The Effect of Conventional, Web-based, and Hybrid Teaching of Pre ...

International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences© 2013 Available online at www.irjabs.comISSN 2251-838X / Vol, 4 (2): 393-401Science Explorer PublicationsThe Effect of Conventional, Web-based, and HybridTeaching of Pre-Writing Strategies on Iranian EFLLearners’ Writing PerformanceSajad Shafiee 1 , Mansour Koosha 1 , Akbar Afghari 11. Department of English, Khorasgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, IranCorresponding author’s email: shafiee.sajad@iaushk.ac.irABSTRACT: Second language writing, not unlike other language skills, is an area of practice requiringdue attention and meticulously planned instruction. With a prevalent shift of paradigm from productorientedto process-oriented approaches to writing instruction, such learner variables as languagelearning strategies came to the forefront. Among second language writing strategies, the locus ofattention on pre-writing strategies has by no means been ample. The present study aimed to investigatethe 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, theimplementation of pre-writing strategies-based instruction was examined through different modes of inputdelivery, i.e. web-based and hybrid environments (in addition to conventional classroom teaching). Asample of second language learners was chosen from among male and female English majors and wasdivided into four groups: control, conventional, web-based, and hybrid groups. A homogenizing writingpretest was administered to ascertain that the learners were not very different in terms of their writingability. After five sessions of treatment, excluding the pretest and posttest sessions, a writing posttest wasgiven to the students, the results of which revealed that the three experimental groups had significantlyoutperformed 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. Thehybrid group, on the other hand, had excelled all the other groups.Key words: Second language writing; Pre-Writing strategies; Web-based; HybridAbbreviations: EFL- English as a foreign language; L2- Second language; SLA- Second languageacquisition; SSBI- Styles and strategies-based instruction; CALLA- Cognitive academic language learningapproach; ConG- Conventional group; WBG- Web-based group; HG- Hybrid group; ANOVA- Analysis ofvarianceINTRODUCTIONWriting, its Importance, and ComplexityWriting is "the production of thought for oneself or others under the direction of one's goal-orientedmetacognitive 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 otherreceptive 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 beexamined, reconsidered, superseded, rearranged, and changed. The paramount importance of this indispensableskill is further stated by Olshtain (2001) "…the skill of writing enjoys special status–it is via writing that a person cancommunicate 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 ofunfavorable emotions, ranging from fear, to trepidation to elation (Arnold, 2007; Byrd, 2010; Zhu, 2004) whichpotentially hinder the development of their writing skills. This is the case probably because writing, be it in one'sfirst 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, 2013onerous 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 motorskills 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 ofwriting is probably the most difficult thing there is to do in language" (p. 271). Richards and Renandya (2002) takea more unwavering stance in this regard and hold that "[t]here is no doubt that writing is the most difficult skill for L2learners to master" (p. 271).Although applied linguists have come to recognize the importance of writing in its own right as well as itscomplexity, 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 ofwriting has traditionally been underestimated in language teaching” (p. 106).Teaching Writing: Product and Process ApproachesTeaching the preponderant skill of writing, not unlike other language skills, has undergone a dramatic shiftfrom teacher-centered approaches towards learner-centered ones. L2 writing instruction, in its early days (aroundthe mid 1960s), underscored the production of grammatically well-formed sentences. Writing was viewed as a toolfor reinforcing and assessing the knowledge of grammar. The writing instruction included controlled compositionsaimed to give writers practice in selected morpho-syntactic patterns. Still the current product-oriented approachemphasizes 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, wherethe process of writing is far more important than the outcome and accuracy is somewhat neglected in favor offluency. 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 longerare teachers the directors of every aspect of the learning process. Learners also are made more responsible forsuccessful language learning. In the wake of this shift and emphasis on the role of language learners, learnervariables came to the forefront of language teaching research.Language Learning Strategies: Definitions and ClassificationsLike 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 hasbeen variously defined by different authors and there is still no consensus over its definition. However, one of themost comprehensive definitions is the one put forth by Griffiths (2008): "strategies are activities consciously chosenby learners to regulate their language learning." (p. 87).In SLA literature, strategies have been categorized in numerous ways. A distinction is often made betweenthree types of strategies: production, communication, and learning. Tarone (1980, p. 419) considers the first two ofthese as ‘language use strategies’. A production strategy is “an attempt to use one’s linguistic system efficientlyand 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 ininteraction. 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 inthe target language”. Examples given by Tarone (op. cit.) include memorization, initiation of conversation withnative speakers, and inferencing.Aside from classifying strategies as focusing on the learning or the use of language, there are two othernotable approaches to categorizing strategies. One is to categorize them into one of the four groups according towhether they are cognitive, metacognitive, affective, or social (Chamot, 1987; Oxford, 1990). Cognitive strategiesrefer to the “steps or operations in problem-solving that require direct analysis, transformation, or synthesis oflearning 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 constitutean 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 ofanxiety and for self-encouragement). Social strategies include the actions which learners choose to take in order tointeract with other learners and with native speakers (for example, asking questions to clarify social roles andrelationships, or cooperating with others in order to complete tasks).394

