The study lasted for approximately eight weeks, proceeding in five steps, as
indicated in Table 1. The following sections detail each of the five steps:
Table 1 Summary of the Study
Step Experimental Group Control Group Week 1 1 Simulated GEPT English Speaking Proficiency Test
Week 2 2 Pretest
Week 3 3 Instruction of Story 1 Instruction of Story 1 GO Map Instruction Session 1 Q & A Instruction Session 1 Week 4 3 Instruction of Story 2 Instruction of Story 2
GO Map Instruction Session 2 Q & A Instruction Session 2 Week 5 3 Instruction of Story 3 Instruction of Story 3
GO Map Instruction Session 3 Q & A Session Instruction 3 Week 6 3 Instruction of Story 4 Instruction of Story 4
GO Map Instruction Session 4 Q & A Session Instruction 4
Week 7 4 Posttest
Posttest Questionnaire Week 8 5
Interview
Step 1: Simulated GEPT English speaking proficiency test
24
To measure the level of the participants’ speaking ability, a speaking test was
administered by the teacher-researcher to all the participants prior to the pretest. For
each participant, the test took approximately ten minutes. The simulated items (see
Appendices C-1 & C-2) and the grading criteria of the elementary GEPT test (see
Appendix D) were downloaded from the GEPT official website. A certified GEPT
rater2 was responsible for the rating. Based on the results of the GEPT speaking test,
those graded as level zero and one belonged to the low-proficiency group, those
evaluated as level two and three belonged to the middle-proficiency group and those
graded as level four and five belonged to the high-proficiency group. Hence, for the
EG, none of the participants belonged to the low-level group, eleven of the
participants, the middle-level group and sixteen of the participants, the high-level
group. The results concerning the distribution of the level of the participants in the
CG were the same. This indicated that the participants in both groups displayed
similar speaking abilities.
Step 2: Pretest
A retelling instruction session for the pretest took place prior to the pretest. The
instruction comprised two parts: (1) the introduction of retelling, and (2) the
introduction of the story to be retold. The first part took about ten minutes, and the
2 Mr. Chang-Chun Li, the lecturer from the Department of English of NTNU assisted with the rating.
25
second part twenty minutes. The purpose of the session was first to introduce what
retelling was, second, to make sure that the participants understood the goal and
procedure of the pretest, and third, to introduce the vocabulary and grammar in the
story to be retold in the pretest to all the participants before they retold it. Since the
pretest was mainly to examine their speaking ability rather than their reading ability,
introducing the retelling story prior to the pretest helped prevent the participants’
retelling performances from being affected by their comprehension of the story. In
the end of the session, the copies of the test story were collected to prevent the
participants from reviewing the story for a prolonged period of time, which in turn
might skew their performance in the pretest.
The pretest was conducted after the retelling instruction session. All the
participants first read the story to be retold for eight minutes and then retold the story
individually for up to five minutes. Specifically, six participants were seated at six
different desks, separated evenly from one another in a big classroom. The
participants had to retell their story they just read into the digital recorder with five
other students simultaneously yet individually. Ear plugs were used for lessening
interference from each other. The teacher-researcher administered the pretest. The
story to be retold, “Jimmy’s New Grandmother” (see Appendix E-1), was chosen for
the pretest from a high-school textbook because it has a clear storyline and story
26
elements and the grammar, sentence structure and the range of the new vocabulary of
the story, after adaptation, was similar to those of junior high school textbooks. The
readability3 of the story for the pretest is 2.4 as calculated with Flesch-Kincaid Grade
Level Index via Microsoft Office Word. The average readability in Book Two of the
Han-Lin Edition (佳音翰林), which was the English textbook the participants were
using at that time, is 1.56, while that of Book Three, the textbook to be used in the
following semester, is 3.27. While Book Two, based on the teacher-researcher’s
experience, was comparatively easy for most participants, Book 3 might be a little
challenging. Therefore, the teacher-researcher decided to strike a balance by
adopting the average of 1.56 and 3.27, which is around 2.4. Besides, the amount of
the new vocabulary within the text is less than 5 %4 of the total words, namely, less
than 12 words. The total number of words in the story is 240, close to the average
word count of the dialogues and readings in Book 2 and 3, i.e., 208 words.
