圖像組織法教學對於台灣七年級生英語故事重述之效益研究

全文

(1)國立台灣師範大學英語學系碩士論. 文. Master Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 圖像組織法教學對於台灣七年級生英語故事重述表現之成效研究. The Effects of the Graphic Organizer Instruction on Taiwanese EFL 7th Graders’ English Story Retelling. 指導教授：常紹如教授 Advisor: Dr. Shau-Ju Chang 研究生：陳立馨. 中華民國九十九年八月 August, 2010.

(2) 摘要本研究旨在探討使用「圖像組織法教學」對於國中七年級生英文故事重述能力之影響。實驗對象為台北市某公立國中七年級兩個班級共 54 名的學生。其中 27 名學生為實驗組，而另 27 名學生為對照組。研究時間約持續八個星期。教學前所有受試者皆接受全民英檢初級口試測驗以確認英文口語程度，然後才進行英語故事重述前測。在教學階段，實驗組接受為期四週的「圖像組織法教學」，而對照組則接受傳統的問與答的講述上課方式。在教學階段之後，兩組分別接受英語故事重述的後測。最後，實驗組的受試者填寫與「圖像組織法教學」內容相關的問卷以及接受訪談。本研究結論為： (1) 圖像組織法教學雖無法增加重述故事之長度，但可減少重覆及重啟開頭語。 (2) 圖像組織法教學與問與答教學法同樣能增進原始語速，但唯有圖像組織法能增加刪除重覆及重啟開頭語後的語速。 (3) 圖像組織法能增進英文故事口語重述中故事成分所包含的數量以及內容。 (4) 圖像組織法能提升英文故事口語重述的整體表現。 (5) 多數實驗組受試者認為圖像組織法教學對於他們來說稍有難度，而最簡單的故事成分是「角色」，最困難的是「事件」。所有實驗組受試者一致認為圖像組織法教學對於故事重述是有幫助的，他們並對圖像組織法採正向態度予以肯定。. i.

(3) ABSTRACT The present study aims to investigate the effects of the graphic organizer map instruction (the GO map instruction) on EFL seventh graders’ oral English story retelling. Participants were 54 seventh graders from two classes of students in a public junior high school in Taiwan. There were 27 participants in the experimental group (EG) and 27 in the control group (CG). The treatment lasted for 8 weeks. Prior to the instructions, all the participants first took the speaking test of the elementary GEPT to ascertain their oral English proficiency and then took the pretest. During the instructional phase, the participants in EG received a 4-week GO map instruction while those in the CG the traditional Q & A instruction. After the instructions, they took the posttest. Last, a questionnaire was administered to the participants in the EG. Some of the participants were interviewed to clarify their responses on the questionnaires. The findings of the study are summarized as follows: (1) Although the GO map instruction failed to increase the length of the retold stories effectively, it was effective in significantly reducing the number of false starts and repetitions. (2) Although both the GO map instruction and the traditional Q & A instruction significantly reduced the length of retelling time and improved the original speech rate, only the GO map instruction was effective in significantly facilitating the pruned speech rate. (3) The GO map instruction was effective in the inclusion of more story elements and in the enhancement of the story element content. (4) The GO map instruction was effective in elevating the holistic story retelling performances of the participants in the EG. (5) Most of the participants in the EG found the GO map instruction difficult and regarded “Character” as the easiest element and “Events” the hardest one for them to master. Additionally, all the participants considered the GO map instruction beneficial to the posttest story retelling and held a positive attitude toward it.. ii.

(4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS During the process of writing this thesis, I obtained the training which was beyond the academic writing itself --- the art of problem solving and critical thinking. Therefore, among many people from whom I received tremendous assistance and encouragement, first of all, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my thesis advisor, Dr. Shau-Ju Chang for she not only provided me with enlightening viewpoints and insightful suggestions but also taught me how to analyze critically. Additionally, I would also like to thank my committee members, Prof. Joy Wu and Chia-Chien Chang as well as Prof. Hsueh-O Lin for their professional and in-depth guidance. Without you, I could not have refined my thesis. I am also deeply grateful for my family, especially my wonderful mother and my little Xiao-Fu. They saw me through the worst times in my life, during which I had to exert all my powers to strike a balance between my thesis and career. They always watched over me quietly and endured my complaints leniently and never stopped encouraging me to look up on the bright side. Without you, I could not have completed my pursuit of knowledge. Moreover, my sincere gratitude extends to all my students, colleague, classmates, friends and above all, Miss Ying-Jia Huang, who helped solve my statistic problems when I was desperate. You helped me finish my thesis and gave me the heartiest support. Without you, I could not have smoothly finished my thesis in time. Last but not least, I owe my deepest and earnest appreciation to my dearest George. He has always been there for me and treated me so patiently and lovingly. Without you, I could not have survived the challenges in my life. To my respectful teachers, and my precious family and friends, I dedicate this thesis from the bottom of my heart.. iii.

(5) TABLE OF CONTENTS 摘要.................................................................................................................................i ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................vii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION..........................................................................1 1.1 Background and Purpose .................................................................................1 1.2 Focus on Oral Retelling of Narratives via Graphic Organizer Instruction ......3 1.3 Research Questions..........................................................................................4 1.4 Significance of the Study .................................................................................5 1.5 Organization of the Study ................................................................................6 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................7 2.1 Retelling and Language Learning....................................................................7 2.1.1 Retelling as an instructional strategy for reading comprehension ................8 2.1.2 Retelling as an assessment vehicle ...............................................................9 2.2 Strategies on How to Improve Retelling........................................................11 2.3 Graphic Organizers ........................................................................................13 2.3.1 Definition and variation of graphic organizers ...................................13 2.3.2 Common formats of graphic organizers..............................................15 2.3.3 Use of graphic organizers to improve reading comprehension...........16 2.3.4 Use of graphic organizers to improve story retelling..........................19 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY ..................................................................21 3.1 Study Design..................................................................................................21 3.2 Participants.....................................................................................................22 3.3 Procedure of the Study...................................................................................23 3.4 Data Analysis .................................................................................................34 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................................40 4.1 Effects of GO Map Instruction on Length of Participants’ Story Retelling...40 4.1.1 Results of the original word count ......................................................40 4.1.2 Results of the pruned word count .......................................................42 4.1.3 Results of comparison between original and pruned word count .......43 4.1.4 Discussion of effects of GO map instruction on length ......................45 4.2 Effects of GO Map Instruction on Fluency of Story Retelling ......................45 4.2.1 Results of retelling time ......................................................................46 4.2.2 Results of the original speech rate ......................................................47 iv.

