Chapter Four Results and Discussion
In this chapter, the results are reported to demonstrate the differences between
the pretest and posttest after the application of the story-mapping instruction. The
main findings include the quantitative results on word count, writing performance,
story grammar units, writing apprehension and students’ response to the
story-mapping instruction. The qualitative results on students’ opinions toward
story-mapping instruction are also presented. Besides, the discussion of the results is
included.
4.1 Comparison of Word Count between the Pretest and the Posttest
The first research question addressed in the present study focuses on the content
length of the stories in the pretest and the posttest. The main concern is if the
participants could write more after receiving the instruction.
●
Results
Table 7 summarizes the average length of the stories in the pretest and posttest.
In Table 7, the result shows that the participants did write a longer story after the story
mapping instruction. The mean score of the students’ word count significantly
increased by 105.19 words (Pretest: 77.89; Posttest: 183.08). Before the
story-mapping instruction, the participants typically produced relatively short and
incomplete stories of poor quality. The average length of their stories was only
77.89-word long, which was relatively short for senior high school students. After
learning the story-mapping writing strategy, all the participants wrote stories almost
two times longer.
Table 7
A T-test of Mean Scores on Word Count in the Pretest and Posttest (N=76)
M SD t-value
Pretest Posttest
77.89 183.08
26.49
73.89 13.69**
Note. * p＜.05, ** p＜.01, M=Mean, SD=Standard Deviation
●
Discussion
The results showed that the participants wrote longer stories after the
story-mapping instruction, with 105.19 words longer. The similar results could also be
found in Saddler, et al. (2004). In their study, the students’ stories were 2.5 to 7 times
longer after learning the story mapping strategy. However, their study focused on the
effects of the story-mapping on the students with learning disabilities. The results here
demonstrated that the instruction had the same positive effects on the average EFL
students. Noyce & Christie (1980) indicate that the prior knowledge of a story, that is,
the story schema, serves as the source of the content of writing. With the framework
of a story, writers would have more to write about. The statistical results showed that
the knowledge of the story structure helped the participants compose longer stories
with more details.
4.2 Comparison of Writing Performance between the Pretest and the Posttest
The second research question addressed in the present study centers on the
improvement of the content and organization of the participants’ writing performance
between the pretest and the posttest.
●
Results
The results shown in Table 8 indicate that there was significant difference of the
participants’ writing score between the pretest and posttest. The mean score of overall
writing performance increased (Pretest: 6.34; Posttest: 11.17). The increase of mean
scores in overall writing performance and five measured components were significant
(t=11.226**, 11.025**, 11.630**, 10.220**, 7.751**, 6.885**, respectively, p＜.01).
Additionally, the increase of mean score change for “Organization” (+1.35) was most
remarkable, followed by “Content” (+1.23), “Vocabulary” (+1.07), “Grammar”
(+0.86), and “Mechanism” (+0.44).
Table 8
A T-test of Mean Scores on Writing Performance in the Pretest and Posttest N=76
Pretest Posttest t-value
M SD M SD
Content 1.86 .73 3.09 .94 11.03**
Organization 1.45 .72 2.80 .98 11.63**
Vocabulary 1.32 .62 2.39 .90 10.22**
Grammar 1.09 .77 1.95 .82 7.75**
Mechanism 0.51 .50 0.95 .32 6.89**
Overall Writing Proficiency 6.34 3.08 11.17 3.5 11.23**
Note. * p＜.05, ** p＜.01, M=Mean, SD=Standard Deviation
●
Discussion
The results demonstrate that after the story mapping instruction, the students did
make improvement in organization and content in their compositions. The results
positively answer the second research question: Do the participants have better
content and organization in their compositions after story-mapping instruction?
They confirm the first research hypothesis: The learners who undergo the
story-mapping instruction improve significantly in the content and organization of
their writing. One may argue that it was the maturation effect that made the students
improve their writing performance. However, this line of reasoning cannot fully
explain why organization is the most remarkable among all the categories of writing
performance. In fact, such improvement follows naturally from the proposal that the
story-mapping instruction assists the students in writing performance. After receiving
the concept of story schema and having the story structure in mind, the students
constructed and organized the story map before they wrote, which helped compose a
story with better organization. The improvement of organization indicates that the
improvement of writing performance was not totally influenced by the maturation
effect. The finding is supported by other studies, including Brown (1988), Fitzgerald
& Teasley (1986), and Hsu (2001). In their studies, the participants also made
improvements in content and organization in their compositions after the
story-mapping instruction. The similarity of the results of the related research shows
that story mapping, an organized, schematic writing strategy, helps students generate
stories with better organization and richer content.
