4. Results
4.1 Research Question One
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS
In this chapter, the results of the study are presented in the six research questions respectively. First, the 48 revisions are analyzed to find out what types of changes these four participants made in the multiple revisions. Second, the two drafts are graded and analyzed to explore their individual progress in content and organization.
Third, data from the interviews explain how the blog helped in each step (pre-writing, drafting, revising/editing and publishing) of process writing and what challenges and teacher support were. Fourth, the questionnaire results together with the interview data pinpointed if these students experienced any writing attitude changes after taking this writing class. Last, based on mostly on the teacher’s logs and the interview data, this researchers elaborates findings derived from the context of classroom
4.1 Research Question One: What types of changes students made in the multiple revisions in the blog-mediated process writing class and what information does the revision analysis provide?
To answer Research Question One, the researcher adopted Yagelski’ coding schemes (1995), standards for categorization, and Johnson’s indicators of content and organization (1994), the guideline to counting structural and content changes, to code the revisions of the four participants in four categories – surface change (mechanics and grammar), stylistic changes (vocabulary), structural changes (organization) and content changes (content). One thing worth notice is that grammar related revision was categorized into surface changes in Yagelski’s coding schemes.
The number of changes per topic for each participant is listed from Table 4.1a–
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Table 4.1d. In these tables, R1, R2 and R3 stand for revision 1, revision 2 and revision 3 respectively. This researcher will discuss the individual difference when making revisions.
Table 4.1a Numbers of Changes per Topic Written by Connie
Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 4
R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3
Surface 3 0 1 3 3 0 2 0 1 8 1 0
Stylistic 2 1 4 8 2 0 1 2 1 4 4 0
Structural 4 0 0 3 1 0 4 3 0 5 0 1
Content 4 1 0 4 5 1 5 4 0 5 2 1
Total 13 2 5 18 11 1 12 9 2 22 7 2
The total numbers of changes in Connie’s revision showed a tendency to decrease. That is, Connie made the most changes in R1, fewer in R2 (with the exception of R2 on Topic 1) and then the fewest in R3. In making R1, she made changes in all of four categories. In R2, the total number of changes dropped sharply and the attention to the four categories was less obvious. In R3, the total number of changes drastically decreased because she only made minimal changes in one or two categories.
Table 4.1b Numbers of Changes per Topic Written by Tina
Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 4
R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3
Surface 2 2 0 8 0 1 8 0 2 11 2 0
Stylistic 3 0 0 3 0 3 2 0 0 3 1 1
Structural 3 1 3 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 1
Content 3 1 3 0 2 0 4 3 4 1 1 1
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Total 11 4 6 11 4 4 15 5 8 15 5 3
In Tina’s case, the total number of changes didn’t necessarily follow a tendency to decrease. There were two times when the total numbers of changes decreased in R2, but rose slightly in R3 (Topic 1 and 3). The preference for paying attention to errors in the four categories in R1 only happened twice (Topic 1 & 3). Like Connie, Tina made the most changes in R1. However, the tendency to decrease wasn’t always found from R1 to R2 or from R2 to R3.
Table 4.1c Numbers of Changes per Topic Written by Ice
Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 4
R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3
Surface 4 0 1 6 1 0 8 1 0 6 2 0
Stylistic 3 0 2 6 1 0 2 4 1 4 1 0
Structural 0 5 1 0 1 1 0 3 2 0 1 2
Content 0 5 1 0 1 1 0 4 2 0 1 1
Total 7 10 5 12 4 2 10 12 5 10 5 3
As shown in Table 4.1.c, the total number of changes in Ice’s revisions didn’t tend to decline. Unlike Connie’s and Tina’s R1, Ice’s didn’t always make the most changes in R1. On the contrary, the total numbers of changes in R2 outnumbered those in R1 for two times (Topic 2 & 3). While making revision on these four topics, Ice never made structural and content changes until R2.