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 4 (2), 393-401, 2013Finally, strategies can be grouped according to the skill area to which they relate (Cohen, 1990). Thereceptive skills, listening and reading, and the productive skills, speaking and writing are the four basic skillcategories. There are, however, other skill areas as well. For example, there are strategies associated withvocabulary learning which cross-cut the four basic skills. This final classification (and writing strategies therein) isthe one adopted for the purpose of the present study.(Pre-) Writing StrategiesWriting strategies include pre-writing, while-writing, and post-writing strategies. Pre-writing entails planninghow to write, monitoring how the writing is going, and checking to see how well the product fits the intention. It alsoentails making an effort to write different kinds of texts in the target language (Cohen & DÖrnyei, 2002). Thestrategies 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 areencouraged to participate by sharing their collective knowledge about a particular subject. It generates far morematerial than any one student is likely to think of in his/her own. Students can then utilize any or all of theinformation when turning to the preparation of their first drafts (Kroll, 2001). Unlike brainstorming, listing is anessentially individual activity. Here the student is encouraged to produce as lengthy a list as possible of all the mainideas and subcategories that come to mind as s/he thinks about the topic at hand. This is an especially usefulactivity for those students who might be constrained by undue concern for expressing their thoughts ingrammatically correct sentences. Clustering begins with a key word or a central idea placed in the center of a pagearound which the students quickly jot down all of the free-associations triggered by the subject matter, using wordsor short phrases. Finally, freewriting (also referred to as speed writing, quick writing, and wet ink) consists of writingnonstop (without taking the pen from the page) for a specific period of time (usually about three to five or even eightminutes). The writing generated via this technique usually contains useful raw material for students to work with. Anexamination of the effectiveness of pre-writing strategies through different modes of instruction is the aim of thepresent study.Strategies-based Writing InstructionHow to teach language learning strategies in general, and (pre-) writing strategies in particular, has longbeen an obsession for both scholars and language teachers. Much research on language learning strategiesreveals that students lack awareness of language learning strategies, and the best way to engender thisawareness is through explicit instruction (Cohen, 2003). Early language learning strategies research sought tocompare blind training, informed training, and completely informed training (e.g. O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzaner, Kupper, & Russo, 1985) and intended to “raise the learners’ awareness about the language learningstrategies and model strategies overtly along with the task; to encourage strategy use and give a rationale for it; tooffer a wide menu of relevant strategies for learners to choose from; to offer controlled practice in the use of somestrategies; 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 receptiveskills of reading and listening, and more recently on speaking. Scant attention, however, has been paid to trainingwriting strategies (Chamot & Kupper, 1989). Previous writing-strategy research has examined the writing strategiesthat 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 ideashave not been the target of much research. Irrespective of what content has been the locus of pre-writingstrategies-based instruction, how this instruction takes place (i.e. conventional, web-based, or hybrid) is an issue ofincreased interest.Conventional Strategies-based InstructionThe traditional writing class features pre-writing instruction devoid of any online component. A multitude ofmodels for teaching language learning strategies have been developed (Chamot, 2008). Three currents methodsfor language learning strategy instruction are shown and compared in Table 1.All these models accentuate the importance of developing the students’ awareness of language learningstrategies and imply that this is facilitated through teacher modeling. All emphasize the necessity of catering thestudents with ample practice so that they become autonomous. And all suggest that students must evaluate howwell 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 thanlinear so that teachers and students always have the option of revisiting prior instructional phases as needed395