It is worth noting that the participants made significant improvement not only in
“Content” and “Organization,” but also in “Vocabulary,” “Grammar,” and
“Mechanism.” One may wonder why the students also made progress significantly in
these three aspects. This may be explained from the qualitative results. In the
interview, when asked why they could write with richer vocabulary, more correct
grammar, and better mechanism, the participants said that they learned a lot from the
selected articles. Besides, they became more sensitive to the way that writers
described a story. For example, they used more adjectives and rhetorical devices to
describe a main character instead of just giving it a name. Through the story-mapping
instruction, the students not only learned the structure of a story, but also became
aware of word usage and grammar.
4.3 Comparison of the Number of the Story Grammar Units between the Pretest
and the Posttest
The main concern of the third research question is whether the participants
significantly write more story elements in their stories after receiving the story
mapping instruction.
●
Results
In Table 9, the mean score of the number of the story grammar units increased
(Pretest: 5.05; Posttest: 7.33). The increase of mean score was significant (t=13.621**,
p＜.01). In the present study, a well-constructed story included eight story grammar units. Before the story-mapping instruction, the participants could write a story with
5.05 story grammar units. After the instruction, the stories that the participants
composed contained 7.33 story grammar units, which was a significant improvement.
Table 9
A T-test of Mean Scores on SG Number in the Pretest and Posttest (N=76)
M SD t-value
Pretest Posttest
5.05 7.33
1.58
.87 13.62**
Note. * p＜.05, ** p＜.01, M=Mean, SD=Standard Deviation
●
Discussion
The results of the comparison of the number of story grammar units between the
pre-test writing and the post-test writing support the findings reported in the previous
research (Harris & Graham, 1992; Vallecorsa & deBettencourt, 1997; Graham &
Harris, 2004). In their studies, the students made improvement in the number of the
story elements included in their stories. One might wonder why the participants could
write a story with 5.05 story grammar units before the instruction. According to
Noyce & Christie (1989), most stories share the same, predictable basic structure or
pattern of events that create the properties of a story. Most children possess this
organizational similarity consciously or unconsciously. This can be explained why the
participants could write a story of some basic story grammar units without the
story-mapping instruction. Despite the fact that some participants could write a
roughly-constructed story, many of them failed to write a story with all story elements.
After receiving the story-mapping instruction, the participants made significant
improvement in writing more story elements. These positive results indicated that the
story schema instruction benefited the story writing. Foley (2000) indicates that while
writing stories, writers retrieve the information from the story schema. Given the
explicit instruction of the prior knowledge of a story, inexperienced writers can
generate stories with more story grammar units, which may lead to better-constructed
stories.
4.4 Comparison of Story Grammar Units between the Pretest and the Posttest
The main concern of the fourth research question is whether the participants can
write more well-constructed stories after receiving the story mapping instruction. To
be more specific, we would like to know if the participants can get significantly
higher score of the story grammar in their stories.
●
Results
In Table 10, the mean score of the overall story grammar unit increased (Pretest:
5.50; Posttest: 10.29). The increase of mean score in overall story grammar units was
significant (t=17.715**, p＜.01). Besides, the participants made the most progress in
the “Action” (+0.99), followed by “Character” (+0.85), “Goal” (+0.71), “Reaction”
(+0.65), “Starter” (+0.56), “Locale” (+0.45), “Time” (+0.42), and “Ending” (+0.15).
All story grammar units reached a significant level (p＜.01). Among the 8 story
grammar units, the students preformed best in the “Action” and “Character.”
Table 10
A T-test of Mean Scores on Story Grammar Units in the Pretest and Posttest N=76
Pretest Posttest t-value
M SD M SD
Character 1.03 .28 1.88 .54 13.35 **
Locale 0.54 .50 0.99 .31 7.08 **
Time 0.57 .50 0.99 .26 7.02 **
Starter 0.86 .35 1.42 .55 7.98 **
Goal 0.54 1.21 1.25 .44 4.75 **
Action 1.18 .48 2.17 .82 10.05 **
Ending 0.82 .42 0.97 .61 2.10 **
Reaction 0.13 .34 0.78 .74 7.07 **
Overall SG 5.50 1.89 10.29 2.53 17.72 **
Note. * p＜.05, ** p＜.01, M=Mean, SD=Standard Deviation
●
Discussion
The results of the comparison of story grammar units between the pre-test
writing and the post-test writing support the findings reported in the previous research
(e.g., Fine, 1991). Fine indicates that providing the students with the direct instruction
of story grammar helps them improve each of their story grammar units. The positive
results shown in the present study demonstrate that with the assistance of story
mapping strategy, the students have better knowledge of story structure and have the
ability to compose stories with more improved story elements and details. The
researcher found that the participants had the ability to write more actions and create
more episodes in their stories after receiving the story-mapping instruction. That was
a significant improvement because the stories written in the posttest appeared to have
more creative and coherent actions. Furthermore, the participants described the main
characters in greater detail with respect to the characters’ physical appearance,
characteristics and feelings after receiving the explicit story mapping instruction. The
results positively answer the fourth research question: Do the participants write more
well-constructed stories after the story-mapping instruction? The results also support
Gambrell and Chasen (1993), who advocated that explicit story instruction could
improve the student’s narrative writing. It is shown that when the students are
provided with instruction which offered them a distinct organizational structure, they
are more likely to internalize this structure for use in the writing development of
narrative stories. The results also echo Hagood’s (1997) finding that when learners
were provided with detailed, explicit, and repetitive experiences in analyzing and
manipulating story grammar, they could internalize a simple story structure.