Table 4.1d Numbers of Changes per Topic Written by Sherry
Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 4
R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Surface 12 1 1 4 6 0 6 2 0 7 4 0
Stylistic 1 2 2 4 6 1 4 0 2 2 0 2
Structural 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
Content 1 4 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 3 1 1
Total 14 7 5 8 14 3 10 5 4 12 6 4
Sherry’s pattern was more like Ice’s than Connie’s because her R1 didn’t always have the most changes (Topic 2). The total number of changes in her revisions didn’t show a tendency to decline, either. The total number of changes in her R2
outnumbered that in R1 once (Topic 2). Except that she made several content changes in R1 twice (Topic 1 & 4), she followed Ice’s strategy that she didn’t make structural and content change until R2.
Concerning these multiple revisions, two finding are worthy of attention: the tendency to decrease in the total number of changes and the personal preference when making revisions. It was found that the total number of changes decreased as the number of revisions increased. The tendency to decrease was the most obvious in Connie’s revisions. It indicated that she made the most changes in R1, fewer in R2 and the fewest in R3. However, the tendency to decrease didn’t always exist in the other three participants. For example, Tina only have tendency to decrease in Topic 4, Ice had it in Topic 2 and 4 and Sherry had it in Topic 1, 3 and 4.
Another finding is the personal preference in making revisions and it decided what type of errors they would correct. For example, Connie tended to fix the errors in the four categories in R1 while Ice didn’t fix content and structural errors until R2.
Tina’s preference for making changes of all of four categories was more like Connie’s while Sherry’s preference for making structural and content changes in R2 was more like Ice’s, though their preference was comparatively weak. In other words, there were some exceptions in Sherry’s and Tina’s revisions. Personal preference in making
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
revisions also divided these four participants into two groups. One group (Connie and Tina) established a pattern, paying equal attention to errors in the four categories in R1 while the other group (Ice and Sherry) established another opposite pattern where they left structural and content errors untouched in R1 and later fixed them in R2.
The numbers and percentages of changes by type are displayed from Table 4.2a to Table 4.2d. The four participants’ revisions will be discussed respectively in the four categories: surface change, stylistic changes, structural changes and content changes. The data in Table 4.2a to Table 4.2d were explained in terms of three things:
1) tendency to decrease, 2) personal preference in making revisions, and 3) the total number of changes by type.
Table 4.2a Numbers/Percentages of Changes by Type for Each Revision by Connie
Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Total
Surface 16 (24.6%) 4 (13.8%) 2 (20%) 22
Stylistic 15 (23.1%) 9 (31) 5 (50%) 29
Structural 16 (24.6%) 4 (13.8%) 1 (10%) 21
Content 18 (27.7%) 12 (41.4%) 2 (20%) 32
Total 65 29 10 104
In Connie’s revisions, the tendency to decrease appeared in the four categories.
That is, surface changes, stylistic changes, structural changes and content changes appeared most in R1, fewer in R2 and the fewest in R3. When doing R1, her attention is equally distributed to errors in the four categories. In R2, the primary focus fell on content and the secondary focus on style. In R3, stylistic changes were paid more attention than the other three types. Moreover, the tendency to decrease in Connie’s revision is comparatively sharper than the other three participants.
Personal preference in making revisions could be also seen from the total
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
numbers of changes in these categories, which were listed according to the order of high-to-low: content changes (32), stylistic changes (29), surface changes (22) and structural changes (21). It seemed that Connie preferred making content changes. Her second favorite was stylistic changes while the least favorites were surface and structural changes. However, the difference in the total numbers of these changes was very small. To sum up, when making revisions, Connie tended to alter the content of essay and changed her wording (vocabulary) rather than make surface changes
(mechanics and grammar) or change the structure (organization) of essay. The finding indicated that Connie was a bold writer, daring to expand her ideas and experiment with words when making revisions.