(6) 4.2.3 Results of the pruned speech rate........................................................48 4.2.4 Discussion of effects of GO map instruction on fluency ....................50 4.3 Effects of GO Map Instruction on Number and Content of Story Elements .51 4.3.1 Results of the story element count score.............................................51 4.3.2 Results of the story element content score..........................................52 4.3.3 Discussion of effects of GO map instruction on story elements.........53 4.4 Effects of GO Map Instruction on Holistic Story Retelling Performances....54 4.4.2 Discussion of effects of GO map instruction on holistic story retelling performances................................................................................................56 4.5 Participants’ Perceptions of the GO Map Instruction ....................................57 4.5.1 Participants’ perceptions of difficulty level of GO map instruction ...57 4.5.2 Participants’ perceptions of helpfulness of the GO map instruction...59 4.5.3 Participants’ additional opinions about GO map instruction ..............61 4.5.4 Discussion of perceptions of GO map instruction ..............................61 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION............................................................................64 5.1 Summary of the Study ...................................................................................64 5.2 Pedagogical Implications ...............................................................................66 5.3 Limitations of the Study.................................................................................68 5.4 Suggestions for Future Studies ......................................................................70 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................73 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................79 APPENDIX A Four Types of Graphic Organizers...............................................79 APPENDIX B-1 Consent Form for the EG .........................................................80 APPENDIX B-2 Consent Form for the CG.........................................................81 APPENDIX C-1 GEPT 初級口語能力測驗.......................................................82 APPENDIX C-2 GEPT 初級口語能力測驗錄音稿...........................................83 APPENDIX D 初級口說能力測驗分數說明....................................................84 APPENDIX E-1 Retelling Story for the Pretest ..................................................85 APPENDIX E-2 Checklist for the Pretest Retelling Story ..................................86 APPENDIX F Worksheets for the CG in Q & A sessions 1 to 4 .........................87 APPENDIX G-1 Story 1 for the Story Introduction ............................................91 APPENDIX G-2 Checklist for Story 1 in the Story Introduction........................92 APPENDIX H-1 Story 2 for the Story Instruction ..............................................93 APPENDIX H-2 Checklist for Story 2 in the Story Instruction ..........................94 APPENDIX I-1 Story 3 for the Story Instruction ................................................95 APPENDIX I-2 Checklist for Story 3 in the Story Instruction............................96 APPENDIX J-1 Story 4 for the Story Instruction................................................97 APPENDIX J-2 Checklist for Story 4 in the Story Instruction............................98 v.

(7) APPENDIX K GO Map.......................................................................................99 APPENDIX L-1 Retelling Story for the Posttest...............................................100 APPENDIX L-2 Checklist for the Posttest Story ..............................................101 APPENDIX M Posttest Questionnaire for the EG ............................................102 APPENDIX N Retelling Analysis Grading Criteria Checklist ..........................103 APPENDIX O Holistic Assessment for the Retelling Performances ................104. vi.

(8) LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of the Study ..................................................................................23 Table 2 A T-test of Mean Scores on the Original Word Count ..................................41 Table 3 A T-test of Mean Scores on the Pruned Word Count ....................................43 Table 4 A T-test of Mean Ratio of False Starts and Repetitions ................................44 Table 5 A T-test of Mean Scores on the Length of Time ...........................................47 Table 6 A T-test of Mean Scores on the Original Speech Rate..................................48 Table 7 A T-test of Mean Scores on the Pruned Speech Rate....................................49 Table 8 A T-test of Mean Scores on the Story Element Count ..................................52 Table 9 A T-test of Mean Scores on Story Element Content Score ...........................53 Table 10 A T-test of Mean Scores on the Levels of the Holistic Evaluation................56 Table 11 Summary of Perceptions of the Difficulty Level ..........................................58 Table 12 Summary of Perceptions on the Easiest Story Element ................................58 Table 13 Summary of the Hardest Story Element........................................................59 Table 14 Summary of Helpfulness of the GO Map Instruction ...................................60. vii.

(9) CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION. The present study dealt with the effects of the graphic organizer instruction on Taiwanese junior high school students’ oral story retelling. The introductory chapter consists of four sections.. First, the background and purpose of the study are. addressed. Next, research questions are presented. study is discussed.. Then, the significance of the. Last, the organization of the study is introduced.. 1.1 Background and Purpose Oral retelling can be regarded as the attempt to reconstruct and restate what the reteller has read or heard orally. To render a well-constructed oral retelling, the reteller has to integrate his/her reading, listening and speaking ability. Oral retelling, when applied in EFL education, can be an instructional strategy to promote oral language development (Peck, 1989; Morrow, 1996).. It can facilitate. learners’ comprehension by helping a reader relate parts of a text to each other and to their prior knowledge (Morrow, 1996).. It can also be used as an assessment tool to. holistically evaluate learners’ English learning. Despite the importance and value of the incorporation of oral retelling in English education, oral retelling ability of the EFL learners has not been focused on in oral English instruction in Taiwan, nor has it been adequately investigated in local EFL learning contexts in Taiwan.. This is because oral retelling, despite its common 1.