4.5 Results of the Most Difficult and Easiest Story Grammar Units
The concern of the fifth research question is to find out which story element is
the most difficult for the participants to manipulate in the pretest and the posttest and
which one is the easiest to them.
●
Results
Table 11 shows the results of the most difficult story element to students based
on the questionnaire. 32.8% (N= 25) of the students reported that they had problems
with “Actions,” 22.4% (N= 17) “Reaction,” and 21.1% (N= 16) “Ending.”
Table 12 shows the results of the easiest story element to students based on the
questionnaire. The majority of the participants (81.6%) thought the setting of a story
was relatively easier to them in comparison with other story grammar units. To be
more specific, 39.5% (N= 30) of the participants regarded “Characters “as the easiest
story element to manipulate, 22.4% (N= 17) “Time” and 19.7% (N= 15) “Locale.”
Table 11
The Number and Percentage of Story Grammar Units Which the Students Thought to Be the Most Difficult to Them (N=76)
Which story grammar unit is the most difficult to you?
Ranking N %
1. Action 25 32.8
2. Reaction 17 22.4
3. Ending 16 21.1
4. Character 10 13.2
5. Starter event 4 5.3
6. Goal 4 5.3
7. Time 0 0
8. Locale 0 0
Table 12
The Number and Percentage of Story Grammar Units Which the Students Thought to Be the Easiest to Them (N=76)
Which story grammar unit is the easiest to you?
Ranking N %
1. Character 30 39.5
2. Time 17 22.4
3. Locale 15 19.7
4. Action 12 15.8
5. Starter event 1 1.3
6. Goal 1 1.3
7. Ending 0 0
8. Reaction 0 0
●
Discussion
After the direct story-mapping instruction, the students made improvement in all
story grammar units. However, “Reaction” and “Ending” appeared to be difficult for
some students to manipulate. Based on the results of the interview, the researcher
summarizes two possible answers to account for why the students could not master
“Reaction” and “Ending.”; that is, picture aid and time constraint. The students who
found “Ending” difficult said that “Ending” was relatively hard to them because they
had to work out the ending of a story without the help of the picture. They said that
they could write based on the given pictures, but it was hard for them to come up with
the ending and reaction without the assistance of pictures. The results echo the finding
of Chiang (2003). Chiang indicates that pictures can be used as a powerful tool to
move students from visual images to the written language and thus enable them to
write more about the topic. The other reason to explain why they could not finish their
“Ending” and “Reaction” with ease was the time constraint. Many of the students
could not manage time well. They spent too much time on the story map and did not
leave enough time to make a well-developed “Ending” and “Reaction”. According to
the interview, some students noticed the problem of time management. They said they
spent 20-30 minutes making the story map and wrote their stories hurriedly. They
expressed that the experience taught them a lesson; that is, they should limit the time
of prewriting activity to 5 to 15 minutes.
Before the instruction, although most participants could manipulate “Character”
and “Action”, the character in their stories was only a name without detailed
description. The “Actions” in most students’ stories were few and lacked coherence.
After the instruction, most students could create characters with vivid description and
actions with rich content and coherence. Fine (1991) reported the similar result. In her
study, the participants also better understood and could manipulate “Character”,
“Setting”, and “Plot” after direct instruction of story grammar.
Although most students could manipulate “Action” in the stories of the posttest,
25 students reported they had difficulty with “Actions” in open-ended question of the
questionnaire. They found it challenging to come up with a creative and logical plot.
They were worried that their plot might be too “ordinary”; therefore, they tried hard to
make their stories as imaginative as possible. That was why they found the “Action”
hard. That was an interesting finding. Some of the teenagers were unwilling to follow
the instruction to write a logical and reasonable plot and ending; instead, they liked to
“impress” the readers by creating special “Actions” and a surprising “Ending.” The
majority of the participants could not write a logical or reasonable ending. Because
they would like their stories to be special, they tended to write a “surprising” ending.
However, the surprising endings they made were always nonsense or ridiculous. The
Chinese teacher of the participants indicated that she also noticed the same problem,
that is, students nowadays do not have the habit of extensive reading. Since the
students read too little, they lack the ability to compose a well-organized story with a
reasonable ending. Besides, the subculture of the teenagers makes the students
consider a “surprising ending” cool and impressive.
