International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences
© 2013 Available online at www.irjabs.com
ISSN 2251-838X / Vol, 4 (2): 393-401
Science Explorer Publications
The Effect of Conventional, Web-based, and Hybrid
Teaching of Pre-Writing Strategies on Iranian EFL
Learners’ Writing Performance
Sajad Shafiee1, Mansour Koosha1, Akbar Afghari1
1. Department of English, Khorasgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
Corresponding author’s email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT: Second language writing, not unlike other language skills, is an area of practice requiring
due attention and meticulously planned instruction. With a prevalent shift of paradigm from productoriented to process-oriented approaches to writing instruction, such learner variables as language
learning strategies came to the forefront. Among second language writing strategies, the locus of
attention on pre-writing strategies has by no means been ample. The present study aimed to investigate
the effectiveness of pre-writing strategies in ameliorating the writing ability of second language learners.
Furthermore, since computer technology has had a lot to offer in pedagogical environments, the
implementation of pre-writing strategies-based instruction was examined through different modes of input
delivery, i.e. web-based and hybrid environments (in addition to conventional classroom teaching). A
sample of second language learners was chosen from among male and female English majors and was
divided into four groups: control, conventional, web-based, and hybrid groups. A homogenizing writing
pretest was administered to ascertain that the learners were not very different in terms of their writing
ability. After five sessions of treatment, excluding the pretest and posttest sessions, a writing posttest was
given to the students, the results of which revealed that the three experimental groups had significantly
outperformed the control group, and hence indicating the effectiveness of teaching pre-writing strategies.
There was not, however, a meaningful difference between the conventional and web-based groups. The
hybrid group, on the other hand, had excelled all the other groups.
Key words: Second language writing; Pre-Writing strategies; Web-based; Hybrid
Abbreviations: EFL- English as a foreign language; L2- Second language; SLA- Second language
acquisition; SSBI- Styles and strategies-based instruction; CALLA- Cognitive academic language learning
approach; ConG- Conventional group; WBG- Web-based group; HG- Hybrid group; ANOVA- Analysis of
variance
INTRODUCTION
Writing, its Importance, and Complexity
Writing is "the production of thought for oneself or others under the direction of one's goal-oriented
metacognitive monitoring and control, and the translation of that thought into an external symbolic representation”
(Hacker, Keener, & Kircher 2009, p. 154). It is an important productive skill that can be used in learning other
receptive and productive skills (Zhu, 2004). Writing encourages thinking and learning, motivates communication,
and makes thought available for reflection (Mekheimer, 2005). When thought is written down, ideas can be
examined, reconsidered, superseded, rearranged, and changed. The paramount importance of this indispensable
skill is further stated by Olshtain (2001) "…the skill of writing enjoys special status–it is via writing that a person can
communicate a variety of messages to close or distant known or unknown readers" (p. 207).
Notwithstanding this importance, students of writing, and their teachers, too, experience a variety of
unfavorable emotions, ranging from fear, to trepidation to elation (Arnold, 2007; Byrd, 2010; Zhu, 2004) which
potentially hinder the development of their writing skills. This is the case probably because writing, be it in one's
first or second language, is one of the most demanding skills that our students have to learn (Rivers, 1981). The
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 4 (2), 393-401, 2013
onerous nature of writing has recurrently been acknowledged by experts in the field. For instance, Nunan (1989)
maintains “it has been argued that learning to write frequently and expressively is the most difficult of the motor
skills for all language users regardless of whether the language in question is a first, second or foreign language”
(p. 35). Elsewhere, the same author (1999) contends that "…producing a coherent, fluent, extended piece of
writing is probably the most difficult thing there is to do in language" (p. 271). Richards and Renandya (2002) take
a more unwavering stance in this regard and hold that "[t]here is no doubt that writing is the most difficult skill for L2
learners to master" (p. 271).
Although applied linguists have come to recognize the importance of writing in its own right as well as its
complexity, writing remains one of the least well-understood subjects in applied linguistics (Silva & Matsuda, 2002).
Richards (1990) also expresses the same idea through the following sentence, “The nature and significance of
writing has traditionally been underestimated in language teaching” (p. 106).