(10) practice in daily language, is actually a rather difficult task, even to L1 learners.. It. requires the ability to express one’s thoughts sequentially in an organized way; therefore, without the competence to organize the thoughts well and to express them orally, it is unlikely for young L1 and L2 learners to generate a good oral retelling. For most junior high school students in Taiwan, retelling in English can be a challenging activity particularly for two reasons: the challenging nature of the task and a lack of practice.. Students have to tackle the challenge when retelling.. Specifically, they need to first comprehend the English content they just read or listened to, reconstruct their ideas carefully, and utilize their oral ability to present those ideas for others to understand.. Few teachers incorporating oral retelling in. local classrooms as language assessment or instructional means certainly does not help ease the difficulty students experience when engaging in oral retelling. Students, therefore, lack the experience to convey their thoughts orally and independently. Given the fact that oral retelling is valuable and yet it has not been sufficiently explored or utilized instructionally in the EFL context in Taiwan, the present research seeks to develop students’ English oral retelling; specifically, the study adopted a kind of graphic organizers as a way of teaching and reducing the difficulty level of English oral retelling for local junior high school students. 2.

(11) 1.2 Focus on Oral Retelling of Narratives via Graphic Organizer Instruction There are a variety of text types, such as expository and narrative, for students to retell.. Among all the possible materials for retelling, stories are more appropriate for. younger learners because when compared with other kinds of materials, they are more interesting in content, and they usually contain similar story elements, such as setting, characters, and problems, which enable young learners to predict or comprehend the stories more easily.. Due to the reasons mentioned above, the researcher focused. solely on oral retelling of narratives. Just as there are a variety of text types, there are a number of strategies, such as the use of props, illustrations, or graphic organizers that can be used to facilitate oral retelling.. In the present study, the researcher examined whether graphic organizers. can be an efficient strategy to enhance students’ competence to retell a story orally. The decision to choose graphic organizers is not an arbitrary one.. Some literature. suggests that graphic organizers can guide retelling because the visualization of ideas helps categorize, clarify and organize thoughts from abstract to concrete (Benson and Cummins, 2000; Staal, 2000).. Moreover, based on the researcher’s observation and. teaching experience, it is relatively time-consuming and laborious for students to prepare the props or illustrations before retelling a story; a student-generated graphic organizer is therefore more feasible and practical once students fully understand how 3.

(12) to create their own graphic organizer and apply it appropriately.. To sum up, the. researcher hoped to prove that graphic organizers could help students better organize their thoughts and then generate better oral story retelling, that is, to retell stories of longer and richer content with better fluency. Since there are a variety of graphic organizers, the researcher decided to adopt the Graphic Organizer map (henceforth, the GO map) to correspond with the purpose of this study (refer to chapter two for more detail). 1.3 Research Questions The present study examined the effect of the GO map instruction on students’ oral story retelling.. Specifically, the following questions were pursued.. 1. Can the GO map instruction significantly facilitate the quantity and quality of students’ oral story retelling? (1) Can the GO map instruction significantly improve the quantity of the students’ oral story retelling in terms of the number of words contained in their retelling content? (2) Can the GO map instruction significantly improve the quality of the students’ oral story retelling in terms of the fluency? (3) Can the GO map instruction significantly improve the quality of the students’ oral story retelling in terms of the story elements included in their story retelling 4.

(13) content? (4) Can the GO map instruction significantly improve the quality of the students’ oral story retelling in terms of their holistic retelling performances? 2. What are the students’ perceptions of the GO map instruction? 1.4 Significance of the Study As discussed in the previous sections, oral story retelling and graphic organizers are both pivotal components in EFL instruction; nevertheless, it is a pity that they have not been fully investigated.. To the best of the researcher’s knowledge, no study in. Taiwan has investigated the effects of the GO map instruction on oral story retelling of learners at junior high school level.. The present study, therefore, can shed light. on whether the GO map instruction is an effective instruction in cultivating Taiwanese junior high school students’ oral retelling ability and on how the GO map can be more effectively used as a pedagogical tool for enhancing their English oral story retelling ability. If the GO map instruction is indeed proven as a workable tool for improving students’ oral retelling ability, the present study can also lend direct empirical proof to the merits claimed in the literature of graphic organizers.. Moreover, it is hoped that. via this research endeavor, oral retelling and the GO map can be made known to more students and teachers and consequently be more popularly incorporated into the EFL 5.

(14) classrooms in Taiwan. 1.5 Organization of the Study There are five chapters in this study. Chapter one provides an overview for the study by addressing the rationale and inquiry of the study.. The existing literature. pertaining to retelling and graphic organizers is reviewed in chapter two. The methodology the study adopted is presented in chapter three. discussion of the findings are presented in chapter four.. The results and. Last but not least, the. pedagogical implications of the present study and suggestions for future studies are addressed in chapter five.. 6.

(15) CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW. As the present study aims to investigate the effects of the GO map instruction on oral story retelling, literature pertaining to general discussion and empirical research of retelling and graphic organizers is reviewed in this chapter. between retelling and language learning is examined. improve retelling is discussed.. First, the relation. Second, strategies on how to. Finally, relevant literature on graphic organizers is. addressed. 2.1 Retelling and Language Learning Retelling, when used in a language classroom, is regarded as the process of the reconstruction of a text in which the students are asked to reproduce the text they read or hear in their own words, either orally or in written forms (Morrow, 1996; Walker, 1996; Barr, Blachowicz, Bates, Katz, & Kaufman, 2007). With regard to language learning, retelling has numerous advantages. For students, research suggests that oral retelling, for example, leads to increased comprehension (Gambrell, Preiffer & Wilson, 1985).. When students reconstruct a text by retelling, they develop language. complexity and a sense of story structure through the integration of text features, thereby enhancing their comprehension (Morrow, 1985; Brown and Cambourne, 1989).. For instructors, retelling, as an assessment or instructional tool, enables them. to understand students’ comprehension through the quality, quantity, and organization 7.