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 onto transfer the strategies to new tasks. The Grenfell and Harris (1999) model, however, leads the students througha cycle of six steps, then begin a new cycle. It provides initial familiarization with the new strategies, then hasstudents make action plans to improve their own learning. In the SSBI model, the teacher takes on a variety ofroles in order to provide a scaffold for the students’ learning and using strategies appropriate to their own learningstyle.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 threemodels 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 arethe focus of this study. This is so because SSBI relies on an extra component (i.e. learning styles) which isdispensed 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 InstructionSSBI* Model (Cohen, 1998) CALLA** Model (Chamot et al., 1999;Chamot, 2005)Grenfell & Harris (1999)Teacher as diagnostician: Helps studentsidentify current strategies and learning styles.Teacher as language learner: Shares ownlearning experiences and thinking processes.Teacher as learner trainer: Trains studentshow to use learning strategies.Teacher as coordinator: Supervises students’study plans and monitors difficulties.Teacher as coach: Provides ongoingguidance on students’ progress.Preparation: Teacher identifies students’current learning strategies for familiar tasks.Presentation: Teacher models, names, andexplains new strategy; asks students if andhow they have used it.Practice: Students practice new strategy; insubsequent strategy practice, teacher fadesremainders to encourage independentstrategy use.Self-Evaluation: Students evaluate their ownstrategy use immediately after practice.Expansion: Students transfer strategies tonew tasks, combine strategies into clusters,develop repertoire of preferred strategies.Assessment: Teacher assesses students’ useof strategies and impact on performance.*Styles and Strategies-Based Instruction**Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach(Adopted from Chamot, 2008)Awareness raising: Students complete a task,and then identify the strategies they used.Modeling: Teacher models, discusses valueof new strategy, makes checklist of strategiesfor learner use.General practice: Students practice newstrategies with different tasks.Action planning: Students set goals andchoose strategies to attain those goals.Focused practice: Students carry out actionplanning using selected strategies; teachersfade prompts so that students use strategiesautomatically.Evaluation: Teacher and students evaluatesuccess of action plan; set new goals; cyclebegins again.Web-Based Strategies-based InstructionAs an educational tool, technology finds a number of applications in and outside the classroom. Manyresearchers (McCrory, 2006; Oliver & Herrington, 2003; Tu, 2005) observe that the development of onlinetechnologies has brought new ways of learning and teaching. Whereas the traditional mode of instruction includedpresenting 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 onthe information received from the instructor, and the recursive approach of the latter, which views learners as coparticipantsin the learning process.Based on the purpose of the instruction and the technical base of a web-based program, the electronicdiscourse can take place synchronously or asynchronously (Sotillo, 2000). Synchronous interaction allows allparticipants 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 ofpostings and expressiveness of the language (Serdyukov & Hill, 2004). Therefore, asynchronous mode appears tobe 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, 2013Hybrid Strategies-based InstructionThe term hybrid instruction (also called mixed-mode or blended instruction) is fairly new in researchliterature. 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 onlinetechnologies 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 instructionoccurs both in the classroom and online, and where the online component becomes an extension of traditionalclassroom learning” (Rovai & Jordan, 2004). Some researchers distinguish hybrid instruction from other types ofweb-enhanced or online instruction by the proportion of content delivered online. According to Allen, Seaman, andGarret (2007), a hybrid program is one where between 30% and 70% of the program content is delivered online. Inthis study the hybrid course will consist of a number of class sessions which are complemented by an onlinecomponent 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 hybridlearning environment. It was found that the learners who consistently used the website improved the organizationand content of their writing, regulated their learning, and used more strategies online than in class. The researchalso demonstrated that, for learners who seek increased engagement and higher academic performance, thehybrid 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 inthe current research is the shift from the traditional product-oriented writing methodology to writing as a processthat emphasizes learner-centeredness. Since the latter promotes learner variables such as language learningstrategies, pre-writing strategies are chosen to be investigated in this paper. The incentive to choose pre-writingstrategies derives from the claims of such scholar as Polio and Williams (2009) who contend that “[p]re-writing is anessential 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 differentways, namely conventional, web-based, and hybrid format. Although all these three approaches have yieldedpromising results with regards to second language pre-writing strategies instruction, no research has attempted acomparison of these approaches. Such a comparison will unquestionably enable EFL practitioners to employ thebest 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 EFLlearners’ written productions is concerned?MATERIALS AND METHODSThis 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-writingstrategies instruction) on EFL learners’ writing in English.ParticipantsTo choose the participants for this study, English majors studying at Islamic Azad University of Shahrekordand Safahan Institute of Higher Education who were taking Advanced Writing Course as part of their bachelor’sdegree were asked to take part in the study. Altogether, they formed an aggregate of 107 