Step 3: Instructional phase
The instructional phase, which lasted for four weeks i.e., from week 3 to week 6
was composed of eight sessions for the EG i.e., story instruction sessions 1 to 4 and
the GO map instruction sessions 1 to 4. As for the CG, they were provided with
3 The readability gives an approximate indication of the statistical analysis of the difficulty of a text.
4 According to Benson and Commins (2000), they suggest that a text with approximately 95% of known words is of a suitable level without frustrating the reader. Therefore, the new vocabulary contained is controlled under five percent.
27
eight sessions i.e., the same 4 story instruction sessions and Q & A instruction
sessions 1 to 4 instead. In each week of this phase, the EG received a 20-minute
story instruction session followed by a 25-minute GO map instruction session,
whereas the CG received a 20-minute session of story instruction and a 25-minute Q
& A instruction session, in which the teacher-researcher had them practice reading the
story and then asked them to answer comprehension questions, including yes-no
questions and wh-questions (see Appendix F). A different story was introduced in
each story instruction session for both EG and CG in each week.
Story instruction sessions for both the EG & CG
All the participants received an instruction of a story for about 20 minutes in
each week, during which the teacher-researcher helped the participants comprehend
the story. The four different stories incorporated as the teaching materials in the four
story introduction sessions were: (1) What Goes around Comes around, (2) The Last
Rose, (3) The Magic Touch and (4) A Selfish Giant (see Appendices G-1, H-1, I-1, &
J-1). The stories chosen to be used in the instruction phase were adapted from
stories in various high school English textbooks. The reason for adapting the stories
from high school textbooks was that the researcher couldn’t find readings with a clear
storyline, story elements and suitable length in junior high school textbooks. The
adapted stories have a clear storyline and story elements so that the stories can be
28
analyzed using the GO maps with less difficulty and confusion. The readability of
these stories, after adaptation, ranges from 2.4 to 3.3. It is within the scope of the
average textbook difficulty in the Hanlin Edition, which is neither too difficult nor too
easy for the participants.
In each story instruction session, the teacher-researcher first introduced the story
title and new vocabulary and then instructed the content of the story so that the
participants comprehended the text in terms of the semantic and syntactic structure
and were able to read each story aloud. The purpose of the session was primarily to
ensure that they could pronounce unfamiliar words and to facilitate the participants’
comprehension of each story.
Q & A instruction sessions for the CG
After each story instruction, the participants in the CG were further engaged in
the story comprehension via the traditional practice of read-aloud and comprehension
questions in each Q & A instruction session. The questions of the Q & A worksheets
were designed by the teacher-researcher. The order of the questions was based on
the sequence of the stories of the instructions. The main principle applied for
designing the questions included “5W1H” i.e., “why”, “where”, “what”, “when”,
“who” and “how” since the purpose of the work sheet was to facilitate the participants
in the EG to comprehend the story content. In addition, after the Q & A worksheets
29
were completed by the participants, the teacher-researcher corrected and clarified their
answers by providing correct answers for them and checking their worksheets to see if
they had understood the content of the story.
GO map instruction sessions for the EG
The purpose of the GO map instruction sessions was to teach the participants
why and how to apply this meta-cognitive strategy to analyze each story step by step.
By dividing the instruction into four sessions, the teacher-researcher gradually shifted
the responsibility of constructing the GO map to the participants. It was hoped that
after the last GO map session, the participants would not only have a clear idea
regarding how to make their own GO map independently but also internalize the
application of the GO map.
The version of the GO map (see Appendix K) was adapted from the one
developed by Benson and Cummins (2000). Since participants in the present study
were seventh graders and beginner-level English learners, Benson and Cummins’
simple design of the GO map was of a suitable difficulty level and easy to use for
young EFL learners. Moreover, the important story elements were all included in
this GO map. For the present study, the GO map was only modified with some
Chinese and some space added for the students to write in their answers. In addition,
at the end of each GO map instruction session, the teacher-researcher provided the
30
GO map checklists of the stories for the participants’ references (see Appendices G-2,
H-2, I-2, & J-2). The focus of each GO map session is elaborated as follows:
GO map instruction session 1: introduction of the GO map
First, the teacher-researcher briefly stated the reason for the use of the GO map.