(16) of their verbal production (Stoicovy, 2004). 2.1.1 Retelling as an instructional strategy for reading comprehension A few studies examined retelling as an instructional strategy to help enhance reading comprehension.. It is suggested that retelling significantly improves story. comprehension owing to the notion that involvement in retelling directs the reader’s attention to holistic comprehension (Morrow, 1986; Koskinen, Gambrell, Kapinus & Heathington, 1988).. Gambrell, Pfeiffer and Wilson (1985), for example,. investigated the effects of retelling on the comprehension and recall of text information for 93 fourth-grade American students.. Randomly assigned to two. treatment conditions, retelling and illustrating, participants underwent four training sessions and one test session.. After reading a passage, the participants either retold. or illustrated the important parts of the passage in the training sessions. In the test session, they read the passage and then rendered a free recall.. Two days later, they. rendered a delayed free recall and answered 20 comprehension questions.. The. results indicated that retelling facilitated comprehension, as participants who practiced retelling during treatment outperformed their counterparts in the illustration treatment group. In another study, Gambrell, Koskinen, and Kapinus (1991) conducted a study to investigate the effects of practice in retelling on the reading comprehension 8.

(17) performances of 48 proficient and less-proficient American fourth-graders.. Without. explicit instruction, the subjects silently read a story and rendered a retelling across each of the four practice session. At the conclusion of the first and fourth sessions, the subjects responded to 8 orally administered comprehension questions.. Based on. the analysis of the responses to the cued-recall questions, it was concluded that practice in retelling resulted in the enhancement of reading comprehension for both proficient and less-proficient fourth-graders.. Taken together, the findings of these. studies show that engaging in retelling may lead to significant learning regarding reading comprehension. 2.1.2 Retelling as an assessment vehicle In addition to the instructional benefits, retelling can also function as a means to assess comprehension, which is carried out without prompts in any form and it is frequently used in reading research (Gambrell, Koskinen, and Kapinus, 1991; Smith & Keister, 1996; Morrow, 1990).. As opposed to traditional procedure of using. teacher questioning or paper-and-pencil multiple-choice questions, retelling is suggested to be ideal for assessment (Gambrell , Preiffer & Wilson, 1985; Morrow, 1990).. Instead of just answering questions or selecting an answer from a variety of. choices passively, students, when assessed with retelling, reconstruct their own text holistically (Keister and Smith, 1996).. In fact, the process of students’ personal 9.

(18) rendition of retelling requires the recall of the original text, and integration of ideas and language complexity, without clues provided by the questions.. Therefore,. retelling may allow a better display of the degree to which students show their understanding of the text they read.. However, Barr et al. (2007) pointed out that. retelling as assessment might bring some problems because students were equipped with diverse capabilities to organize and verbalize information so that the assessors needed to take into considerations various factors when applying retelling as assessment. In terms of L2 assessment, some literature suggests that retelling can be utilized to evaluate L2 learners’ learning. Specifically, Berndardt (1991) recommended oral retelling as a way to assess L2 learners’ reading comprehension. studies dealt with oral retelling and EFL learning.. In Taiwan, few. Among the ones that were. founded, most of them employed retelling as an assessment tool.. Yeh (2008), for. example, applied retelling as an assessment to examine whether Paired Story Mapping helped improve reading comprehension. vocational high school students.. The participants were ten Taiwanese. By comparing the pre- and post- interventions, Yeh. (2008) concluded that the participants comprehended better after the intervention. Tsou (2004) also investigated the effects of different modes of story presentation on story retelling.. These three modes were storytelling, story read-aloud and animated 10.

(19) story retelling.. The participants were from three fifth-grade classes.. The results. showed that participants learning from story read-aloud and retelling groups retold stories better. 2.2 Strategies on How to Improve Retelling Since retelling can be a challenging task to not only L2 learners but also L1 learners, some strategies are suggested to facilitate the retelling activity.. These. strategies include: the use of props, such as puppets, felt boards, the pictures, interactive picture books, dramatization, story maps (a kind of graphic organizers) and so on (Morrow, 1990; Benson and Cummins,2000).. Among them, graphic. organizers, because of their helping learners to visualize, organize and integrate their thoughts and thereby reducing difficulty in story retelling, are ideal for the purpose of the present study. As the present study aims to investigate the incorporation of the GO map instruction and its effects on oral story retelling, more detailed review is rendered. Morrow (1986) sought to determine whether structural guidance in story retellings could enhance kindergarten children’s use of structural elements when dictating original stories.. During the 8-week intervention, children in the experimental group. retold a story after listening to the story in each treatment session, while those in the control group drew a picture about the story they heard. 11. The children in the.

(20) experimental group were directed by questions which highlighted the structural elements in the story when retelling a story in each weekly treatment session. Children’s dictations of original stories were scored with the structural elements contained. The comparison of the pre- and post story dictation indicated that there was significant improvement for the participants in the experimental group regarding the inclusion of structural elements--- setting, theme, plot episode, resolution and sequence.. Morrow (1986), thus, maintained that retelling, when directed by. structural guidance, could be an instructional tool capable of improving children’s dictation of original stories. The structural support in the form of prompt questions in Morrow’s (1986) study appears to share the same nature with story elements.. For example, the directions on. the guide sheet utilized in the treatment session for the experimental group required the student teacher to prompt the retelling by asking questions such as “When and where did the story happen?” as “setting.”. The “when” and “where” elements can be categorized. Thus, it may be concluded that if structural guidance can facilitate the. inclusion of story elements in the story dictation, a kind of story retelling, so can the GO map instruction, in which the story elements are focused on as the key concepts and represented by geometric shapes to strengthen the memorization of story elements. 12.