The other concern of the fifth research question is : what is the easiest story
element to students? Based on the results of the questionnaire, the majority of the
participants (81.6%) thought the setting of a story, including “Characters”, “Locale”,
and “Time”, was relatively easier to them in comparison with other story grammar
units. The students pointed out that the three story elements were relatively more
concrete ideas to them than the rest. Also, they found the given pictures provided
them with the idea of the setting.
4.6 Correlation of Score of Story Grammar, Writing Performance and Word
Count
The main concern of the section is to find out if there were any correlation
between the story mapping strategy and writing performance, that is, if there were any
correlation among the score of the story grammar, writing performance and word
count in the students’ picture writing.
●
Results
Research on the story-mapping instruction seldom reported the correlation
between the story mapping strategy and writing performance. In the present study, the
researcher made an investigation of the correlation among the story grammar units,
writing performance and word count. Table 13 shows a strong correlation among the
score of story grammar, that of the writing score and number of the word count. The
correlation between the score of story grammar and that of the writing proficiency
is .833**; the correlation between the score of story grammar and word count
is .675**; the correlation between the score of writing proficiency and that of the
word count is .569**. The results all reached a statistically significant level set at p
＜ .01.
Table 13
A Correlation-test of Mean Scores on Story Grammar Units, Writing Performance and Word Count (N=76)
SG Writing Performance Word count
SG 1 .83(**) .68(**)
Writing Performance .83(**) 1 .57(**)
Word count .68(**) .57(**) 1
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
●
Discussion
Based on the results of the correlations test, the story-mapping instruction did
significantly have a strong correlation with students’ writing performance and the
length of their stories. In addition, the correlation was positive rather than negative
since the statistic results of word count, story grammar units and writing performance
showed improvement in the participants’ writing. The results showed that after the
participants were taught the story-mapping strategy, the basic story elements in their
stories increased, their writing performance improved, and their compositions became
longer.
4.7 Comparison of Writing Apprehension between the Pretest and the Posttest
The sixth research question addressed in the present study focuses on the writing
apprehension. The main concern is whether or not the participants can reduce their
writing anxiety after receiving the instruction.
●
Results
In Table 14, there was a statistically significant difference in the participants’
response to SLWAT between pre-test and post-test. The mean score of the overall
writing apprehension decreased (Pretest: 80.76; Posttest: 71.17). The change reached
a significant level (t=7.376**). Among 26 items, only 7 items (Item 3, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15,
19) failed to make a significant change. Among the total 26 items, the participants
made significant difference in 7 of the 13 items written in a positive statement and 12
of the 13 items written in a negative statement. The details are as follows.
●
Positive items that reached a significant level:
Item 2. I have no fear of my English writing’s being evaluated.
Item 6. Handing an English composition makes me feel good.
Item 11. I feel confident in my ability to express my ideas clearly in English writing.
Item 12. I like to have my friends read what I have written in English.
Item 17. English writing is a lot of fun.
Item 20. Discussing my English writing with others is enjoyable.
Item 23. It’s easy for me to write good English compositions.
●
Negative items that reached a significant level:
Item 1. I avoid writing in English.
Item 4. I am afraid of writing English essay when I know they will be evaluated.
Item 5. Taking an English composition course is a very frightening experience.
Item 7. My mind seems to go blank when I start to work on my English composition.
Item 13. I am nervous about English writing.
Item 16. I never seem to be able to write down my ideas clearly in English.
Item 18.I expect to do poorly in English composition classes even before I enter them.
Item 21. I have a terrible time organizing my ideas in an English composition course.
Item 22. When I hand in an English composition, I know I am going to do poorly.
Item 24. I don’t think I write English composition as well as most other people.
Item 25. I don’t like my English compositions to be evaluated.
Item 26. I’m not good at English writing.
Table 14
A T-test of Mean Scores on Writing Apprehension in the Pretest and Posttest N=76
Pretest Posttest t-value Items
M SD M SD
1. I avoid writing in English. 3.25 .79 2.82 .98 3.48*
2. I have no fear of my English writing’s being evaluated
2.74 .93 2.38 1.01 2.69*
3. I look forward to writing down my ideas in English.
2.58 .85 2.43 1.02 1.13
4. I am afraid of writing English essay when I know they will be evaluated.
3.01 1.05 2.46 .92 4.825*
5. Taking an English composition course is a very frightening experience.
2.68 .97 2.21 .88 4.131**
6. Handing an English composition makes me feel good.
2.96 .74 2.18 .91 6.851**
7. My mind seems to go blank when I start to work on my English
composition.
3.16 1.12 2.51 1.01 4.009**
8. Expressing ideas through writing in English seems to be a waste of time.
2.37 .81 2.30 .90 .638
9. I would enjoy submitting my English writing to magazine for evaluation and publication.
3.45 .89 3.61 2.37 .552
10. I like to write down my ideas in English.
3.18 .69 2.99 1.03 1.687
11. I feel confident in my ability to express my ideas clearly in English writing.
3.68 .84 3.39 1.06 2.390*
12. I like to have my friends read what I have written in English.
3.21 .85 2.71 1.02 3.833**
13. I am nervous about English writing. 3.25 1.03 2.57 .10 4.747**
14. People seem to enjoy what I write in English.
3.36 .73 3.25 .85 .929
15. I enjoy English writing. 3.09 .80 3.03 1.01 .672 16. I never seem to be able to write down
my ideas clearly in English.