Teaching Writing: Product and Process Approaches
Teaching the preponderant skill of writing, not unlike other language skills, has undergone a dramatic shift
from teacher-centered approaches towards learner-centered ones. L2 writing instruction, in its early days (around
the mid 1960s), underscored the production of grammatically well-formed sentences. Writing was viewed as a tool
for reinforcing and assessing the knowledge of grammar. The writing instruction included controlled compositions
aimed to give writers practice in selected morpho-syntactic patterns. Still the current product-oriented approach
emphasizes the production of connected discourse and arrangement of sentences into paragraphs (Hedgcock,
2005).
However, process-oriented pedagogies are growingly becoming pervasive in EFL teaching contexts, where
the process of writing is far more important than the outcome and accuracy is somewhat neglected in favor of
fluency. Process writing necessitated a concentration on personal writing, student creativity, and fluency (Zamel,
1985). This shift in language instruction entailed a shift in responsibilities of both teachers and learners. No longer
are teachers the directors of every aspect of the learning process. Learners also are made more responsible for
successful language learning. In the wake of this shift and emphasis on the role of language learners, learner
variables came to the forefront of language teaching research.
Language Learning Strategies: Definitions and Classifications
Like other learner variables (motivation, learning styles, attitude, background knowledge, intelligence,
aptitude, self-esteem, inhibition, etc.), language learner strategies have received a lot of ink. The term strategy has
been variously defined by different authors and there is still no consensus over its definition. However, one of the
most comprehensive definitions is the one put forth by Griffiths (2008): "strategies are activities consciously chosen
by learners to regulate their language learning." (p. 87).
In SLA literature, strategies have been categorized in numerous ways. A distinction is often made between
three types of strategies: production, communication, and learning. Tarone (1980, p. 419) considers the first two of
these as ‘language use strategies’. A production strategy is “an attempt to use one’s linguistic system efficiently
and clearly, within a minimum effort. Examples are simplification, rehearsal, and discourse planning.
Communication strategies consist of attempts to deal with problems of communication that have arisen in
interaction. They may include word coinage, circumlocution, code-switching, appeal for assistance, and avoidance,
to name a few. A language learning strategy is “an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in
the target language”. Examples given by Tarone (op. cit.) include memorization, initiation of conversation with
native speakers, and inferencing.
Aside from classifying strategies as focusing on the learning or the use of language, there are two other
notable approaches to categorizing strategies. One is to categorize them into one of the four groups according to
whether they are cognitive, metacognitive, affective, or social (Chamot, 1987; Oxford, 1990). Cognitive strategies
refer to the “steps or operations in problem-solving that require direct analysis, transformation, or synthesis of
learning materials” (Rubin, 1987). Among the cognitive strategies listed by Chamot (1987) are repetition, notetaking, and elaboration. Metacognitive strategies make use of knowledge about cognitive processes and constitute
an attempt to regulate language learning by means of planning, monitoring and evaluation. Advance preparation,
directed attention, and self management are among the examples of metacognitive strategies given by Chamot.
Affective strategies serve to regulate emotions, motivation, and attitude (for example, strategies for reduction of
anxiety and for self-encouragement). Social strategies include the actions which learners choose to take in order to
interact with other learners and with native speakers (for example, asking questions to clarify social roles and
relationships, or cooperating with others in order to complete tasks).
394
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 4 (2), 393-401, 2013
Finally, strategies can be grouped according to the skill area to which they relate (Cohen, 1990). The
receptive skills, listening and reading, and the productive skills, speaking and writing are the four basic skill
categories. There are, however, other skill areas as well. For example, there are strategies associated with
vocabulary learning which cross-cut the four basic skills. This final classification (and writing strategies therein) is
the one adopted for the purpose of the present study.
(Pre-) Writing Strategies
Writing strategies include pre-writing, while-writing, and post-writing strategies. Pre-writing entails planning
how to write, monitoring how the writing is going, and checking to see how well the product fits the intention. It also
entails making an effort to write different kinds of texts in the target language (Cohen & DÖrnyei, 2002). The
strategies that help the learners get started at this phase of writing include brainstorming, listing, clustering, whquestions, and freewriting. Brainstorming is often a group exercise in which all students in the class are
encouraged to participate by sharing their collective knowledge about a particular subject. It generates far more
material than any one student is likely to think of in his/her own. Students can then utilize any or all of the
information when turning to the preparation of their first drafts (Kroll, 2001). Unlike brainstorming, listing is an
essentially individual activity. Here the student is encouraged to produce as lengthy a list as possible of all the main
ideas and subcategories that come to mind as s/he thinks about the topic at hand. This is an especially useful
activity for those students who might be constrained by undue concern for expressing their thoughts in
grammatically correct sentences. Clustering begins with a key word or a central idea placed in the center of a page
around which the students quickly jot down all of the free-associations triggered by the subject matter, using words
or short phrases. Finally, freewriting (also referred to as speed writing, quick writing, and wet ink) consists of writing
nonstop (without taking the pen from the page) for a specific period of time (usually about three to five or even eight
minutes). The writing generated via this technique usually contains useful raw material for students to work with. An
examination of the effectiveness of pre-writing strategies through different modes of instruction is the aim of the
present study.