Table 4.2b Numbers/Percentages of Changes by Type for Each Revision by Tina
Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Total
Surface 29 (55.8%) 4 (22.2%) 3 (14.3%) 36
Stylistic 11 (21.2%) 1 (5.6%) 4 (19.1%) 16 Structural 4 (7.7%) 6 (33.3%) 6 (28.6%) 16
Content 8 (15.4%) 7 (38.9%) 8 (38.1%) 23
Total 52 18 21 91
In Tina’s case, the tendency to decrease only showed in surface changes. The number of changes in the other categories fluctuated instead of showing any sign of tendency to decrease. In making R1, Tina made the most surface changes while the stylistic changes ranked the second. In R2 & R3, content (7) became the primary focus while structure (6) was the secondary. However, the difference in the numbers of these two types of changes was very small. In a word, in the multiple revisions (R1, R2 and R3), these four types of changes took turns to be the focus of attention.
Specifically speaking, surface and stylistic changes are the focus of revision in R1
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
while structural and content changes in R2 and R3.
Obviously, Tina had different personal preference in making revisions. The total numbers of changes in these four categories were listed in the order of high-to-low:
surface changes (36), content changes (23), stylistic changes (16) and structural changes (16). The fact that surface changes came out first meant that Tina was a conservative writer, who fixed obvious mistakes most of the time. However, she was as good at enriching the content, since content changes came out the second.
Table 4.2c Numbers/Percentages of Changes by Type for Each Revision by Ice
Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Total
Surface 24 (61.5%) 4 (12.9%) 1 (7.7%) 29
Stylistic 15 (38.5%) 6 (19.4%) 3 (23.1%) 24
Structural 0 (0%) 10 (32.3%) 4 (30.8%) 14
Content 0 (0%) 11 (35.5%) 5 (38.5%) 16
Total 39 31 13 83
In Ice’s case, the tendency to decrease only showed in the first two categories:
surface and stylistic changes. Concerning structural and content changes, the tendency to decrease didn’t start until R2. Apparently, Ice took the opposite strategies in making revisions. In R1, the surface and stylistic changes were the primary and secondary focus but structure and content changes didn’t exist. Not until R2 did structural and content changes become the primary focus.
The total numbers of changes by type were listed in the order of high-to-low:
surface changes (29), stylistic changes (24), content changes (16) and structural changes (14). Concerning the personal preference in making revisions, Ice presented another kind of writer. The fact that content changes came out the third showed that Ice was even more conservative than Connie and Tina because he made surface and
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
stylistic changes most of the time.
Table 4.2d Numbers/Percentages of Changes by Type for Each Revision by Sherry
Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Total
Surface 29 (65.9%) 14 (41.9%) 1 (6.3%) 44
Stylistic 11 (25%) 8 (25.8%) 7 (43.8%) 26
Structural 0 (0%) 2 (6.5%) 4 (25%) 6
Content 4 (9.1%) 8 (25.8%) 4 (25%) 16
Total 44 32 16 92
Like Ice, sherry had the tendency to decrease shown in the first two categories:
surface and stylistic changes. Concerning structural and content changes, the tendency to decrease didn’t exist; the numbers of content and structural changes fluctuated. In R1, the surface and stylistic changes were the primary and secondary focus with several content changes and no structural changes. Not until R2 did content changes (8) become the secondary focus; however, Sherry made a comparatively fewer number of structure changes (2). There is one last thing worthy of attention. Unlike the other three, whose total numbers of surface and stylistic changes were
dramatically reduced in R2, Sherry still corrected a lot of errors in these two categories. A possible explanation is that Sherry did not fix as many errors as the others in R1, but she later found out these errors in doing R2.
The total numbers of changes by type were listed in the order of high-to-low:
surface changes (44), stylistic changes (26), content changes (16) and structural changes (6). Sherry’s personal preference in making revisions was much like Ice’s.