(21) 2.3 Graphic Organizers Graphic organizers, in different varieties, have been examined for their effectiveness in the improvement of learning.. The incorporation of graphic. organizers in a curriculum can be supportive and facilitative of not only learning but also teaching.. In this section, graphic organizers are first defined.. common formats of graphic organizers are introduced.. Next, the. Finally, the application of. graphic organizers as a language learning strategy is discussed. 2.3.1 Definition and variation of graphic organizers A graphic organizer is a visual and graphic display that describes the relationship between facts, terms, and ideas within a learning task.. The term, “graphic organizer”,. is generalized to include several mapping strategies, such as visual organizers, knowledge maps, concept maps, story maps, cognitive maps, advance organizers, semantic maps and other schematic design (Kang, 2004; Chaing, 2005). different terms, they are conceptually similar.. In spite of. They are all pictorial devices to help. clarify and organize information in need of being processed and depending on the purpose of learning, can be applied in different phases of learning from brainstorming to presenting results. Based on the concept of visualization of knowledge, researchers sometimes develop their unique way of graphic representation. 13. For example, by adapting the.

(22) original story map developed by Idol and Croll (1987), which consisted of only a series of boxes with labels, representing story elements, Staal (2000) developed “the Story Face” which not only presented a series of shapes with labels, but also displayed the overall image of a face.. “The Story Face”, thus, provided the readers. with a meaningful context for understanding the story they read. In the present study, the researcher adopted the GO map, a variation of graphic organizers. It was developed from “the Shape Graphic Organizer Map” designed by Benson and Cummins (2000), which combined the concept of story elements with geometric shapes.. The inclusion of geometric shapes in the GO map provided. recognizable objects upon which the students could outline their story: The triangle represents the three initial elements usually found in the beginning of the story: the setting, the characters, and the problems or goals; the rectangle in the middle represents the events that take place, which can remind the students to summarize at least four major events; finally, the end is symbolized by a circle, meaning “what goes around comes around” in a story.. With the story elements in mind, learners are. better able to comprehend and visualize the stories.. The visualization of the story. fortifies learners’ competence to reconstruct the story in a better-organized way. Hence, the presentation of their story retelling may be enhanced.. 14.

(23) 2.3.2 Common formats of graphic organizers There are four basic graphic organizer formats (see Appendix A), which vary in appearances (Benson and Cummins, 2000; Hall and Strangman, 2002). (1) The hierarchical map The hierarchical map organizes information with nodes and labeled links. nodes account for key concepts.. The. The labeled links display the relationship of the. ideas with the topic concepts on the top and levels of sub-topic concepts presented underneath. (2) The conceptual map The conceptual map reflects the relationship of the key concepts and their supporting details.. The main ideas are placed in the middle surrounded by the. supporting details. (3) The sequential map The sequential map is constructed in a linear order.. It is particularly useful for. events arranged chronologically. (4) The cyclical map Just as a sequential map, in the cyclical map, the events are also related in a chronological order. However, it particularly deals with information in a circular process with a cyclic structure representing events that begin and end in the same 15.

(24) place. Each format of graphic organizers graphically demonstrates the relationships among events.. The GO map incorporated in the present study conceptually. belonged to a kind of sequential map since it intends to help organize the story sequentially. 2.3.3 Use of graphic organizers to improve reading comprehension Graphic organizers have been widely investigated for their effectiveness in improving learning and extensively applied across various content areas in L1 settings (Moore and Readence, 1984; Hall & Strangman, 2002). Graphic organizers are even cited by National Reading Panel (2000) as one of the seven categories of instruction that are the most effective in the improvement of reading comprehension. In Taiwan, more studies have examined the facilitative effects of graphic organizers on EFL learners of different grade levels in recent years (e.g., Jau, 1997; Lu, 2005; Chiang, 2005; Yeh, 2008; Tai, 2008). Most of these local studies looked into the relations between graphic organizers and reading comprehension. Lu (2005), for example, investigated the effects of semantic mapping (a kind of graphic organizer) on EFL senior high school students’ reading comprehension.. One hundred and. twenty-eight 10th-graders participated in the 17-week intervention, with 64 in the experimental group and 64 in the control group. 16. Participants in the experimental.

(25) group received a ten-week training in semantic mapping strategy, while those in the control group received traditional teaching method instruction, which focused on explanation about vocabulary, grammar and content, during the same period.. The. results of the study revealed that semantic mapping strategy facilitated the experimental group’s reading comprehension. Similarly, Tai (2008) explored the effects of three kinds of graphic organizers, including sequential, comparative, and hierarchical organizers, on vocational high school EFL students’ reading comprehension. instruction. was. introduced. to. the. A nine-week graphic organizer. seventy-seven. 11th-grade. participants.. Measurements included the graphic organizer application tests and the reading comprehension tests.. Positive outcomes were reported, showing that graphic. organizer instruction helped enhance reading comprehension significantly. Additionally, Chiang (2005) also investigated the effects of graphic organizer strategies, teacher- and student-generated on reading comprehension. a one sample pre- and post-session, quasi experimental design.. The study was. Participants were. fifty tertiary level freshmen from a medical college in Taiwan.. The treatment. included two stages. During the first stage, the teacher-generated graphic organizer strategy was employed.. In the second stage, participants generated graphic. organizers in a group-work setting. Two comprehension tests as a pre- and post-test 17.