Strategies-based Writing Instruction
How to teach language learning strategies in general, and (pre-) writing strategies in particular, has long
been an obsession for both scholars and language teachers. Much research on language learning strategies
reveals that students lack awareness of language learning strategies, and the best way to engender this
awareness is through explicit instruction (Cohen, 2003). Early language learning strategies research sought to
compare blind training, informed training, and completely informed training (e.g. O’Malley, Chamot, StewnerManzaner, Kupper, & Russo, 1985) and intended to “raise the learners’ awareness about the language learning
strategies and model strategies overtly along with the task; to encourage strategy use and give a rationale for it; to
offer a wide menu of relevant strategies for learners to choose from; to offer controlled practice in the use of some
strategies; and to provide some sort of post-task analysis which allows students to reflect on their strategy use”
(DÖrnyei, 2006, p. 60). A legion of L2 research on strategies-based instruction includes research on the receptive
skills of reading and listening, and more recently on speaking. Scant attention, however, has been paid to training
writing strategies (Chamot & Kupper, 1989). Previous writing-strategy research has examined the writing strategies
that are needed while drafting and revising a writing task (Cresswell, 2000; Cumming, 1995; Cumming & So, 1996;
Ransdell, Lavelle, & Levy, 2002; Sengupta, 2000). Such pre-writing strategies as generating and organizing ideas
have not been the target of much research. Irrespective of what content has been the locus of pre-writing
strategies-based instruction, how this instruction takes place (i.e. conventional, web-based, or hybrid) is an issue of
increased interest.
Conventional Strategies-based Instruction
The traditional writing class features pre-writing instruction devoid of any online component. A multitude of
models for teaching language learning strategies have been developed (Chamot, 2008). Three currents methods
for language learning strategy instruction are shown and compared in Table 1.
All these models accentuate the importance of developing the students’ awareness of language learning
strategies and imply that this is facilitated through teacher modeling. All emphasize the necessity of catering the
students with ample practice so that they become autonomous. And all suggest that students must evaluate how
well a given strategy has worked, choose strategies for a task, and transfer strategies to new tasks.
Although these models have many features in common, the CALLA model is more recursive rather than
linear so that teachers and students always have the option of revisiting prior instructional phases as needed
395
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 4 (2), 393-401, 2013
(Chamot, 2005). It builds in a self-evaluation phase for students to reflect on their use of strategies before going on
to transfer the strategies to new tasks. The Grenfell and Harris (1999) model, however, leads the students through
a cycle of six steps, then begin a new cycle. It provides initial familiarization with the new strategies, then has
students make action plans to improve their own learning. In the SSBI model, the teacher takes on a variety of
roles in order to provide a scaffold for the students’ learning and using strategies appropriate to their own learning
style.
Although these models may have originally been proposed to be used in language learning classrooms,
the utilization of these models can be extended to out-of-class environments. The comparison of these three
models reveals that the most appropriate one to be used for the purpose of this study is that of Grenfell and Harris
(1999) since it lends itself more to the three modes of instruction (conventional, web-based, and hybrid) which are
the focus of this study. This is so because SSBI relies on an extra component (i.e. learning styles) which is
dispensed with here, and CALLA places great emphasis on the transfer of strategies from one task type to another
(which is also a marginal factor in the present study).
Table 1. Models for Language Learning Strategy Instruction
SSBI* Model (Cohen, 1998)
CALLA** Model (Chamot et al., 1999;
Chamot, 2005)
Grenfell & Harris (1999)
Teacher as diagnostician: Helps students
identify current strategies and learning styles.
Teacher as language learner: Shares own
learning experiences and thinking processes.
Preparation: Teacher identifies students’
current learning strategies for familiar tasks.
Presentation: Teacher models, names, and
explains new strategy; asks students if and
how they have used it.