Second, the participants understood the definition of the story elements, and learned
to analyze each story and to decompose and visualize the content onto the GO map by
observing the teacher-researcher’s demonstration. Then, each participant was
required to fill in the blanks on the GO map worksheet by following the
teacher-researcher’s directions and hand it in to the teacher-researcher. The
teacher-researcher then made sure that the participants had understood the instruction
in class by checking each GO map worksheet. Hence, the purpose of the first
session is to expose the participants in the EG to the function and usage of the GO
map and let them observe how the teacher-researcher constructed a GO map based on
the first story for instruction.
GO map instruction session 2: modeling of the GO map
In the second GO map session, the teacher-researcher started to get participants
involved more in the process of the GO map construction. Participants were
encouraged to help the teacher-researcher construct a GO map voluntarily. For those
participants who still had difficulty understanding the GO map, they could still watch
31
and think about how to construct one.
Each participant had to fill in the blanks on the GO map worksheet by following
the instruction and hand it in to the teacher-researcher by the end of the session. The
teacher-researcher checked each GO map worksheet again for its correctness. The
purpose of the second session, therefore, was for the teacher-researcher to
demonstrate how to construct a GO map and to familiarize the participants with the
procedure and knowledge regarding the GO map construction based on the second
story for instruction.
GO map instruction session 3: mediated practice of the GO map
After two GO map sessions, the participants gradually learned how to construct a
GO map. It was in this session that the teacher-researcher let the participants work
on the GO map in pairs but allowed them to approach the teacher for help. After the
mediated pair practice, the teacher-researcher discussed the possible answers with all
the participants and clarified their concepts by modifying their answers. Again, the
teacher-researcher checked the answers on each GO map worksheet to ensure the
correctness. Thus, the purpose of the third session is to gradually develop the
participants’ ability to construct a correct GO map independently.
GO map instruction session 4: independent practice of the GO map
In the last GO map session, the participants had to display their ability to
32
complete a GO map independently. The teacher-researcher didn’t provide any
scaffolding until the participants finished their GO map completely. The
teacher-researcher then circulated to check their answers. Finally, the
teacher-researcher provided the participants with the GO map checklists for the
participants’ reference and informed the participants of the coming of the posttest.
The purpose of the last session was to ensure the participants’ competence of
completing the GO map.
Step 4: Posttest
A retelling instruction for the posttest took place prior to the posttest. It was
divided into two parts: (1) the introduction of posttest procedure, and (2) the
introduction of the story for the posttest. The first part took ten minutes and the
second part twenty minutes. The purpose and procedure of the session was exactly
the same as those in the retelling instruction session for the pretest.
The story to be retold in the posttest i.e., a story called “Peter’s New Cell Phone”
(see Appendix L-1) is an original story designed by the teacher-researcher specifically
for the posttest. The readability of this story is the same as that of “Jimmy’s New
Grandmother,” i.e., 2.4 on the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Index. The amount of
the new vocabulary is also under 5 % and the number of the total words is around 240.
The structural and grammatical similarities between the two stories used for the
33
pretest and posttest enable the researcher to compare and contrast the participants’
retelling performances between the two tests. A checklist for the posttest story is
also provided (see Appendix L-2).
After the instruction phase i.e., in week 7, the participants prepared themselves
again for the posttest. Just as the pretest, the participants first read the story for eight
minutes and then retold the story individually for up to 5 minutes. The researcher
administered the posttest.
Step 5: Posttest questionnaire and the interviews
The posttest questionnaire for the EG (see Appendix M) was administered to the
participants in the EG after the posttest to elicit the participants’ responses to the GO
map instruction. It took the participants in the EG approximately ten minutes to
complete the questionnaire. The first item of the questionnaire deals with the
perceptions the participants in the EG had of the GO map instruction and the
participants were required to identify the easiest and hardest story elements and then
stated the reasons for their choices. In item two, the participants in the EG indicated
whether the GO map instruction was of practical use for the posttest and then briefly
stated their reasons. The last item is designed for the participants in the EG to
provide additional thoughts regarding the whole treatment. Through the posttest
questionnaire, the participants’ thoughts regarding the difficulty level and its