4.2 Effects of GO Map Instruction on Fluency of Story Retelling
4.2.4 Discussion of effects of GO map instruction on fluency
When it comes to the time spent on retelling, it has been shortened for the EG as
it was for the CG in the posttest. However counterintuitive the result is, it doesn’t
mean that the GO map instruction (or for that matter, the traditional Q & A method)
was inefficient in facilitating story retelling. The reduction of retelling time could
have been resulted from the participants’ getting more familiar with the task and so
feeling more relaxed and being able to finish their retelling in a relatively shorter
period of time in the posttest.
From the combination of word count and the length of retelling time comes
speech rate. Considering the original speech rate, all the participants were able to
retell the story in the posttest at a significantly higher rate. Like the results of the
retelling time, practice effect may have accounted for such improvement for both
groups. However, when it comes to pruned speech rate, only the participants in the
EG made significant improvement. Hence, only the GO map instruction is effective
in facilitating the students’ production of pruned speech. In other words, the GO
map instruction, by providing students a visual framework to follow, is particularly
effective in eliminating counterproductive speech performance like false starts and
repetitions. Since pruned speech rate is a more efficient indicator of the speaker’s
fluency and only the GO map instruction facilitates the participants’ pruned speech
51
rate, it can be concluded that the GO map instruction is effective in enhancing the
fluency of students’ retelling.
4.3 Effects of GO Map Instruction on Number and Content of Story Elements
In this section, the effects of the GO map instruction on the story element count
score and content score in the students’ retelling are examined. The result of the
story element count score is presented first. Next, the result of the story element
content score is demonstrated. Finally, the effects of the GO map instruction on
story elements are discussed.
4.3.1 Results of the story element count score
Table 8 summarizes the results of the scores of the story element count in the
pretest and posttest. As Table 8 shows, the mean scores on the story element count
in the story retold by the participants in the EG and CG are 4.2 and 5.1 in the pretest
and 5.2 and 5.3 in the posttest respectively. The results in the posttest indicate that
the average story element count scores increased for both groups: In terms of the
mean value, there is an average increase of 1.0 for the EG, from 4.2 in the pretest to
5.2 in the posttest, and of 0.2 for the CG, from 5.1 in the pretest to 5.3 in the posttest.
The between-group t-test shows that there was no significant difference in the
pretest story retelling performances between the EG and the CG (t=-1.769),
suggesting that the average story element count score in each group in the pretest was
52
statistically the same. Additionally, the value of the within-group t-test indicates that
only the participants in the EG included significantly more story elements in their
story retelling in the posttest (EG: t= -3.213**, p < 0.01). The results thus show that
the participants in the EG had made tremendous improvement after receiving the GO
map instruction. On the other hand, those in the CG, despite their better performance
in the posttest, their average story element count score failed to improve significantly
from the pretest to the posttest.
Table 8 A T-test of Mean Scores on the Story Element Count
Pretest Posttest Pre-posttest t-test
M SD M SD t-value
The EG (N=27) 4.2 2.1 5.2 1.8 -3.213**
The CG (N=27) 5.1 1.6 5.3 1.3 -1.100
Note. *p< .05, **p< .01, M=Mean, SD=Standard Deviation
4.3.2 Results of the story element content score
Table 9 summarizes the results of the story element content score in the pretest
and posttest. As it displays, the mean scores on the story element content in the
story retold by the participants in the EG and CG are 5.3 and 6.2 in the pretest and 7.0
and 6.2 in the posttest respectively. In terms of the mean value, there is an increase
of 1.7 points for the EG, from 5.3 in the pretest to 7.0 in the pretest, while the average
score of the CG remained the same, 6.2.
The between-group t-test shows that there was no significant difference in the
pretest story retelling performances between the EG and the CG (t=-1.276),
53
suggesting that the average story element content score in each group in the pretest
was statistically the same. Additionally, the value of the within-group t-test indicates
that only the participants in the EG significantly enriched their story content in the
posttest (EG: t= -3.545**; p < 0.05). Thus, the participants in the EG not only
outperformed their counterparts on the mean value but also made significantly more
progress from the pretest to the posttest than those in the CG.