Practice: Students practice new strategy; in
subsequent strategy practice, teacher fades
remainders to encourage independent
strategy use.
Self-Evaluation: Students evaluate their own
strategy use immediately after practice.
Expansion: Students transfer strategies to
new tasks, combine strategies into clusters,
develop repertoire of preferred strategies.
Awareness raising: Students complete a task,
and then identify the strategies they used.
Modeling: Teacher models, discusses value
of new strategy, makes checklist of strategies
for learner use.
General practice: Students practice new
strategies with different tasks.
Teacher as learner trainer: Trains students
how to use learning strategies.
Teacher as coordinator: Supervises students’
study plans and monitors difficulties.
Teacher as coach: Provides ongoing
guidance on students’ progress.
Assessment: Teacher assesses students’ use
of strategies and impact on performance.
Action planning: Students set goals and
choose strategies to attain those goals.
Focused practice: Students carry out action
planning using selected strategies; teachers
fade prompts so that students use strategies
automatically.
Evaluation: Teacher and students evaluate
success of action plan; set new goals; cycle
begins again.
*Styles and Strategies-Based Instruction
**Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach
(Adopted from Chamot, 2008)
Web-Based Strategies-based Instruction
As an educational tool, technology finds a number of applications in and outside the classroom. Many
researchers (McCrory, 2006; Oliver & Herrington, 2003; Tu, 2005) observe that the development of online
technologies has brought new ways of learning and teaching. Whereas the traditional mode of instruction included
presenting and storing information, web-based learning emphasizes communication and knowledge construction.
The strongest distinction between the two is the linear approach of the former, which makes learners dependent on
the information received from the instructor, and the recursive approach of the latter, which views learners as coparticipants in the learning process.
Based on the purpose of the instruction and the technical base of a web-based program, the electronic
discourse can take place synchronously or asynchronously (Sotillo, 2000). Synchronous interaction allows all
participants to collaborate simultaneously in real time. Some examples are live chats and video conferences.
Asynchronous interactions occur in a delayed manner as, for example, in threaded discussions and Web logs.
Each has a specific effect on learning. Although collaboration and teacher facilitation are present in both types,
asynchronous discussions allow for deeper analyses and integration of material, which is evident in the length of
postings and expressiveness of the language (Serdyukov & Hill, 2004). Therefore, asynchronous mode appears to
be more suitable for the purpose of time management and quality of responses in this study.
A large number of studies on web-based second language writing (Cabot, 2000; Sullivan, 2006; Chuo,
2007; Zaid, 2011, to name just a few) have proved the facilitating effect of web-based instruction.
396
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 4 (2), 393-401, 2013
Hybrid Strategies-based Instruction
The term hybrid instruction (also called mixed-mode or blended instruction) is fairly new in research
literature. It refers to combining traditional classes with various forms of out-of-class course delivery (Dziuban,
Hartman, & Moskal, 2004). It was with the proliferation of student-centered teaching approach and online
technologies that hybrid learning was noticed by researchers and classified as a unique educational phenomenon.
Presently, hybrid learning is known as “a hybrid of traditional face-to-face and online learning so that instruction
occurs both in the classroom and online, and where the online component becomes an extension of traditional
classroom learning” (Rovai & Jordan, 2004). Some researchers distinguish hybrid instruction from other types of
web-enhanced or online instruction by the proportion of content delivered online. According to Allen, Seaman, and
Garret (2007), a hybrid program is one where between 30% and 70% of the program content is delivered online. In
this study the hybrid course will consist of a number of class sessions which are complemented by an online
component which provides additional content material for students’ independent learning.
Among the pertinent studies on hybrid pre-writing strategies instruction, the one conducted by Ellis (2008)
described the changes in writing skills, evidence of self-directedness, and the use of learning strategies in a hybrid
learning environment. It was found that the learners who consistently used the website improved the organization
and content of their writing, regulated their learning, and used more strategies online than in class. The research
also demonstrated that, for learners who seek increased engagement and higher academic performance, the
hybrid format offers more effective ways to advance writing and prepare for mainstream programs.
In summary, in this section, the current trends in ESL writing were taken up. One of the aspects reflected in
the current research is the shift from the traditional product-oriented writing methodology to writing as a process
that emphasizes learner-centeredness. Since the latter promotes learner variables such as language learning
strategies, pre-writing strategies are chosen to be investigated in this paper. The incentive to choose pre-writing
strategies derives from the claims of such scholar as Polio and Williams (2009) who contend that “[p]re-writing is an
essential component of a process approach…but surprisingly little research has examined prewriting techniques.”