3.28 1.05 2.00 1.06 2.161*
17. English writing is a lot of fun. 2.64 .80 2.33 .87 3.018*
18. I expect to do poorly in English composition classes even before I enter them
3.28 .97 2.58 1.11 4.727**
19. I like seeing my thought on paper in English.
2.82 .81 2.75 .93 .583
20. Discussing my English writing with others is enjoyable.
2.80 .90 2.50 .81 2.620*
21. I have a terrible time organizing my ideas in an English composition course.
3.08 .99 2.64 .92 3.650**
22. When I hand in an English
composition, I know I am going to do poorly.
3.21 .94 2.61 1.05 5.535**
23. It’s easy for me to write good English compositions.
3.74 .79 3.20 1.12 4.138**
24. I don’t think I write English composition as well as most other people.
3.41 .91 3.03 1.02 2.508*
25. I don’t like my English compositions to be evaluated.
2.80 .86 2.28 .83 5.090**
26. I’m not good at English writing. 3.78 .90 3.32 1.01 3.647**
Overall WA Performance 80.76 12.80 71.17 14.22 7.376**
Note. * p＜.05, ** p＜.01, M=Mean, SD=Standard Deviation
●
Discussion
The results positively answer the sixth research question: Do participants reduce
their writing apprehension after receiving the story-mapping instruction? They also
verify the third hypothesis: The learners who undergo the story-mapping instruction
will write with less anxiety and with more confidence. The students made positive
change significantly in 21 of the 26 items.
As mention in sections 2.1.1 and 2.3.2.3, the results of Becker’s (1991),
Schweiker-Marra & Marra’s (2000), and Huang’s (2003) also showed that the
students could write with less apprehension when provided with prewriting activities.
Harris and Graham (1992) also indicated that after receiving the story-mapping
instruction, most of the students felt comfortable with writing. The results in the
present study demonstrated that if the instructor provided the beginning EFL writers
with the concept of writing process, appropriate prewriting activities, and the schema
of the genre, the young writers could decrease the writing apprehension, the negative
impact on students’ writing performance and attitude toward language learning.
Although the overall writing apprehension of the students decreased, the students
still expressed their fear in writing English in 7 items, which needed to be further
discussed. First, the participants still felt reluctant to submit their writing to the
magazine for the evaluation and publication (Item 9) and were not certain if others
like their English writing (Item 14). However, they would like to share their writing
with their friends (Item 12). That means teenagers feel more comfortable to discuss
their English writing with their peers than with others they are not familiar with.
Second, the students reduced their writing apprehension after receiving the instruction,
they did not have a very positive attitude toward expressing themselves in English.
(Item 3, 10, 15, 19).
There are two findings that seem to be concerned with the design of the
questionnaire. One is that the participants appeared to answer negatively when the
items were written in a positive statement. The results showed that the participants
made more significant change in items written in a negative statement than in a
positive statement. Wang (2000) reported similar finding. She points out that the
phenomenon might result from the fact that Chinese students are conservative and are
taught to be humble.
The other finding is that most students seemed to choose the “neutral” answer
most in each of the 26 items. From the interview, the students said that they were not
accustomed to strongly expressing their likes or dislikes. Therefore, only some
students circled the square “strongly agree” and “strongly disagree.” As Wang (2000)
suggested, it is necessary for other researchers to adapt the SLWAT to meet the needs
of Taiwanese population. To eliminate the middle uncertain position, the SLWAT can
be slightly adapted for ESL population using a 6-point scale, with “neutral” being
changed into “agree somewhat” and “disagree somewhat” (Wang, 2000).
Based the results of the writing apprehension test, the overall writing
apprehension of the participants did make a significant positive change after the
story-mapping instruction. This prewriting activity did help the participants reduce the
writing anxiety and increase their confidence in writing.
4.8 Results of the Students’ Response to the Story-Mapping Instruction
The seventh research question focuses on the students’ attitudes towards the
story-mapping instruction. The results of the questionnaire are presented below in
percentage form. The students’ responses to the story-mapping instruction are based
on the questionnaire and the interview.
●
Results
Table 15 displayed the results of the questionnaire on the story mapping
instruction. The results revealed that the majority of the students strongly liked or
liked the story mapping instruction (Item 1, 86.8 %). They also reported that
story-mapping instruction helped them understand story structure (Item 2, 97.3 %),
provided them with more ideas to write about (Item 7, 93.4 %), and improved their
English story writing (Item 3, 94.8 %) and writing performance (Item 4, 92.1 %). The
results on writing apprehension were also satisfying. The majority students agreed
that story mapping helped enhance their confidence in writing (Item 5, 81.6 %) and
reduced their writing apprehension (Item 6, 73.7 %). Additionally, the students also
thought the story mapping instruction enhanced their reading comprehension (Item 8
& 9, 82.9 % and 92.3 % respectively) because it provided them with the knowledge of
story structure, which helped them predict the development of stories and have a
better reading comprehension.