students. After explainingthe aim of the study to the students, the researchers randomly chose one of the classes at Shahrekord Universityto be the control group (CtrlG) and the other class became the hybrid group (HG). The writing class at SafahanUniversity was the conventional group (ConG). From these three classes 26 students (15 students fromShahrekord 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 abilitieswere far below or above the average students. The average score in this test was 12.28 and the standard deviationwas 2.91. Those who obtained a score between two standard deviations below and above the mean were chosenas the participants of this study. Not surprisingly, nearly all the students were in this range (except for 3 studentsfrom the HG) since most of them had not received any formal writing instruction (except for 8 students who hadfailed the course the previous academic year). In the same test, in addition to the prompt, there was an open-397

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 4 (2), 393-401, 2013ended question seeking to find out whether any of the students was versed in pre-writing strategies or not and sixstudents from the four groups were excluded from the study for their familiarity with pre-writing strategies.Instruments and Their ReliabilityAs it went before, a homogenizing writing test (which also served as the pretest) and a posttest were usedas data elicitation techniques of this study. The two writing tests featured argumentative prompts. The text typesthey elicited were enumerative texts of cause-and-effect type. More precisely, the writing prompt for the pretest andposttest were “Do you think that most marriages in Iran are successful nowadays or not? Provide reasons for youranswer,” 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 followingchecklist: (a) Does the writing have a topic sentence? (b) Does it include detailed supporting sentences? (c) Doesit have unity? (d) Does it have coherence? (e) Does it include transitions at the critical locations? (f) Does it have aconcluding remark at the end? (g) Does the writer have good diction? (h) Has the writer kept to grammatical andorthographic 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 zeroand twenty. Correlational analyses showed an inter-rater reliability of 0.84 and 0.91 for the pretest and posttestscores, respectively.ProcedureIn the light of administering an argumentative writing test, from among male and female students studyingEnglish at Islamic Azad University of Shahrekord, and Safahan Institute of Higher Education, a group ofhomogenous EFL writers was selected to serve as the participants of the study. These students were subsequentlydivided 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 towrite 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 thesecond 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 inclass and had to do the follow-up activities online. These three experimental groups experienced a processorientedstrategies-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 studywas 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 andposttest. The instructional materials for both WBG and HG were on http://sajadshafiee.blogfa.com. The contents ofthe courses were password-protected. This would make it possible for either of the WBG and HG to gain access tothe relevant content, not to the material intended for the other group.Data AnalysisIt was explained before that a homogenizing writing test (which also served as the pretest of the study) wasadministered to select a comparable sample from among male and female students majoring in English at IslamicAzad University of Shahrekord and Safahan Institute of Higher Education. This sample consisted of threeexperimental groups and a control group. To ascertain their homogeneity prior to the experiment, a one-waybetween-groups ANOVA was run to compare their performance on this test. The same statistical tool was usedagain for comparing the posttest results. The results of these analyses are presented in the following section.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe aim of the present study was two-fold: to find out whether teaching pre-writing strategies is an effectivepractice 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 threeexperimental groups (ConG, WBG, and HG) were at the same level of writing ability prior to the experiment, a onewaybetween-groups ANOVA was conducted. The following table displays the descriptive results of comparingthese groups.398

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 4 (2), 393-401, 2013CtrlGConGWBGHGTotalTable 2. Descriptive Statistics for Comparing the Pretest Writing Scores of the Four Groups95% Confidence IntervalN Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error for Mean Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound24 11.29 3.12.63 9.9712.617.00 16.5027 12.11 3.03.58 10.9013.317.50 16.0025 12.92 2.36.47 11.9413.898.00 17.0022 12.86 2.96.63 11.5414.178.00 16.0098 12.28 2.91.29 11.7012.877.00 17.00The 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 thereis not a great difference among the performances of the participants in these groups. However, to establish the lackof 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 GroupsSum ofSquaresdf Mean Square F Sig.Between GroupsWithin GroupsTotal41.944783.056825.0003949713.9818.3301.678 0.177There 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 beforecommencement of the experiment.The two research questions of the study (i.e. the effectiveness of pre-writing strategies instruction, and theputative difference between different modes of input delivery) were answered by the application of one-waybetween-groups ANOVA for the posttest writing scores. The results of these analyses are reproduced below.CtrlGConGWBGHGTotalTable 4. Descriptive Statistics for Comparing the Posttest Writing Scores of the Four Groups95% Confidence IntervalN Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error