Moreover, in order to enhance learning, pre-writing strategies instruction will be implemented in three different
ways, namely conventional, web-based, and hybrid format. Although all these three approaches have yielded
promising results with regards to second language pre-writing strategies instruction, no research has attempted a
comparison of these approaches. Such a comparison will unquestionably enable EFL practitioners to employ the
best technique that suits their educational needs and resources.
For the purpose of the present study, the following research questions were formulated:
1. Does teaching pre-writing activities lead to an improvement in Iranian EFL learners’ written productions?
2. Is there any difference between different modes of teaching pre-writing strategies as far as Iranian EFL
learners’ written productions is concerned?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This research was a quasi-experimental study (with three experimental groups and a control group),
seeking to figure out the possible effects of an intervention (i.e. conventional, web-based, and hybrid pre-writing
strategies instruction) on EFL learners’ writing in English.
Participants
To choose the participants for this study, English majors studying at Islamic Azad University of Shahrekord
and Safahan Institute of Higher Education who were taking Advanced Writing Course as part of their bachelor’s
degree were asked to take part in the study. Altogether, they formed an aggregate of 107 students. After explaining
the aim of the study to the students, the researchers randomly chose one of the classes at Shahrekord University
to be the control group (CtrlG) and the other class became the hybrid group (HG). The writing class at Safahan
University was the conventional group (ConG). From these three classes 26 students (15 students from
Shahrekord University and 11 students from Safahan University) volunteered to be in the web-based group (WBG).
A homogenizing writing test was given to them in order to exclude from the sample those whose writing abilities
were far below or above the average students. The average score in this test was 12.28 and the standard deviation
was 2.91. Those who obtained a score between two standard deviations below and above the mean were chosen
as the participants of this study. Not surprisingly, nearly all the students were in this range (except for 3 students
from the HG) since most of them had not received any formal writing instruction (except for 8 students who had
failed the course the previous academic year). In the same test, in addition to the prompt, there was an open397
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 4 (2), 393-401, 2013
ended question seeking to find out whether any of the students was versed in pre-writing strategies or not and six
students from the four groups were excluded from the study for their familiarity with pre-writing strategies.
Instruments and Their Reliability
As it went before, a homogenizing writing test (which also served as the pretest) and a posttest were used
as data elicitation techniques of this study. The two writing tests featured argumentative prompts. The text types
they elicited were enumerative texts of cause-and-effect type. More precisely, the writing prompt for the pretest and
posttest were “Do you think that most marriages in Iran are successful nowadays or not? Provide reasons for your
answer,” and “Poverty in Iran is on the rise. Do you agree or disagree? Provide reasons for your answer,”
respectively.
These two writing tests were scored independently by the three researchers according to the following
checklist: (a) Does the writing have a topic sentence? (b) Does it include detailed supporting sentences? (c) Does
it have unity? (d) Does it have coherence? (e) Does it include transitions at the critical locations? (f) Does it have a
concluding remark at the end? (g) Does the writer have good diction? (h) Has the writer kept to grammatical and
orthographic rules? (i) Is the writing neatly done and easy to read? (j) Is it interesting and convincing?
Each of the ten items above weighed two points. A writing test, as such, would have a score between zero
and twenty. Correlational analyses showed an inter-rater reliability of 0.84 and 0.91 for the pretest and posttest
scores, respectively.
Procedure
In the light of administering an argumentative writing test, from among male and female students studying
English at Islamic Azad University of Shahrekord, and Safahan Institute of Higher Education, a group of
homogenous EFL writers was selected to serve as the participants of the study. These students were subsequently
divided into three experimental groups and a control group at random.
While the control group (CtrlG) underwent a product-oriented writing class where they were required to
write on different topics and provided with feedback on the content, structure, and organization of what they wrote,
one of the experimental groups (ConG) was exposed to conventional pre-writing strategies instruction, and the
second experimental group (WBG) to web-based pre-writing strategies instruction. The last experimental group
(HG) experienced pre-writing strategies instruction in a hybrid environment where they were taught the lesson in
class and had to do the follow-up activities online. These three experimental groups experienced a processoriented strategies-based instruction based on Grenfell and Harris’s (1999) model of strategic instruction. That is,
the following steps were respectively taken in order to teach them pre-writing strategies: awareness raising,
modeling, general practice, action planning, focused practice, and evaluation. The intervention phase of the study
was completed in 7 sessions since each of the pre-writing strategies of freewriting, brainstorming, listing, clustering,
and wh-questions was taught in one session two sessions were allocated to the administration of the pretest and
posttest. The instructional materials for both WBG and HG were on http://sajadshafiee.blogfa.com. The contents of
the courses were password-protected. This would make it possible for either of the WBG and HG to gain access to
the relevant content, not to the material intended for the other group.