Table 9 A T-test of Mean Scores on Story Element Content Score
Pretest Posttest Pre-posttest t-test
M SD M SD t-value
The EG (N=27) 5.3 3.0 7.0 2.9 -3.545**
The CG (N=27) 6.2 2.8 6.2 2.4 -0.063
Note. *p< .05, **p< .01, M=Mean, SD=Standard Deviation
4.3.3 Discussion of effects of GO map instruction on story elements
Judging from the significant improvement of the mean scores on both story
element count and story element content the participants in the EG made in the
posttest, it is suggested that the GO map instruction is an effective method in
improving students’ story retelling performances regarding the quantity and quality of
the story elements. That is to say, the explicit structural guidance of story elements
included in the GO map instruction in the present study had helped the students to not
only include more story elements but also enrich the content of each story element.
This could be contributed to the use of geometric shapes in the GO map, which was
designed to boost the awareness of the story elements. As the teacher-researcher
54
constantly reminded them to associate the shapes with the story elements, the
participants were aware of the function of the shapes and bore them in mind. This
finding is consistent with that in Morrow’s (1986) study, in which L1 kindergarten
children’s handling of story elements in their story telling improved significantly due
to the structural guidance concerning story elements during the treatment. As a
similar effect was unable to be found in the retelling performances given by students
receiving the traditional Q & A instruction, it is obvious that the GO map instruction
has indeed outshined the traditional Q & A instruction in advancing students retelling
performances in terms of the quantity and quality of the story elements. The related
knowledge of “story grammar” combined with the visual display of the graphic
organizer as exemplified in the GO map instruction proved to have helped students
improve their memory of the story content, exercise their meta-cognitive ability and
activate their schema of what a typical story is like (Morrow, 1986; Foley, 2000).
Hence, once they internalized the instruction, they could generalize the instruction to
their retelling of other stories, which in turn yielded this satisfactory result.
4.4 Effects of GO Map Instruction on Holistic Story Retelling Performances
The fourth part of the result analysis centers on the evaluation of the participants’
retelling performances in a holistic fashion. The results of the holistic story
retelling performances are first presented. Next, the effects of the GO map
55
instruction on the holistic performance are discussed.
4.4.1 Results of the holistic story retelling performances
The results of the participants’ holistic retelling performances were graded based
on a five-level grading system, ranging from level one, the lowest, to level five, the
highest. The mean scores on the levels of the participants in the EG and CG are 2.5
and 2.9 in the pretest and 2.7 and 2.7 in the posttest respectively. In terms of the
mean value, there is an average increase of 0.2 for the EG, while there is an average
decrease of 0.2 for the CG.
The between-group t-test shows that there was no significant difference in the
pretest story retelling performances between the EG and the CG (t=-1.377),
suggesting that the average holistic level of each group in the pretest was statistically
the same. Additionally, the value of the within-group t-test indicates that only the
participants in the EG made significantly progress from the pretest to the posttest (EG:
t=-2.726*; p < 0.5). Thus, though the participants in the EG did not outperformed
their counterparts on the mean value, they significantly elevated the average level of
their holistic performances.
56
Table 10 A T-test of Mean Scores on the Levels of the Holistic Evaluation
Pretest Posttest Pre-posttest t-test
M SD M SD t-value
The EG (N=27) 2.5 1.1 2.7 1.2 -2.726*
The CG (N=27) 2.9 1.0 2.7 1.0 1.688
Note. *p< .05, **p< .01, M=Mean, SD=Standard Deviation
4.4.2 Discussion of effects of GO map instruction on holistic story retelling
performances
One can be sure that the GO map instruction is an effective method in improving
students’ holistic retelling performances. Yet, since such a holistic performance
comprises many different aspects, for insight into exactly which process of the present
treatment facilitates which aspect of the retelling performances, more research with
delicate design is needed. At this point, based on the observation of the evaluators,
the participants in the EG, compared with those in the CG, tended to retell more
fluently with comparatively less hesitation or much fewer repetitions in the posttest
than in the pretest. In addition, the participants in the EG retold with better
organization and their stories seemed more coherent in the posttest. Both
improvements may have contributed to the EG’s significantly better retelling
performances in a holistic fashion.