(26) were administered for data analysis.. It was concluded that only the. student-generated graphic organizer strategy had significantly positive impact on the students' reading comprehension.. The finding of this study suggests that the use of. graphic organizers is a useful pedagogical device for facilitating EFL reading comprehension. Moreover, Jau (1997) explored the effects of graphic organizers on the reading comprehension of narrative and comparative-contrastive texts.. Participants were. sixty-eight Non-English majors from Soochow University. They were from two different classes: One was assigned as the Control Group (CG) and the other, the Strategy Group (SG).. The study lasted for about 4 months.. The SG was trained. under the graphic organizer approach while the CG did not undergo any mapping training but received traditional question-and-answer approach instead. A pretest was administered first, followed by the instructional treatments and then a posttest. In both the pre- and posttest, they read the designated materials and then completed the reading comprehension tests.. Based on test results, the researcher concluded that. the use of graphic organizers as an instructional strategy to teach text structure benefited the reading comprehension of college freshmen more than the conventional question-and-answer approach, particularly in the comprehension of comparison-andcontrast test.. To sum up, these local graphic organizer studies have all shown that 18.

(27) graphic organizers are proved to be effective in enhancing reading comprehension for EFL learners in Taiwan. 2.3.4 Use of graphic organizers to improve story retelling Some literature suggests that graphic organizers may facilitate story retelling. Walker (1996), for example, pointed out that young learners were often overwhelmed by the abundance of information in the text. The simple, visual, and structural representation of story maps, a kind of graphic organizer, therefore, could help the readers organize and recall events to some degree and thereby reconstruct a better-organized story retelling with less difficulty. Staal (2000) also suggested that graphic organizers could be incorporated as guidance to story retelling because graphic organizers helped students understand and remember narrative text structure.. Moreover, in Benson and Cummins’s (2000). “Developmental Retelling Model1”, they proposed to guide learners developmentally toward better written retelling with deeper understanding of narratives.. Graphic. organizers were employed in one stage of the model to facilitate retelling. Despite some support from the literature for the effects of graphic organizers on 1. In this particular model, there are three major stages: Guided Retelling, Story Map Retelling, and Written Retelling. In Guided Retelling, learners practice oral retelling with pictures or props under teachers’ guidance. After the learners are familiarized with the oral retelling procedure, they then move on to the Story Map Retelling stage. Benson and Cummins (2000) point out that the change from Guided Retelling to Story Map Retelling means that learners move from the concrete level of using props to scaffold their oral retelling toward constructing abstract synthesis with graphic organizers to enhance their oral retelling. At the last stage, Written Retelling, learners begin to retell in the written form, which is a developmentally more complex task. Teachers, therefore, need to bridge the transition from oral to written retelling at this stage. 19.

(28) oral story retelling, it should be noted that only a meager amount of literature was found to deal with EFL learners.. Thus, there appears to be a need for more empirical. evidence from EFL contexts so that it is convincing for local practitioners to incorporate graphic organizers in retelling activities.. The present study, therefore,. sought to investigate and hoped to provide solid support for the effects of the GO map instruction on the oral story retelling ability of Taiwanese learners.. 20.

(29) CHAPTER THREE. METHODOLOGY. In this chapter, the study design is first introduced.. Then, the background. information of the participants is presented. Next, the procedure of the study is detailed.. Finally, the data analysis methods are addressed.. 3.1 Study Design The present study adopted the quasi-experimental design, including an experimental group (EG) and a control group (CG), in order to compare and contrast their retelling performances in both pretest and posttest specifically.. The study. began with a simulated GEPT elementary speaking test administered to both the EG and CG.. The purpose of the test was to ensure that the EG and CG were similar in. their English proficiency level before the study set off so that the results of their retellings in the posttest could be more confidently attributed to the instruction the participants received. A retelling instruction session for the pretest was given to familiarize the participants with the purpose and procedure of their first story retelling task, namely the pretest and then the participants took the pretest.. Next, a. four-week instructional phase unfolded. In each of these four weeks, a combination of a story instruction session and a GO map instruction session was provided to the participants in the EG.. Meanwhile, the CG received the same story instruction. sessions, which, however, were followed by the commonly-used traditional question 21.

(30) and answer (Q & A) instruction sessions instead of the GO map instruction sessions. After the four-week instructional phase, the participants in both the EG and CG received the retelling instruction for the posttest and then took the posttest.. A. posttest questionnaire and interviews were administered to collect the responses of the participants in the EG regarding the GO map instruction in the last week. 3.2 Participants Participants of the study came from two classes of seventh graders in a public school located in Tien-Mu, Taipei City. The reasons for choosing these two classes were three-fold.. First, the teacher-researcher was the participants’ English teacher,. who had taught them for approximately eight months, so she and the participants had established a trustful relationship.. Second, among all three classes of seventh. graders taught by the teacher-researcher, these two classes displayed relatively better English abilities based on the results of the section tests and the simulated elementary GEPT speaking test. They both had higher motivation to learn English and were more willing to communicate in English as well.. Third, the composition of the two. classes was similar in terms of their sizes and the distribution of the students’ gender and average English proficiency level. The two classes were then randomly assigned to be the experimental and the control group respectively. A consent form (see Appendices B-1& B-2) seeking the 22.

(31) participants’ and their parents’ approval to participate in the present study was filled out before the study began.. This led to 27 participants in the EG, including 12 girls. and 15 boys and 27 participants in the CG, including 13 girls and 14 boys. 3.3 Procedure of the Study The study lasted for approximately eight weeks, proceeding in five steps, as indicated in Table 1. Table 1. The following sections detail each of the five steps:. 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. Week 4. Week 5. Week 6. Week 7. 3. 3. 3. Instruction of Story 1. Instruction of Story 1. GO Map Instruction Session 1. Q & A Instruction Session 1. Instruction of Story 2. Instruction of Story 2. GO Map Instruction Session 2. Q & A Instruction Session 2. Instruction of Story 3. Instruction of Story 3. GO Map Instruction Session 3. Q & A Session Instruction 3. Instruction of Story 4. Instruction of Story 4. GO Map Instruction Session 4. Q & A Session Instruction 4. 4. Posttest Posttest Questionnaire. Week 8. 5 Interview. Step 1: Simulated GEPT English speaking proficiency test 23.