Data Analysis
It was explained before that a homogenizing writing test (which also served as the pretest of the study) was
administered to select a comparable sample from among male and female students majoring in English at Islamic
Azad University of Shahrekord and Safahan Institute of Higher Education. This sample consisted of three
experimental groups and a control group. To ascertain their homogeneity prior to the experiment, a one-way
between-groups ANOVA was run to compare their performance on this test. The same statistical tool was used
again for comparing the posttest results. The results of these analyses are presented in the following section.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The aim of the present study was two-fold: to find out whether teaching pre-writing strategies is an effective
practice in writing classes, and to figure out the possible difference between different ways of input delivery
(conventional, web-based, and hybrid instruction). To make sure the participants in the control group and the three
experimental groups (ConG, WBG, and HG) were at the same level of writing ability prior to the experiment, a oneway between-groups ANOVA was conducted. The following table displays the descriptive results of comparing
these groups.
398
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 4 (2), 393-401, 2013
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Comparing the Pretest Writing Scores of the Four Groups
CtrlG
ConG
WBG
HG
Total
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
24
27
25
22
98
11.29
12.11
12.92
12.86
12.28
3.12
3.03
2.36
2.96
2.91
.63
.58
.47
.63
.29
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
9.97
12.61
10.90
13.31
11.94
13.89
11.54
14.17
11.70
12.87
Minimum
Maximum
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.00
7.00
16.50
16.00
17.00
16.00
17.00
The number of participants in each group, their mean score, standard deviation, etc. are shown in Table 2.
The mean scores for the CtrlG, ConG, WBG, and HG are 11.29, 12.11, 12.92, and 12.86. This indicates that there
is not a great difference among the performances of the participants in these groups. However, to establish the lack
of such difference, the ANOVA table must be consulted.
Table 3. One-Way Between-Groups ANOVA Results for Comparing the Pretest Writing Scores of the Four Groups
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
41.944
783.056
825.000
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
3
94
97
13.981
8.330
1.678
0.177
There is not a statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level in the pretest scores for the four groups:
F (2, 94) = 1.67, p = .17. That means the four groups were at roughly the same level of writing ability before
commencement of the experiment.
The two research questions of the study (i.e. the effectiveness of pre-writing strategies instruction, and the
putative difference between different modes of input delivery) were answered by the application of one-way
between-groups ANOVA for the posttest writing scores. The results of these analyses are reproduced below.
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Comparing the Posttest Writing Scores of the Four Groups
CtrlG
ConG
WBG
HG
Total
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
24
27
25
22
98
12.25
14.29
14.60
16.68
14.40
2.72
2.84
2.13
2.10
2.88
.55
.54
.42
.44
.29
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
11.10
13.39
13.17
15.42
13.72
15.47
15.74
17.61
13.82
14.98
Minimum
Maximum
8.00
9.50
11.00
13.00
8.00
17.00
18.50
18.50
19.00
19.00
As shown in Table 4, the mean scores of the CtrlG, ConG, WBG, and HG are 12.25, 14.29, 14.60, and
16.68, respectively. There is an apparent discrepancy among the mean scores of these four groups. In order to
discern the likely significance of the difference, the ANOVA table must be referred to.
Table 5. One-Way Between-Groups ANOVA Results for Comparing the Posttest Writing Scores of the Four Groups
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
226.771
582.402
809.173
3
94
97
75.590
6.196
12.200
.000
The results obtained by the ANOVE test reveal a substantially significant difference at the p < .05 in the
posttest scores for the four groups: F (3, 94) = 12.2, p = .00. The actual difference in the mean scores between the
groups was also found to be large. The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was .38. Post-hoc comparisons
using the Scheffe test (See Table 6) pinpointed the exact locations of the difference between the mean scores.
