Meaning in writing Writing results

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 We now turn to a more detailed analysis of the data in terms of meaningful content in the texts written by the learners on occasions 3 and 4. For these analyses there are three variable divisions: 1. Cohesive Ties referentials, conjunctions, lexical features 2. Story Line introduction, action, complication, resolution 3. Picture Reliance description, description plus previous information, description plus interpolations, description plus post-picture information, description plus inferences For the analysis of the variable set Cohesive Ties, the following set of variables is entered into the MANOVA: Dependent variables: Cohesive Ties • Referentials • Conjunctions • Lexical Features Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method Multi-Strategy Method The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in Table 4.43. Table 4.43. Cohesive Ties: Means and SDs for the two instructional groups Variable Group M SD Occas. 3 n M SD Occas. 4 n Referentials GM 0.47 15 0.48 23 0.74 1.12 MSM 0.69 70 1.75 57 0.97 2.29 Conjunctions GM 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.49 MSM 0.07 1.40 0.26 2.13 Lexical GM 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.46 MSM 0.03 0.35 0.17 0.67 Considering the three variables referentials, conjunctions, and lexical features as a multivariate set, the MANOVA did not yield a significant effect for occasion 3: the F value had a probability 0.10. The results for occasion 4 are shown in Table 4.44. Table 4.44. Cohesive Ties—Occasion 4 For occasion 4, the independent variable Method showed a strong trend toward significance on the multivariate set. On examination of the univariate follow-up for the three variables in the set, significant differences between the groups are shown for two variables: Referentials and Conjunctions. There is no significant difference between means shown for the variable lexical features: the F value had a probability of 0.10. Reference to the table of means reveals that, on average, the Multi-Strategy group scored higher than the Gudschinsky group on the variables Referentials and Conjunctions. These results indicate that the Multi-Strategy learners tended to write with more control of these features of the grammar than the Gudschinsky learners, producing, in these respects, more explicitly cohesive texts in their writing. The next variable division we consider is concerned with the story line of the texts written. For this analysis, the following set of variables is entered into the MANOVA: Dependent variables: Story Line • Introduction • Action • Complication • Resolution Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method Multi-Strategy Method The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in Table 4.45. df Effect Size F P Multivariate Effect Method 3 0.09 2.60 0.059 Error 76 Univariate Follow-up Variable Referentials 1 0.08 6.46 0.013 Error 78 Conjunctions 1 0.09 7.46 0.008 Error 78 Table 4.45. Story Line: Means and SDs for the two instructional groups Variable Group M SD Occas. 3 n M SD Occas. 4 n Introduction GM 0.00 15 0.13 23 0.00 0.34 MSM 0.11 70 0.26 57 0.32 0.44 Action GM 0.33 0.26 0.49 0.45 MSM 0.51 0.60 0.50 0.47 Complication GM - 0.17 0.39 MSM - 0.32 - 0.47 Resolution GM - 0.00 - 0.00 MSM - 0.05 - 0.23 Considering the four variables, Introduction, Action, Complication, and Resolution, as a multivariate set, the MANOVA did not yield a significant effect for occasion 3: the F value had a probability 0.10. Only the variables Introduction and Action were relevant on this occasion: the instrument did not include stimulation to generate a story which would include the variables Complication and Resolution. The four variables in the multivariate set are relevant for occasion 4. The results for occasion 4 are shown in Table 4.46. Table 4.46. Story Line—Occasion 4 df Effect Size F P Multivariate Effect Method 4 0.16 3.64 0.009 Error 75 Univariate Follow-up Variable Action 1 0.15 13.68 0.001 Error 78 For occasion 4, the independent variable Method showed a significant effect on the multivariate set. On examination of the univariate follow-up for the four variables in the set, significant differences between the groups are shown only for the Action variable. There is no significant difference between means shown for the other three variables: the F values had probabilities 0.10. Reference to the table of means reveals that, on average, the Multi-Strategy group scored higher for the Action variable. This result indicates that the Multi-Strategy learners wrote with more action in their stories than the Gudschinsky group. The final variable division, Picture Interaction, is concerned with the reaction of participants to a photograph or a series of line drawings as stimulation for them to write a story. For this analysis, the following set of variables is entered into the MANOVA: Dependent variables: Picture Interaction • Description • Description plus Previous-Picture Information • Description plus Interpolations • Description plus Post-Picture Information • Description plus Inferences Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method Multi-Strategy Method The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in Table 4.47. Table 4.47. Picture Interaction: 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 Description GM - - - - 0.33 15 0.87 23 - - 0.49 1.46 MSM - - - - 0.57 70 2.33 57 - - 0.50 2.01 Description GM - - - - 0.00 0.09 plus - - 0.00 0.29 Previous MSM - - - - 0.07 0.14 - - 0.26 0.35 Description GM - - - - 0.00 0.13 plus - 0.00 0.46 Inter- polations MSM - - - - 0.17 0.93 - - 0.45 1.36 Description GM - - - - 0.00 0.00 plus Post - - 0.00 0.00 MSM - - - - 0.06 0.11 - - 0.23 0.31 Description GM - - - - 0.00 0.04 plus - - 0.00 0.21 Inference MSM - - - - 0.03 0.12 - - 0.17 0.57 Considering the five variables for Picture Interaction as a multivariate set, the MANOVA did not yield a significant effect for occasion 3: the F value had a probability 0.10. The results for occasion 4 are shown in Table 4.48. Table 4.48. Picture Interaction—Occasion 4 The independent variable method showed a significant effect on the multivariate set on occasion 4. On examination of the univariate follow-up for the five variables in the set, significant differences between the groups are shown for the variables Description and Description plus Interpolations. There is no significant difference between means shown for the other three variables: the F values had probabilities 0.10. Reference to the table of means reveals that, on average, the Multi-Strategy group scored higher for both variables. These results indicate that the Multi-Strategy learners wrote more material related to the pictures and included more description that added colour and interest to the story than the Gudschinsky group.

4.6.2.3. Summary of writing results

A summary of the indications of higher scores by each group shown on the tables of mean scores for these variables is presented in Table 4.49. It will be recalled that in this comparative study with the two different instructional methods, individual, self-generated writing was not expected from the test instruments early in the program. An overall consideration of the significant writing variables indicates that data from the writing samples taken early in the literacy program did not show significant differences between the groups but later, when individual, self-generated writing was collected, samples revealed a strong difference. On occasion 4, when the primer material had been covered, the Multi-Strategy learners, on average, not only wrote more but also showed more competence in writing down their thoughts and creating an interesting piece of text than did the Gudschinsky group. df Effect Size F P Multivariate Effect Method 5 0.15 2.52 0.036 Error 74 Univariate Follow-up Variable Description 1 0.11 10.02 0.002 Error 78 Description plus 1 0.09 7.54 0.007 Interpolation Error 78 A summary of the writing results indicates the following: 1. The Multi-Strategy group showed a greater understanding of the concept of the word than the Gudschinsky group, noting breaks between words early in the program and sustaining the significance. 2. The significant differences on writing the correct form of both letters and words, clearly indicated that the Multi-Strategy group showed greater mastery than the Gudschinsky group in the later stages of the program. 3. Samples of self-generated writing collected on occasion 4, when the stimulus was a series of line drawings depicting a story, showed that the Multi-Strategy group wrote more meaningfully, more cohesively, and with more action and clearer description than the Gudschinsky group. In the next section, the follow-up research is presented. There are two divisions: interviews with ex-students, and interviews with teachers from the initial program. We first consider the situation and the interview questions to be presented to the students who had participated in the research.