(32) 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. 24.

(33) 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 25.

(34) 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. 4. The readability gives an approximate indication of the statistical analysis of the difficulty of a text.. 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. 26.

(35) 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 27.

(36) analyzed using the GO maps with less difficulty and confusion. these stories, after adaptation, ranges from 2.4 to 3.3.. The readability of. 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 28.

(37) 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 29.

(38) 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 30.

(39) 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 31.

(40) complete a GO map independently.. The teacher-researcher didn’t provide any. scaffolding until the participants finished their GO map completely. teacher-researcher. then. circulated. to check their answers.. The. 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. second part twenty minutes.. The first part took ten minutes and the. 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 32.

(41) 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 33.

(42) usefulness of the GO map instruction to the posttest retelling, and the reason behind their responses were solicited.. Besides, the researcher also interviewed the. participants whose responses to the open-ended questions in the posttest questionnaire needed to be clarified.. The interviews, therefore, served to elicit more detailed. thoughts from the participants toward the GO map instruction. 3.4 Data Analysis The results of the story retelling performances on the pretest and posttest were analyzed from five aspects: (1) the story length as indicated by the number of words contained in the participants’ retelling performances, (2) the fluency in terms of the original and pruned speech rate, (3) the story element count score and story content score, (4) the level of the overall retelling performances and (5) the participants’ responses to the GO map instruction.. In terms of the calculation of the story length,. the participants’ retold stories were first transcribed. The original word count was calculated by the number of words in the retelling transcriptions and the pruned word count was gained with the number of words of false starts and repetitions deducted from the original word count. The fluency of the participants’ retelling performances in both the pretest and posttest was determined by using the original speech rate and the pruned speech rate. The original speech rate is calculated by dividing the number of words by the total 34.

(43) time (words per minute, i.e., “w.p.m.”) (Lennon, 1990).. Pruned speech rate, which. is based on Lennon’s (1990) concept of “pruned speech,” is obtained by calculating speech rate exclusive of false starts and repetitions.. The reason for adoption of the. pruned speech rate is that with the false starts and repetitions excluded, the pruned speech rate substantially reflects the efficient and meaningful content the participants produce per minute.. That is, the pruned speech rate combines speed of speech with. its efficiency in terms of how much repair is required; hence, it serves as an appropriate measure of fluency. The story elements in the participants’ retold stories were evaluated in two ways: the story element count score and story content score. The story element count score was calculated by how many story element items were included. was mentioned, a point was awarded. story elements.. When an element. The highest score is seven for there are seven. The story content score in the participants’ retelling performances. were analyzed and graded according to the grading checklist (see Appendix N). scoring criteria on the checklist are adjusted from Morrow (1986).. The. The GO map. checklists (see Appendices E-2 & L-2) for the two retold stories helped provide a reference for the researcher to judge how many points to assign regarding the story element content and sequence.. The grading checklist were used as criteria for. assigning points to the story elements included and the sequence in which the story 35.

(44) elements were organized in their retelling performances. element varies.. The weight for each story. For each story element and the sequence, the degree of. completeness and detailedness determines the score the participants got.. The. elements on the checklist include “Story Title”, “Setting”, “Characters”, “Problem/Goal”, “Events”, “End” and “Sequence” with different maximum points, ranging from the highest 4 to the lowest 0.5.. The maximum point is determined by. the proportion of the particular element in stories.. Specifically, since the element,. “Events”, comprises the major part of stories, the participants could get as many as four points if they successfully mentioned eight or more events. “Setting,” including when and where, has a maximum point of 1.5. For “Characters,” “Problem/Goal,” “Sequence,” and “End”, the maximum point is 1.. As for “Story Title”, since its. proportion is relatively small, its maximum point is 0.5. The primary principle for assigning points depends on how the participants’ retelling content fitted the description on the GO map checklist.. Specifically, if the retold story content. corresponded with the description of an element, the participants could get the maximum point.. If the content of an element was incomplete or partially wrong,. they could still get some points for the part they recounted correctly.. However, if the. content of an element was outright missing or completely twisted, they got no points. As for “Sequence,” if the participants described the events according to the sequence 36.

(45) in which the events take place without making mistakes, a point was rewarded to them; if there were a few mistakes but the story order was still understandable, they got 0.5 point.. If the participant recalled the story with little or no sequence, they got. no point. The points for each element were accumulated to gain the final score. The highest total score was ten and the lowest zero.. The teacher-researcher and her. colleague, who is also an English teacher, conducted all the ratings for the story element content and holistic level of the participants’ retellings.. They analyzed the. participants’ performances together and settled the differences of their assessment by discussion. A score was final once they had reached consensus. The holistic evaluation of the participants’ performances was carried out based on the holistic evaluative criteria developed by the researcher (see Appendix O); it’s a five-level evaluation form using such criteria as (1) pronunciation, intonation, and fluency, (2) organization, completeness, sequence, coherence, cohesion and supporting details, (3) grammatical and syntactical structure and lexical use and (4) paraphrase. The participants’ retelling performances in the pretest and posttest were evaluated and then assigned to a level in a holistic fashion. All the quantitative data obtained from the pretest and posttest was processed via t-tests.. The independent t-test was conducted to investigate whether there was a. significant difference between the EG and CG regarding a particular aspect of their 37.