399
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 4 (2), 393-401, 2013
Table 6. Post-Hoc Scheffe Test Results for Comparing the Posttest Writing Scores of the Four Groups
(I) Groups
(J) Groups
Ctrl
ConG
WBG
HG
CtrlG
WBG
HG
CtrlG
ConG
HG
CtrlG
ConG
HG
ConG
WBG
HG
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
-2.04630*
-2.35000*
-4.43182*
2.04630*
-.30370
-2.38552*
2.35000*
-.30370
-2.38552*
4.43182*
2.38552*
2.08182*
95% Confidence Interval
Std. Error
Sig.
.69831
.71133
.73470
.69831
.69087
.71491
.71133
.69087
.72764
.73470
.71491
.72764
.041
.016
.000
.041
.979
.014
.016
.979
.048
.000
.014
.048
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-4.0342
-4.3750
-6.5234
.0584
-2.2705
-4.4207
.3250
-1.6631
-4.1533
2.3403
.3503
.0104
-.0584
-.3250
-2.3403
4.0342
1.6631
-.3503
4.3750
2.2705
-.0104
6.5234
4.4207
4.1533
Table 6 indicates that there is a difference between the control group on the one hand and the other three
experimental groups on the other. Hence, the first question of the study is answered, i.e. teaching pre-writing a
strategy appears to be quite effective.
Moreover, among the three experimental groups, the difference between the conventional group and webbased group fails to reach statistical significance. On the other hand, the mean score for the hybrid group is
significantly larger than the mean scores of both conventional and web-based groups. The second question of the
study, as such, is also answered.
To recapitulate, the analyses revealed that teaching pre-writing strategies to EFL learners is an efficacious
method of helping them improve their writing performance. Interestingly enough, no substantial difference was
observed between conventional and web-based methods of pre-writing strategies instruction. Hybrid method of
teaching, on the other hand, was significantly more effective than these two methods.
The results of the present study lend support to the findings of studies such as Sasaki (2000) which affirm
a positive effect for strategies-based writing instruction. This effectiveness can partly be attributed to raising the
awareness of language learning strategies via explicit instruction, which is claimed to be the best practice in
strategies-based instruction (Cohen, 2003). The results of this study, like the earlier studies on strategy-based
instruction (as reported by DÖrnyei, 2006), offered a wide range of pre-writing strategies to choose from, and
provided the learners with controlled practice in the use of these strategies.
In addition, as scholars such as Chu (2007), Cobat (2000), Sullivan (2006), and Zaid (2011) have
unearthed, the results of this study corroborated the premise that web-based second language writing instruction
has a facilitative effect. The reason why the students in the web-based group could not override those in the
conventional group was probably that the former could not obtain as much feedback on their performance as could
the latter. And this was a consequence of the mode of input delivery in the web-based method.
Finally, the most promising outcome was obtained by the hybrid group that could outperform not only the
control group, but also the other experimental groups. The supremacy of hybrid teaching of pre-writing strategies
was previously confirmed by Ellis (2008) and the present study provided further support for her findings. As stated
by Ellis and proved in this study, a hybrid format offers more effective ways to academic writing, vis-à-vis other
methods of teaching pre-writing strategies.
REFERENCES
Allen IE, Seaman J, Garrett R. 2007. Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson
College Survey Research Group, Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering.
Arnold N. 2007. Reducing foreign language communication apprehension with computer-mediated communication: A preliminary study. System,
35: 469-486.
Byrad D. 2010. Framing, reflecting on and attending to a rationale of teaching of writing in the second language classroom via journaling: A case
study. System, 38: 200-210.
Cabot C. 2000. The effects of the World Wide Web on reading and writing skills in a Spanish cultural studies course. ReCALL, 12(1): 63-72.
Chamot AU. 2008. Strategy instruction and good language learners. In: C. Griffiths (ed.), Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chamot AU. 2005. The cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA): An update. In: P.A. Richard-Amato & M.A. Snow (eds.),
Academic success for English language learners: Strategies for K-12 mainstream teachers. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Chamot AU. 1987. The learning strategies of ESL students. In: A. Wenden & J. Rubin (eds.), Learner strategies in language learning.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Chamot AU, Kupper L. 1989. Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22: 13-24.
400
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 4 (2), 393-401, 2013
Chuo TI. 2007. The effect of the WebQuest writing instruction program on EFL learners’ writing performance, writing apprehension, and
perception. TESL-EJ, 11(3): 1-27.
Cohen A. 2003. Strategy training for second language learners. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED482492).