for Mean Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound24 12.25 2.72.55 11.1013.398.00 17.0027 14.29 2.84.54 13.1715.429.50 18.5025 14.60 2.13.42 13.7215.4711.00 18.5022 16.68 2.10.44 15.7417.6113.00 19.0098 14.40 2.88.29 13.8214.988.00 19.00As shown in Table 4, the mean scores of the CtrlG, ConG, WBG, and HG are 12.25, 14.29, 14.60, and16.68, respectively. There is an apparent discrepancy among the mean scores of these four groups. In order todiscern 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 GroupsSum ofdf Mean Square F Sig.SquaresBetween GroupsWithin GroupsTotal226.771582.402809.1733949775.5906.19612.200 .000The results obtained by the ANOVE test reveal a substantially significant difference at the p < .05 in theposttest scores for the four groups: F (3, 94) = 12.2, p = .00. The actual difference in the mean scores between thegroups was also found to be large. The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was .38. Post-hoc comparisonsusing 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, 2013Table 6. Post-Hoc Scheffe Test Results for Comparing the Posttest Writing Scores of the Four GroupsMean95% Confidence Interval(I) Groups (J) Groups Difference Std. Error Sig.(I-J)Lower Bound Upper BoundCtrlConGWBGHG-2.04630*-2.35000*-4.43182*.69831.71133.73470.041.016.000-4.0342-4.3750-6.5234-.0584-.3250-2.3403ConGWBGHGCtrlGWBGHGCtrlGConGHGCtrlGConGHG2.04630*-.30370-2.38552*2.35000*-.30370-2.38552*4.43182*2.38552*2.08182*.69831.69087.71491.71133.69087.72764.73470.71491.72764.041.979.014.016.979.048.000.014.048.0584-2.2705-4.4207.3250-1.6631-4.15332.3403.3503.01044.03421.6631-.35034.37502.2705-.01046.52344.42074.1533Table 6 indicates that there is a difference between the control group on the one hand and the other threeexperimental groups on the other. Hence, the first question of the study is answered, i.e. teaching pre-writing astrategy appears to be quite effective.Moreover, among the three experimental groups, the difference between the conventional group and webbasedgroup fails to reach statistical significance. On the other hand, the mean score for the hybrid group issignificantly larger than the mean scores of both conventional and web-based groups. The second question of thestudy, as such, is also answered.To recapitulate, the analyses revealed that teaching pre-writing strategies to EFL learners is an efficaciousmethod of helping them improve their writing performance. Interestingly enough, no substantial difference wasobserved between conventional and web-based methods of pre-writing strategies instruction. Hybrid method ofteaching, 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 affirma positive effect for strategies-based writing instruction. This effectiveness can partly be attributed to raising theawareness of language learning strategies via explicit instruction, which is claimed to be the best practice instrategies-based instruction (Cohen, 2003). The results of this study, like the earlier studies on strategy-basedinstruction (as reported by DÖrnyei, 2006), offered a wide range of pre-writing strategies to choose from, andprovided 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) haveunearthed, the results of this study corroborated the premise that web-based second language writing instructionhas a facilitative effect. The reason why the students in the web-based group could not override those in theconventional group was probably that the former could not obtain as much feedback on their performance as couldthe 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 thecontrol group, but also the other experimental groups. The supremacy of hybrid teaching of pre-writing strategieswas previously confirmed by Ellis (2008) and the present study provided further support for her findings. As statedby Ellis and proved in this study, a hybrid format offers more effective ways to academic writing, vis-à-vis othermethods of teaching pre-writing strategies.REFERENCESAllen IE, Seaman J, Garrett R. 2007. Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: BabsonCollege 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 casestudy. 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, 2013Chuo TI. 2007. The effect of the WebQuest writing instruction program on EFL learners’ writing performance, writing apprehension, andperception. TESL-EJ, 11(3): 1-27.Cohen A. 2003. Strategy training for second language learners. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (ERICDocument 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 appliedlinguistics. 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 adifference? 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. Unpublisheddoctoral 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: CambridgeUniversity Press.Hacker DJ, Keener N C, Kircher JC. 2009. Writing is applied metacognition. In: D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (eds.), Handbook ofmetacognition 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 languageteaching 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 foreignlanguage. 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 usingtechnology (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 inStudent 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 Englishas 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 asecond 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 UniversityPress.Rivers WM. 1981. Teaching foreign language skills. 2 nd 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 graduatecourses. 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), Learnerstrategies 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): 259-291.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 andTechnology, 4(1): 82-119.Sullivan IO. 2006. Learners’ writing skills in French: Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1): 49-68.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. Journalof 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