The comparison between repeated measures ANOVA and multilevel modeling to investigate the effectiveness of language instruction

  • Eunjeong Park Sunchon National University
Keywords: Repeated measures ANOVA, Multilevel modeling, Language instruction, Quantitative analysis

Abstract

The purpose of the current study is to compare two different statistical analyses—repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multilevel modeling (MLM)—with regard to international second language (L2) students’ lexico-grammatical writing gains in the interventions. Fifty college students’ lexico-grammatical writing gains in the pre-test, immediate and delayed post-tests were collected from three groups—one control and two intervention groups. Research questions include: (1) Is there a change in the dependent variable over time through repeated measures ANOVA?; (2) How much on average do the individuals change over time through MLM?; and (3) What are the differences of the results between repeated measures ANOVA and MLM? Repeated measures ANOVA and MLM were conducted separately to answer the research questions. Both analyses revealed that there was no difference of the interventions over time. In terms of methodological considerations, however, the two analyses exhibited the results in a different manner. Repeated measures ANOVA requires several assumptions (e.g., homoschedasticity and sphericity) while MLM does not need the requirement of the data as long as it contains different periodic datasets. Furthermore, MLM enables researchers to investigate the rate of individual growth. This paper offers methodological insight into adequate quantitative analyses to investigate the effectiveness of language acquisition and learning.

References

1. C. E. McCulloch, G. Casella, and S. R. Searle. Variance components. New York, NY: Wiley, 1992.
2. J. Coady. L2 vocabulary acquisition: A synthesis of research. In J. Coady and T. Huckin (eds.) Second language vocabulary acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 273–290, 1997.
3. S. Gass. Discussion: Incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), pp.319–333, 1999.
4. R. Schmidt. Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. C. Ellis (ed.) Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London. England: Academic Press, pp. 165–210, 1994.
5. J. Hulstijn. Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (ed.) Cognition and second language instruction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 258–286, 2001.
6. J. Hulstijn. Incidental and intentional learning. In C. Doughty and M. H. Long (eds.) The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 351–381, 2003.
7. I. S. P. Nation. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
8. I. S. P. Nation and S. Webb. Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning, 2011.
9. D. Biber, S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Pearson, 1999.
10. V. Cortes. Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23, pp. 397–423, 2004.
11. K. Hyland. As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, pp. 4–21, 2008.
12. M. Kazemi S. Katiraei, and A. E. Rasekh. The impact of teaching lexical bundles on improving Iranian EFL students’ writing skill. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, pp. 864−869, 2014.
13. L. A. Carroll. Rehearsing new roles: How college students develop as writers. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 2002.
14. J. Harris. The idea of community in the study of writing. College Composition and Communication, 40(1), pp. 11–22, 1989.
15. K. Hyland. Academic discourse. London: Continuum, 2009.
16. I. Leki. Undergraduates in a second language: Challenges and complexities of academic literacy development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007.
17. R. Gueorguieva,and J. H. Rogosa. Move over ANOVA: Progress in analyzing repeated-measures data and its reflection in papers published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61(3), pp. 310–317, 2004.
18. D. Rogosa, D. Brandt, and M. Zimowski. A growth curve approach to the measurement of change. Psychological Bulletin, 92, pp. 726–748, 1982.
19. S. W. Raudenbush. Toward a coherent framework for comparing trajectories of individual change. In A. G. Sayer (eds.) New methods for the analysis of change. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 35–64, 2001.
20. C. Teddlie and A. Tashakkori. Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2009.
21. A. S. Bryk, and S. W. Raudenbush. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1992.
22. S. W. Raudenbush and A. S. Bryk. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2002.
23. T, Teo. Handbook of quantitative methods for educational research. Springer Science & Business Media, 2014.
Published
2020-06-27
How to Cite
Park, E. (2020). The comparison between repeated measures ANOVA and multilevel modeling to investigate the effectiveness of language instruction. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(6), 426-437. https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.76.8438