Cohen A. 1998. Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.
Cohen A. 1990. Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. New York: Newbury House.
Cohen A, DÖrnyei Z. 2002. Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles, and strategies. In: N. Schmitt (ed.), An introduction to applied
linguistics. London: Arnold.
Cresswell A. 2000. Self-monitoring in student writing: Developing responsibility. ELT Journal, 3: 235-244.
Cumming A. 1995. Fostering writing expertise in ESL composition instruction: Modeling and Evaluation. In: D. Belcher and G. Braine (Eds.),
Academic writing in a second language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.
Cumming A, So S. 1996. Tutoring second language text revision: Does the approach to instruction or the language of communication make a
difference? Journal of Second Language Writing, 5: 197-226.
DÖrnyei Z. 2006. Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review, 19: 42-68.
Dziuban CD, Hartman JL, Moskal PD. 2004. Blended learning. Educause, 7: 1-12.
Ellis LV. 2008. Writing instruction and learning strategies in a hybrid EAP course: A case study with college-bound ESL students. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN.
Grenfell M, Harris V. 1999. Modern languages and learning strategies: In theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Griffiths C. 2008. Strategies and good language learners. In: C. Griffiths (ed.), Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hacker DJ, Keener N C, Kircher JC. 2009. Writing is applied metacognition. In: D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (eds.), Handbook of
metacognition in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hedgcock JS. 2005. Taking stock of research and pedagogy in L2 writing. In: E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language
teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kroll B. 2001. Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. In: M. Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign
language. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
McCrory RS. 2006. Technology and teaching: A new kind of knowledge. In: E. A. Ashburn & R. E. Floden (eds.), Meaningful learning using
technology (pp. 141- 160). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Mekheimer M. 2005. Effects of Internet-based Instruction, Using Webquesting and Emailing on Developing Some Essay Writing Skills in
Student Teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cairo University.
Nunan D. 1989. Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan D. 1999. Second language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Oliver R, Harrington J. 2003. Exploring technology-mediated learning from a pedagogical perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 11(2):
111-126.
Olshtain E. 2001. Functional tasks for mastering the mechanics of writing and going just beyond. In: M. Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English
as a second or foreign language. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
O’ Mally JM, Chamot AU, Stewner,-Manzanares G, Kupper L, Russo R. 1985. Learning strategy applications with students of English as a
second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19: 285-296.
Oxford R. 1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Polio C, Williams J. 2009. Teaching and testing writing. In: M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (eds.), The handbook of language teaching. Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Ransdell S, Lavelle B, Levy M. 2002. The effects of training a good working memory strategy on L1 and L2 writing. In: S. Ransdell & M.L.
Barbiere (eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Richards JC. 1990. The language teaching matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards JC, Renandya WA. 2002. Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
nd
Rivers WM. 1981. Teaching foreign language skills. 2 edn. Chicago: The Univesity of Chicago Press.
Rovai AP, Jordan HM. 2004. Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate
courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2): 1-13.
Rubin J. 1987. Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history ans typology. In: A. Wenden, A. and J. Rubin (eds), Learner
strategies in language learning. London: Prentice Hall International.
Sasaki M. 2000. Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3): 259291.
Sengupta S. 2000. An investigation into the effects of revision strategy instruction on L2 secondary school learners. System, 28(1): 97-113.
Serdyukov P, Hill R. 2004, November. Masonry of e-learning: Managing knowledge construction and skill development in an online course.
Proceedings of E-Learn Worlds Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare& Higher education, Washington, D.C.
Silva T, Matsuda PK. 2002. Writing. In: N. Schmitt (ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics . New York, NY: Arnold Publishers.
Sotillo S. M. 2000. Discourse functions and syntactic complexity of synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning and
Technology, 4(1): 82-119.
Sullivan IO. 2006. Learners’ writing skills in French: Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1): 4968.
Tarone E. 1980. Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30: 417-431.
Tu CH. 2005. From presentation to interaction: New goals for online learning technologies. Educational Media International, 42(3): 189-206.
Zaid MA. 2011. Effects of web-based pre-writing activities on college EFL students’ writing performance and their writing apprehension. Journal
of King Saud University – Languages and Translation, 23(2): 77-85.
Zamel V. 1985. Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1): 79-102.
Zhu W. 2004. Faculty views on the importance of writing, nature of academic writing, and teaching and responding to writing in disciplines.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13: 29-48.
401