Table 15
The Percentage of Items on the Response to the Story Mapping Instruction N=76
Item Strongly
disagree &
disagree
No comments
Strongly agree &
agree
N % N % N %
1. I like story mapping instruction. 5 6.6 5 6.6 66 86.8 2. Story mapping instruction helps me
understand the story structure.
1 1.3 1 1.3 74 97.3
3. Story mapping instruction helps me with English story writing.
1 1.3 3 3.9 72 94.8
4. Story mapping instruction helps me with English writing.
4 5.3 2 2.6 70 92.1
5. Story mapping instruction lets me have confidence in English story writing.
10 13.1 4 5.3 62 81.6
6. Story mapping instruction reduces my writing apprehension.
15 19.7 5 6.6 56 73.7
7. Story mapping instruction lets me have more ideas to write about.
2 2.6 3 3.9 71 93.4
8. Story mapping instruction helps predict the development of stories and improve my reading ability.
5 6.6 8 10.5 63 82.9
9. Story mapping instruction helps me comprehend stories better and improve my reading ability.
6 7.9 9 11.8 61 90.3
Based on the questionnaire, the researcher interviewed the students to elicit
more responses. When interviewed, most students said that they enjoyed reading,
analyzing, and creating stories during the 6 weeks of instruction. They considered the
story-mapping instruction a systematic learning strategy that offered them the schema
of the story structure. With the story schema, they comprehended and composed
stories more easily and confidently. The three positive responses to the story-mapping
instruction are summarized as follows.
●
Most students recognize the story mapping instruction a non-threatening,
enjoyable activity.
S402: I used to be afraid of English writing because I totally didn’t know what to write about when I faced the topic. The concept of story grammar helps me realize story writing could be an unproblematic task.
S411: I agree with you. After the story mapping instruction, I find story writing an enjoyable task. I can create my story step by step, which makes me have more confidence in my ability.
S306: I like the feeling of get everything set and done as planned. I find that once the story structure is planned, writing stories becomes a relatively unproblematic and easy
task for me.
●
The story-mapping instruction is a useful prewriting activity, which helps
students organize their stories.
S328: Before the instruction, I didn’t plan in advance of writing. Now, I would make a
story map before I write my story. I think the map helps a lot because I find I have
better organization in my story. I really make improvement in story writing.
S316: Now, I am accustomed to making a plan before I write. I would spend about 5 to
10 minutes writing down the story outline to have a general framework of the story
and then write my story down in details. The instruction helps me work out an
outline of a story efficiently and makes me feel more confident.
●
The story-mapping instruction helps with reading and writing
S422: I have more to write about with the help of story maps. Besides, I think I write
with better organization and coherence instead of writing whatever come to my
mind.
S441: I agree. I could write more after the instruction. When writing based on the story
maps, I could generate more ideas and compose longer and imaginative stories.
S433: I enjoy analyzing stories. The story grammar helps me comprehend stories more
easily. Now when I read stories, I would try to find out the characters, time, actions,
ending, etc. I also try to predict what might happen next. I think it is an excellent
training for us.
S311: It also helps me in analyzing Chinese stories. I try to apply the concept of the story
grammar to Chinese stories and I find it works. I find it very interesting to analyze
stories this way. I think I might try to write Chinese stories with a story map.
●
Discussion
The positive responses were in accordance with the findings in Brown (1988);
that is, the story-mapping instruction benefits not only reading but also story writing.
In the present study, the students expressed they liked the story-mapping instruction
since it helped increase their writing performance and confidence. The positive
responses of the students argued against the maturation effects playing a crucial role
in the improvement of the students’ writing performance. The quantitative results of
writing organization and qualitative results of students’ responses confirmed the
proposal that the story-mapping instruction helped the students organize their stories.
The students’ responses supported the concept of schema, metacognition and
reduction. Once the students were familiar with the concept of the story schema, they
could use the story schema to generate their stories with ease. Advocates of
metacognition believe that learners can learn better and with ease if they are aware of
what they are doing and know what to do next step by step. Furthermore, the
reduction theory, which holds that breaking the complex process down to easy pieces
makes a task easy, is in agreement with the students’ responses.
Although the present study focuses on writing, the majority of the students
applied the knowledge of story grammar to reading stories, both in English and
Chinese. The participants This phenomenon of applying the knowledge of story
structure to Chinese reading and writing was beyond the teacher’s expectation and has
not yet been mentioned in the previous studies. The participants also expressed that
they enjoyed analyzing stories, trying to find out the story grammar units in stories
they read. Furthermore, they indicated that knowing the story-mapping strategy
helped them comprehend stories better. The concept of story grammar even helped
them predict what might happen next in the stories they read.