(46) retelling performances.. The paired-samples t-test was conducted to explore whether. there was a significant difference regarding a particular aspect of their retelling performances between the pretest and posttest within the EG or the CG.. In this case,. all the quantitative data gathered in the pretest were first processed via the independent t-test to see if there was a significant difference between the EG and CG in the pretest on a particular aspect of their story retelling performances.. The fact. that no significant between-group difference was found in the pretest performances indicated that the EG & CG were similar in their retelling ability before the study. Under this condition, a paired-samples t-test was then conducted to see whether there was significant difference between the pretest and posttest in each group.. A. significant difference indicated that the participants in that group progressed significantly from the pretest to the posttest on that aspect.. When both groups. displayed a significant within-group difference, another independent t-test was conducted on the posttest to see whether there was any significant difference in the posttest.. If there was a significant between-group difference in the posttest, it. suggested that the group with higher mean value in the posttest made more progress than the other group. If there was none, it indicated that both groups made equally significant progress. Finally, the responses of the participants in the EG to the multiple-choice 38.

(47) questions in the posttest questionnaire were presented with descriptive statistics. Their responses to the open-ended questions in the questionnaire and to the probing questions in the interviews were categorized, synthesized and analyzed.. 39.

(48) CHAPTER FOUR. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. In this chapter, the effects of the GO map instruction on students’ story retelling performances are presented and discussed. The effects of the GO map instruction on the word count are examined first.. Next, the effects on the fluency are shown.. Third, the effects on the number and content of the story elements in the participants’ story retelling are addressed.. Fourth, the effects concerning the holistic story. retelling performance are discussed.. Finally, the results of the participants’. perceptions of the GO map instruction are delineated. 4.1 Effects of GO Map Instruction on Length of Participants’ Story Retelling The researcher mainly seeks to find out whether the participants in the EG can retell longer stories after the treatment of the GO map instruction. First, the result of the original word count is presented. shown.. Next, the result of the pruned word count is. Third, the result concerning the differences between the original and pruned. word count is reported. Finally, the effects of the GO map instruction on the length of the story retelling are addressed. 4.1.1 Results of the original word count The original word count (i.e., the original number of words contained in the retold story) is briefly summarized in Table 2 to display the average length of the stories retold by the EG and the CG in the pretest and posttest. 40. The results here.

(49) show that the mean scores on the original word count for the story retold by the participants in the EG and CG and are 147.5 and 153 in the pretest and 145.3 and 141.1 in the posttest respectively. In terms of the mean value, the CG outperformed the EG (CG: 153> EG: 147.5) in the pretest while the results were reversed in the posttest (EG: 145.3>CG: 141.1).. Regarding the changes between the pretest and. posttest, there is an average decrease of 2.2 words in the original word count for the EG and of 11.9 words for the CG in the posttest.. Hence, participants in both groups. retold shorter stories in the posttest, and the decrease is much sharper 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=-0.242), suggesting that the average original word count in each group in the pretest was statistically the same. Since the value of the within-group t-test indicates that the decrease in the original word count is statistically insignificant for both groups (EG: t=0.236; CG: t=1.568), the retold stories in the posttest, though of a shorter length, were not significantly shorter. Table 2. A T-test of Mean Scores on the Original Word Count Pretest. Posttest. Pre-posttest t-test. M. SD. M. SD. t-value. The EG (N=27). 147.5. 96.2. 145.3. 71.3. 0.236. The CG (N=27). 153.0. 68.1. 141.1. 59.1. 1.568. Note. *p< .05, **p< .01, M=Mean, SD=Standard Deviation. 41.

(50) 4.1.2 Results of the pruned word count The mean scores on the pruned word count (i.e., the number of words in the retold story with false starts and repetitions excluded) are summarized in Table 3 to show the average pruned length of the stories retold by the EG and the CG in the pretest and posttest.. As Table 3 shows, the mean scores on the pruned word count in. the story retold by the participants in the EG and CG are 137.8 and 146.3 in the pretest and 139.8 and 133.4 in the posttest respectively.. In terms of the mean value,. the CG outperformed the EG in the pretest (CG: 146.3> EG: 137.8) while the results were reversed in the posttest (EG: 139.8>CG: 133.4).. Regarding the changes. between the pretest and posttest, there is an average increase of 2.0 words for the EG whereas there is an average decrease of 12.9 words for the CG.. Hence, the. participants in the EG retold modestly more content in the posttest with false starts and repetitions excluded, while those in the CG retold moderately less.. 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=-0.227), suggesting that the average pruned word count in each group in the pretest was statistically the same. Since the value of the within-group t-test indicates that neither groups retold significantly longer or shorter stories in the posttest (EG: t=-0.217; CG: t=1.647), the seemingly great decrease between pretest and posttest for the CG remains statistically 42.

(51) insignificant (t=1.647). Table 3. A T-test of Mean Scores on the Pruned Word Count Pretest. Posttest. Pre-posttest t-test. M. SD. M. SD. t-value. The EG (N=27). 137.8. 87.0. 139.8. 66.49. -0.217. The CG (N=27). 146.3. 71.3. 133.4. 57.9. 1.647. Note. *p< .05, **p< .01, M=Mean, SD=Standard Deviation. 4.1.3 Results of comparison between original and pruned word count In the present study, the differences between the original and pruned word count means the false starts and repetitions the participants produced.. Therefore, the. bigger the difference is, the more false starts and repetitions there are. The mean scores on the word count of false starts and repetitions in both the pretest and posttest are summarized in Table 4.. The results here show that the. average differences in the EG and CG are 9.70 and 6.70 in the pretest and 5.48 and 7.63 in the posttest respectively.. In terms of the mean value, the CG outperformed. the EG in the pretest (CG: 6.7 < EG: 9.7) by producing fewer false starts and repetitions while the results were reversed in the posttest (EG: 5.48 < CG: 7.63). Regarding the changes between the pretest and posttest, there is an average decrease of 4.22 words in false starts and repetitions (5.48-9.7=-4.22) for the EG; however, there is an average increase of 0.93 words (7.63-6.7=0.93) for the CG. That is, the participants in the EG made more progress than their counterparts from the pretest to the posttest by producing fewer false starts and repetitions. 43. On the.