A plausible explanation is that due to the GO map instruction, the participants
would better distinguish the major story elements from the irrelevant details, which
would help them spend more time focusing and planning on how to retell the story
57
prior to the posttest. And then when they were conducting their story retelling, they
could concentrate on orally delivering their story in an organized way just as they had
planned and thus bettered their overall retelling performances.
4.5 Participants’ Perceptions of the GO Map Instruction
The fifth part of the result analysis focuses on the perceptions of the participants
in the EG with regard to (1) the difficulty level of the GO map instruction, (2) the
helpfulness of the GO map instruction to the posttest retelling and (3) the additional
opinions about the GO map instruction. The results and discussion are presented as
follows.
4.5.1 Participants’ perceptions of difficulty level of GO map instruction
The participants in the EG were asked about their opinions concerning the
overall difficulty level of the GO map instruction and the easiest and hardest story
elements for them to tackle in the GO map instruction. Table 11 summarizes the
participants’ perceptions of the difficulty level on the GO map instruction. Among
the 27 participants in the EG, 11.1% of them (N=3) found it “Very Difficult”, 63 %
(N=17) found it “Moderately Difficult”, and 25.9 % of them (N=7) found it “Easy”.
That is, approximately 75% of them considered the GO map instruction difficult
while only a quarter of them considered it easy to learn.
58
Table 11 Summary of Perceptions of the Difficulty Level
Level VD MD E
Number (N=27) 3 17 7
Percentage 11.1% 63.0% 25.9%
Note. VD= Very Difficult; MD= Moderately Difficult; E= Easy
Table 12 captures the results concerning the story elements deemed easiest by the
participants in the EG. Among the five story elements included in the GO map
instruction, i.e., “Character,” “Setting,” “Problem/ Goal,” “Events” and “End,” an
overwhelming 92.6 % of the participants (N=25) considered “Character” to be the
easiest and 7.4 % of them (N=2) chose “End”. The rest of the story elements,
including “Setting”, “Problem/ Goal” and “Events”, were selected by none of the
participants.
Table 12 Summary of Perceptions on the Easiest Story Element Story Elements Number (N=27) Percentage
Characters 25 92.6%
End 2 7.4%
Others 0 0%
The reasons given for choosing “Character” as the easiest included “ ‘Character’
was easy to identify since they were already in the story” and that “there were only
few main characters.” Of those who chose “End” as the easiest story element, they
expressed that the end of the stories usually left a strong impression on their mind so
that it was easy to recall it.
The participants’ answers regarding the most difficult story elements are
59
summarized in Table 13. As it shows, 77.8 % of them (N=21) regarded “Events” as
the hardest, followed by “Problem/Goal” (11.1 %),”End” (7.4%), and “Setting”
(3.7%). None of them selected “Character.” Ten of the participant who found
“Events” the most difficult pointed out that they had difficulty singling out all the
major events from the story content as they practiced analyzing the story and writing
them down on the GO map worksheet. They weren’t sure how to distinguish
“Events” from “Problems/Goal” or other trivial details. Some of them also stated
that there were many events in the stories that they sometimes lost patience
identifying them all and that they had trouble writing down the events in correct
sentences on the GO map worksheet.
Table 13 Summary of the Hardest Story Element
Story Elements Number (N=27) Percentage
Events 21 77.8%
Problem/ Goal 3 11.1%
End 2 7.4%
Setting (Time+ Place) 1 3.7%
Others 0 0%
4.5.2 Participants’ perceptions of helpfulness of the GO map instruction
Table 14 summarizes the participants’ perceptions of the helpfulness of the GO
map instruction to the posttest story retelling. As it shows, 51.9 % of them (N=14)
found it “of Great Help” to the posttest retelling, 48.1 % (N=13) found it “of Some
Help” and none of them found it “of No Help.” That is, all of the participants
60
considered GO map instruction to be facilitative to the posttest retelling.