To be brief, the story-mapping instruction helped the students with their reading
comprehension. The result showed that reading and writing are strongly connected.
Only when the students read extensively can they write compositions with rich
content.
4.9 Results of the Six Open-ended Questions and Interviews
The main concern of the open-ended questions and interviews is to elicit more
responses from the students regarding the story-mapping instruction and story writing.
The items of the questionnaire are presented below with the result in percentage form.
The students are required to answer each question with one single answer, which
means that they can not answer each item with more than two or more answers.
Question 1: Which part of the story mapping instruction do you like most? Why?
The first item in the questionnaire is to determine which part of the
story-mapping instruction the participants liked best.
●
Results
As shown in Table 16, 34.2% of the students enjoyed writing the story based on
the story map, 21.1% enjoyed receiving the teacher’s comments on the story, another
21.1% enjoyed analyzing the story structure of the selected articles, 14.5% enjoyed
making the story map based on the given pictures, and 9.2% enjoyed sharing the story
map and stories with others.
Table 16
The Number and Percentage of the Part of the Instruction the Students Like Best N=76
1. Which part of the story-mapping instruction do you like best?
N %
Writing the story based on the story map 26 34.2%
Analyzing the story structure of the selected articles 16 21.1%
Receiving the teacher’s comments on the story 16 21.1%
Making the story map based on the given pictures 11 14.5%
Sharing the story map and compositions with others 7 9.2%
●
Discussion
There were 26 students that indicated that they loved the process when they did
their own stories based on the story maps. They pointed out that the story map helped
them generate more ideas and be more creative in writing stories and feel more secure
about their writing. For example, some students said that they liked to use their
imagination to compose their own stories based on the story map. It was cool and
interesting (S437, S402, S436, S316, S324). S302 remarked, “ I like the story map
because it can help me construct my story step by step, which makes me feel more
secure. I learn to think about the plot of a story after receiving the instruction.” The
responses support the Metacognition theory as proposed by Lytle & Botel (1988).
When the students became consciously aware of what they were doing and the
process of the task, and took strategic control over it, they would have more
confidence in the task.
Furthermore, 16 students reported that they enjoyed the process of analyzing
the stories with the teacher because they could have a better picture of the story
structure, which they considered beneficial to their reading and writing. For example,
S304 said that she enjoyed the story analysis because she learned about what should
be included in a story and how the story map could help the story composing.
Additionally, 16 students pointed out that they were excited when receiving the
teacher’s comments on their stories. They said they were eager to know the teachers’
comments on their stories because the comments helped them know how they could
improve their stories and the teacher’s encouragement made them feel confident. In
addition, they liked to share their stories with others because they could learn a lot
from others’ composition and creativity. S411 indicated that she enjoyed the
comments that the teacher gave her and that she could make revision based on the
teachers’ suggestion. Given such feedback from the students, it is suggested that the
EFL writing instructor give positive and constructive advice on writing instead of the
grammar correction. Peer evaluation is also recommended.
Question 2: Which part of the story mapping instruction do you dislike most?
Why?
The second item in the questionnaire is to determine which part of the
story-mapping instruction the participants dislike most.
●
Results
Table 17 showed the four aspects of the story-mapping instruction that the
participants disliked most, including writing the story map (39.5%, N= 30), writing
process (15.8%, N= 12), time constraint (10.5%, N= 8) and writing the end of the
stories (5.3%, N= 4). 28.9% of the students did not report dislikes of any specific
aspect of the instruction.
Table 17
The Number and Percentage of the Part of the Instruction the Students Dislike Most (N=76)
2. Which part of the story-mapping instruction do you dislike most?
N %
Writing the story map 30 39.5%
No 22 28.9%
Time constraint 12 15.8%
Writing process 8 10.5%
Writing the ending of the story 4 5.3%
●
Discussion
It is striking that 39.5% of the students disliked writing the story map although
they considered the map helpful to them. The reason why they disliked the story maps
was that it was trivial, time-consuming and boring to finish the story map. The
following is the summary of why they considered the map difficult based on the
interview.
●
There are too many story grammar units.
S305: I think there are too many story grammar units. They are too trivial and it is hard to
memorize them all. Too me, it is a heavy load to keep those story grammar units in
mind and write them down in details.
S416: I think it will be better if there are only “setting”, “problem”, and “solution.” I always
spend a lot of time recalling what all the story grammar units are, which makes me
frustrated and a little bit angry.
●
The activity is time-consuming and boring.
S412: I don’t like the story mapping instruction because it involves too muck work. I find it
time-consuming to finish the story map and then write down my story according to the
map. It will be easier for me to write whatever I like.
