Table 4.40. Form of Print, Words—Occasion 4 The MANOVA, for occasion 4, yielded a significant main effect on the multivariate set. On this occasion, the effect held for the five variables in the set. Reference to the table of means reveals that, on average, the Multi-Strategy group scored higher than the Gudschinsky group on all variables. This indicates that those learners wrote more words more clearly and accurately than the Gudschinsky learners at the end of the assessment period of approximately twenty-four weeks. In summary, for the variable sets in mechanics of writing, on average, the Multi-Strategy group significantly had more understanding of the concept of a word occasions 1, 3, and 4, wrote more letters occasions 3 and 4, and wrote words occasion 4 more accurately and clearly than the Gudschinsky group. Again, the advantage for the Multi-Strategy group develops strongly as the program advances. We now turn to examining some of the more meaningful aspects of writing which were appropriate for this stage of literacy.

4.6.2.2. Meaning in writing

Writing long texts in different genres was not required or expected in the test instruments. As was mentioned above, the test instrument did not include meaning in writing on occasions 1 and 2. The variable divisions for meaning in writing are as follows: 1. Writing with Sense 2. Elaborations 3. Cohesive Ties referentials, conjunctions, lexical 4. Story Line introduction, action, complication, resolution df Effect Size F P Multivariate Effect Method 5 0.22 4.07 0.003 Error 79 Univariate Follow-up Variable Words Attempted 1 0.15 14.21 0.001 Error 78 Words Correct 1 1.10 8.60 0.004 Error 78 Words Different Attempted 1 0.18 17.65 0.001 Error 78 Words Different Correct 1 0.11 9.43 0.003 Error 78 Words Different 1 0.09 7.68 0.007 Incorrect—Recognisable Error 78 5. Interaction with the Picture description, description plus previous information, description plus interpolations, description plus post picture information, description plus inferences The first two variables, Writing with Sense and Elaborations, are analysed using ANOVAs, while MANOVAs are used for all subsequent analyses. For the two ANOVAs the following variables are entered: Dependent variables: Writing with Sense Writing with Elaboration Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method Multi-Strategy Method The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in Table 4.41. Table 4.41. Writing with Sense and Elaboration: Means and SDs for the two instructional groups Variable Group M SD Occas. 3 n M SD Occas. 4 n Writing GM 0.33 15 0.30 23 Sense 0.49 0.47 MSM 0.53 70 0.67 57 0.50 0.48 Elaborations GM 0.20 15 0.08 23 0.41 0.28 MSM 0.66 70 0.40 57 1.10 0.98 On occasion 3, the ANOVAs did not yield a significant effect for either of the dependent variables Writing with Sense or Elaborations: the F values had probabilities 0.10. On the fourth occasion, the ANOVA yielded the results shown in Table 4.42. Table 4.42. Writing with Sense—Occasion 4 The ANOVA showed a significant effect for the variable Writing with Sense. Reference to the table of means shows a higher mean score for the Multi-Strategy group indicating that, on average, those learners wrote more meaningful material than the Gudschinsky group. On this occasion, for the variable Elaborations there was no significant difference between groups: the F value had a probability of 0.10. df Effect Size F P Variable Writing sense 1 0.01 9.57 0.003 Error 78