Table 14 Summary of Helpfulness of the GO Map Instruction
Level GH SH NH
Number (N=27) 14 13 0
Percentage 51.9% 48.1% 0%
Note. GH= of Great Help; SH= of Some Help; NH= of No Help
Reasons for why they found the GO map instruction helpful were provided by
some participants. Seven of them mentioned that since their ability to analyze and
organize the story content had been strengthened after receiving the GO map
instruction, they became better at retelling the posttest story. One student, for
example, stated, “The GO map instruction helped me organize the important points in
the story more clearly. This way, I retold the story better.” This student
emphasized that the GO map instruction improved her ability to organize the story
content better so that her story retelling improved. One student specified that the
GO map enhanced her ability to visualize the story outline and to memorize the story
content well so that she was able to recall all the events. This can be seen by her
comment, “I remembered the story outline with the help of the GO map. Therefore,
when I was retelling the story, I didn’t miss any events.” Still another student stating
that the knowledge derived from the GO map instruction compensated for her
weakness in memory and thereby enhanced her story retelling performances. Finally,
two participants expressed that their confidence in retelling was elevated owing to the
61
help of the GO map instruction.
4.5.3 Participants’ additional opinions about GO map instruction
The participants in the EG also expressed their overall opinions about the GO
map instruction on the posttest questionnaire. Five of them mentioned that due to
the GO map instruction, their English abilities were improved, including their
knowledge of grammar, syntactic structure and writing ability. This indicates that
some participants had also benefited from the GO map instruction in aspects not
directly to the task of story retelling. Four of them expressed their willingness to get
involved in activities alike in the future. This shows that some participants were
motivated to participate in more English instructions to learn more. All these
opinions also indicate positive attitude from the students toward the GO map
instruction. Additionally, one participant suggested that after reading the story, the
teacher could have had the students act out the story to help remember the story
content better so that they could have retold the story even better.
4.5.4 Discussion of perceptions of GO map instruction
From the above results, it is clear that most of the participants found the GO map
instruction difficult. To the teacher-researcher, this was not surprising since it took
integrated abilities of reading and writing for these beginner-level students to
understand and apply the GO map. Difficult as the GO map instruction might be, it
62
was not so overwhelming that the students couldn’t learn it well. With the assistance
of the teacher-researcher and their peers, the participants still gradually learned how to
apply the GO map to the stories they learned. It is the teacher-researcher’s belief
that if the students had got involved in the GO map instruction for a longer period of
time with more practice, they could have found the instruction more manageable.
With regard to their perceptions of the easiest and hardest story element, the
findings basically resonate with Huang’s study (2005). In her study, the top two
most difficult story elements chosen by 76 Taiwanese senior high school students who
received a story mapping instruction to enrich their picture writing were “Action” and
“Reaction.” These two elements in her study are similar to “Events” in the present
study. Most of the participants in Huang’s study, i.e., 39.5 % of them (N=30), also
regarded “Character” as the easiest story element. Despite the differences in the
grade level of the participants and the nature of the research between these two studies,
Taiwanese EFL learners had rather similar perceptions concerning the difficulty level
of the story elements.
When it comes to the participants’ perceptions of the helpfulness of the GO map
instruction to the posttest story retelling, all the students thought of it as a useful
method in enhancing their retelling. Their opinions on the posttest questionnaire
also revealed a positive attitude they had toward the GO map instruction. Since the
63
students learned how to analyze and organize the story content according to the story
elements on the GO map and the geometric graphic also fortified their memory of the
elements, not only their comprehension of the story structure but also their retention
of the story content was strengthened, and thus their posttest story retelling
performances had greatly improved in many aspects.
The participants’ opinions about the GO map instruction solicited through the
posttest questionnaire were equally encouraging. They regarded the GO map
instruction as an opportunity to land in to more English learning. They not only
found the GO map instruction provided in the present study beneficial but also were
willing to embrace instructions alike in the future. Their optimistic attitude is
inspiring since the teacher-researcher was originally concerned that under the
academic pressure, the participants might be reluctant to receive instruction not
directly toward the Basic Competence Test. Given students’ positive perceptions of
the GO map instruction and its effectiveness in enhancing their story retelling
performances, instructions that help students acquire the knowledge of the discourse
structure of a text should be integrated into the regular English curriculum to enhance
students’ English proficiency.