S433: I agree. I don’t like to do so many things during a writing class. To write a story based
on a map is boring and takes too much time. I always feel nervous because I am
worried that I can’t finish my map and story on time.
Ellis (2003) got the similar result in her research. She indicated that some of her
students felt it impossible to finish the story map and the composition during the
writing class. Under the pressure of time constraint, the participants considered doing
the map time-consuming since they had to finish the story in a limited time. The
researcher found that the students still lacked the ability to manage time well when
they wrote. They spent too much time on the prewriting stage, which left not enough
time for them to write a well-organized story with a reasonable ending. In the
interview, 5 students pointed out that there was not enough time for them to finish the
story map and compose their stories, which would make them a little bit nervous. That
is one of the reasons why some students still felt writing anxiety when they wrote.
As to the writing process, 8 participants said that they liked analyzing the reading
passage more than writing their own stories. The reluctance to write reflected that
some students still regard the writing as a tiring and challenging task.
The participants also indicated that they disliked writing the ending of their story.
Based on the responses and interview, it is found that students had difficulty writing
the ending without the help of picture of “Ending.” This finding shows the importance
of pictures, which can turn visual image into words.
Question 5: What is your problem when you write?
The fifth item in the questionnaire is to explore the writing problems of the
participants.
●
Results
The wiring problems of the participants could be summarized into four
categories, which are shown in Table 18. They are poor English, writers’ block, time
management and creativity. A majority of the students had problem with vocabulary
and grammar (78.9%, N=60). Eight students had difficulty finishing writing in the due
time. Five students did not know what to write when they got the pictures. They had
the problem of the writer’s block. Two students said that they lacked creativity.
Table 18
The Number and Percentage of the Students’ Writing Problem (N=76)
5. What is your problem when you write?
N %
Limited vocabulary, poor grammar, Chinese English 60 78.9%
Time management 8 10.5%
Writer’s block 5 6.6%
Lacking creativity 2 2.6%
No 1 1.3%
●
Discussion
Based on the results, it is found that only five students had the problem of
writer’s block after the story-mapping instruction, which means that story mapping,
an organized and schematic strategy, helps students come up with ideas to write about.
After the instruction, most students would not feel shocked or go blank when they did
the picture writing. The majority of the students had the same problem of EFL
beginning writers. The students reported they felt frustrated when they could not
express themselves clearly in English. They tend to think in the Chinese style and
tried to translate what they wanted to say in English. However, they just could not
find appropriate vocabulary to express their ideas and thoughts. Besides, they were
worried about the grammar, which would block their thinking sometimes. Still, some
reported that they could not manage time well. S305 said, “I spent too much time on
planning, which led to loose actions and a poor ending of my story.” Furthermore, the
time constraint made them nervous, which blocked their thought. Last but not the
least, the students found it challenging and frustrating to come up with creative and
brilliant ideas to compose a good story. They worried that their stories were too
“ordinary” or not so “ attractive” and “imaginative.” These problems seem common
to EFL beginning writers. The researcher suggests that the EFL writing instructors ask
their students to read extensively and pay attention to the collocation, rhetorical
devices and writing convention of English writing to improve the students’ writing
performance.
Question 6: What are your suggestions on the story mapping instruction?
The sixth item in the questionnaire is to elicit the participants’ suggestions on the
story-mapping instruction.
●
Result
Table 19 shows the results of Question 6. The students’ suggestions are
summarized as follows.
First, 39.5% of the participants (N=30) thought that there was room for
improvement of pictures because they found some pictures were not interesting or
inspiring. Some of them also suggested that a single picture might be more flexible
and give them more opportunity to create their stories than fixed sequential pictures.
The researcher suggests that future research can investigate different effects of picture
writing with one single picture and that with multiple pictures.
Second, 30.3% of the students (N=23) suggested that the story map include
fewer story grammar units. They expressed that too many story grammar units made
them confused and took too much time to complete them all.
Third, 13.2% of the participants (N=10) suggested they be given more time to
finish their stories. They said that the story map provided them with inspiration and
that they had a lot to write about. Fourth, 6.6% of the students (N=5) thought it would
be better if the teacher could give more examples of well-organized stories because
they would like to know more about the structure of stories and other genres. They
thought the analysis of reading was beneficial to their reading comprehension and
composing.
One student offered an interesting suggestion. She suggested that the skill of
story telling based on the story mapping be taught. She said, “It would be cool and
challenging to tell a story based on a story map. I think the knowledge of story
grammar would surely help me with my story telling. I would love to participate in
the training program if there is one.”
Table 19
The Number and Percentage of the Students’ Suggestion toward the Instruction N=76
6. What are your suggestions toward the story mapping instruction?
N %
Providing more interesting pictures 30 39.5%
Simplifying the story grammar units 23 30.3%
Giving more time to complete the story 10 13.2%
No 7 9.2%
Giving more examples of story structure analysis 5 6.6%
Applying the instruction to storytelling 1 1.3%
●