That is, she was as conservative as Ice for they prefer making surface and stylistic changes. The only difference between them is that Sherry made much fewer changes in structure. This implied that Sherry preferred not to alter the structure of essay to a
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
certain extent.
To compare the individual preference for specific types of changes and which revision was the focus of attention, Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 are produced.
Table 4.3 The Total Numbers of Changes by Type
Connie Tina Ice Sherry
Surface 22 36 29 44
Stylistic 29 16 24 26
Structural 21 16 14 6
Content 32 23 16 16
Total 104 91 83 92
From Table 4.3, it was clear that Connie beat others in content (32), stylistic (29) and structural (21) changes while Sherry came out the first in surface changes. The total numbers of changes by type showed their revision preference and thus decided what their revisions would be like or what kind of writers they were. Based on the fact that Connie made so many changes in these three categories, Connie’s revisions were very likely to be totally different from her original drafts. The fact that Sherry made the most surface changes implied that she was a writer focusing on surface errors.
A brief discussion on the winner in the total numbers of changes by type may also help us explain why he/she had such preference. According to Table 4.3, Connie made the most changes (104) while Ice the least (83). There might be two possible explanations. One is that Ice wrote better drafts, so he didn’t need to revise so many errors. The other is that Connie was willing to invest more time on doing revisions.
Overall, the four participants did show personal preference in certain types of changes.
Comparatively speaking, Ice and Sherry preferred making surface and stylistic
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
changes; Tina favored surface and content changes more than the others and Connie showed preference for content and stylistic changes in particular.
Table 4.4 The Total Numbers of Changes per Revision
Connie Tina Ice Sherry
Revision 1 65 52 39 44
Revision 2 29 18 31 32
Revision 3 10 21 13 16
Total 104 91 83 92
The level of the tendency to decrease in Table 4.4 was also a clue to help the researcher know which revision was the focus of attention. In Connie’s revisions, the level of the tendency to decrease dropped sharp from R1 to R3 (65→29→10). Thus, it was concluded that Connie paid a lot of attention to correcting errors in the four categories in R1 and found few things to be fixed in R2 and R3. Tina also had a similar sharp drop in the tendency to decrease from R1 to R2 (52→18), but a slight rise from R2 to R3 (18→21). The only difference between Tina and Connie was that Tina still revised a lot in R3. On the contrary, Ice didn’t have a sudden drop in the level of the tendency to decrease from R1 to R3 (39→31→13). It implied that Ice paid nearly equal attention in R1 and R2, though the level of attention suddenly dropped in R3. Sherry’s tendency to decrease was very similar to Ice’s (44→32→16).
Based on the above, a phenomenon appeared. The tendency to decrease from R2 to R3 declined dramatically in three participants (However, in Tina’s case, the total number of changes in R3 slightly rose.) It indicated that fewer changes were made in R3. In other words, R3 may be too much or unnecessary for them. As a result, the tendency to decrease serves as a good reference for how many revisions are tolerable
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
or suitable for EFL learners.
The interviews confirmed the two things: the revision preference and the
tendency to decrease. Ice and Sherry were asked why they didn’t make structural and content changes until R2. They responded that it took less time to fix surface and stylistic errors which were already marked on the drafts. They said there were too many activities scheduled in R1; and if they wanted to finish R1 in class, the best strategy was to focus on the most apparent errors first. Contrary to them, Connie made changes in the four categories in R1. In the interview, Connie answered that she wanted to fix all errors once and for all even though she had to spend another two hours other than class time to finish R1. Tina also mentioned that she spent another hour at home finishing R1. Therefore, the preference happened depending on the amount of time they decided to spend on R1. With more time at hand, it was no wonder that Connie and Tina were able to fix errors in these four categories in R1.
The tendency to decrease in the numbers of revisions was highly positively correlated with the amount of time they spent on revisions. Three participants (except Sherry) said that they spent most time on R1, the less time on R2 and the least time on R3. It appears that these participants spent the least amount of time in R3 out of exhaustion and weariness. As mentioned before, there was a slight rise in Tina’s tendency to decrease from R2 to R3. It is an intriguing finding with a bit of irony.
Even though she complained about the boredom of doing the third revision, Tina was still able to make quite a few changes in R3. Contrary to Tina, Sherry was the only one who said that she spent equal time finishing these three revisions. Although she spent equal time in R3, she still had a sharp drop in the tendency to decrease from R2 to R3. The fact that Sherry spent equal time in R3 also indicated that she had more tolerance for multiple revisions than the other three.
Next, Research Question Two will be answered in detail respectively according
‧
to the data acquired from the two drafts (pre-test and post-test drafts), the multiple revisions, and interviews.
4. 2 Research Question 2: To what extent does the weblog-mediated process writing class contribute to the development of students’ writing ability in content and organization?
In response to the first research question, two raters, the researcher and one invited colleague of the researcher, scored the drafts based on the adapted CEEC scoring criteria (Chang, 2004). The scores of the pre-test and post-test drafts of these four participants are listed in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Scores of Pre-test and Post-test Drafts
Connie Tina Ice Sherry
‧
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent scores from the two raters.To further analyze the progress of these four participants, the researcher displays the gained points on the post-test drafts of these four participants in Table 4.6. The gained points for every category were also transformed into percentages through division: gained points/the points of each category. For example, Sherry gained 7 points in content (25 points), so the percentage of gained points in content was 28%, a figure obtained from “7/25.”
Table 4.6 Percentages of Progress
Connie Tina Ice Sherry
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Content 11 (44%) 8.5 (34%) 8.5 (34%) 7 (28%) Organization 8.5 (34%) 8.5 (34%) 8 (32%) 5 (20%)
Grammar 3 (15%) 5 (25%) 4 (20%) 4 (20%)
Vocabulary 3 (15%) 5.5 (28%) 5 (25%) 4 (20%)
Mechanics 1 (10%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent percentages of the gained points
Another method, discussed in several studies, was also able to indicate the progress in content. According to Akyrel & Kamish (1977) and Sasaki (2000), the length of draft (the numbers of words) is also an indicator of “fluency,” which often implies that students write more in content. In Table 4.7, the numbers of words written in pre-test and post-test are displayed.
Table 4.7 The Numbers of Words in Pre-test and Post-test Drafts
Connie Tina Ice Sherry
Pre-test 156 196 153 163
Post-test 180 202 235 230
The four participants’ progress in content and organization of the two drafts were presented below, including the gained points/percentages of progress, an cross
analysis to examine if there was any connection between revisions and two drafts, and a draft analysis to identify the progress in content and organization with Johnson’s indicators of content and organization. Finally, all of the findings were further corroborated with the interview results. The following will be presented from one case to another in order to present the abundance of data gathered.
Connie’s Case
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The percentages of progress in Connie’s case shown in Table 4.7 were listed here in the order of weight: content (44%), organization (34%), grammar (15%),
vocabulary (15%) and mechanics (10%). Concerning her multiple revisions in the four categories, the total numbers of changes were listed in the order of high-to-low:
content changes (32), stylistic changes (29), surface changes (22) and structural changes (21). Connie’s significant progress in content and organization was probably achieved by paying constant attention to content and structural changes in multiple revisions. In the category of content, the progress in content in the post-test draft was positively correlated with the total number of content changes. Fluency, another indicator of content, was also achieved in Connie’s drafts (pre-test draft: 156 words;
content changes (32), stylistic changes (29), surface changes (22) and structural changes (21). Connie’s significant progress in content and organization was probably achieved by paying constant attention to content and structural changes in multiple revisions. In the category of content, the progress in content in the post-test draft was positively correlated with the total number of content changes. Fluency, another indicator of content, was also achieved in Connie’s drafts (pre-test draft: 156 words;