Data Analysis

the timeline provided below (Figure 3.1).

Figure3.1: Data collection timeline

3.3.2 Data Analysis

The argumentative writings were coded according to the framework provided by Xing, et al. (2008). This was done by two bilingual (English and Persian) raters to insure inter rater reliability. The scoring procedure will be discussed below. The SPSS software (version 11.5) was used for the statistical analyses of the questionnaire and the NVivo software was used for locating and counting the discourse markers.

SPSS or Statistical Package for the Social Sciences is one of the most widely used programs for statistical analysis in social science. According to the official website (www.spss.com), this software is used for quantitative studies. This software has the “flexibility you need, including access to a wide variety of data and file types, direct access to command syntax for power users and a range of deployment options that put the power of statistics where you need it”.

The NVivo software is a computer program used for qualitative data analysis. It generally assists the raters in locating and marking the discourse markers present in each text. So, it generally helps with data management and data analysis. According to NVivo’s official website (www.qsrinternational.com), “NVivo is a qualitative data analysis computer software package produced by QSR International. It has been designed for qualitative researchers working with very rich text-based and/or multimedia information, where deep levels of analysis on small or large volumes of data are required”. The important feature of NVivo is the fact that it can deal with texts in any language. Most similar software including Weft-QDA do not support Persian scripts. The site goes on to explain that “NVivo lets you organize and classify data quickly. Work systematically and ensure you don’t miss anything in your data”.

Scoring Procedure

In order to reduce the effects of subjectivity in the data analysis and also to increase the reliability of the results obtained, the researcher asked another bilingual (English and Persian) to analyze all the 80 essays including 40 English and 40 Persian argumentative essays. By doing so the researcher tried to ensure interrater reliability. A briefing session was held with the other rater. The researcher initially explained the various sections of the framework to the other rater. Both raters agreed on the validity of the framework. The raters then randomly rated one essay together in order to make sure no misinterpretation had taken place during the briefing session and that the explanations were sufficient. Afterwards, each essay was scored holistically by the two raters independently. The raters were allowed as much time as necessary in hoping to improve the overall reliability by eliminating the time pressure. After the scoring was completed, the interrater reliability was measured by Cronbach’s alpha.

As for the last section of the framework which was the discourse markers, the raters both used the NVivo software. Each argumentative essay was rated by two different bilingual raters who were TEFL specialist and had at least 7 years of experience teaching and grading students’ writing samples.

3.4 Concluding Marks

In this chapter a descriptive report was given regarding how the study was planned and administered. In the first section a brief introduction was given regarding the study. In the next section the sampling which included setting and participants was explained. The participants were divided into three parts namely, student participants, teacher participants, bilingual raters were reported. In the third section, the instrumentation was discussed. This section included 7 parts including 1.Five contrastive features framework; 2.Fraser’s Taxonomy of Discourse Markers; 3.Myside bias; 4.Consultation; 5.Argumentative writing task; 6.Questionnaire; and finally, 7. Interview. In the last section the procedure used in the study was thoroughly explained. This section was divided into two parts. The first part was data collection and this was directly followed by data analysis. The results of these different phases along with a discussion will be explained in the next chapter.

Chapter 4

4.0 Introduction

This chapter provides us with a discussion and analysis of data regarding the research findings in response to the research questions concerned with style differences in writing, contrastive features, perception of most difficult areas in English writing, and traces of myside bias of the participating EFL students in their writing activities.

The overall pool of data for the present study was gathered through the responses the participants gave in the argumentative essays written by the participants, the survey questionnaire and finally the information which was elicited from the interviews (See 3.2 Instrumentation). A combination of all of the above data was used in order to investigate and answer the research questions. It should be kept in mind that the Iranian EFL students’ 80 written argumentative essays were used as the key to unfolding the Five Contrastive Features Framework (See 3.2.1 Five Contrastive Features Framework). To assist the reader in comprehending the various categories, the results of this study will be presented in three main sections in this chapter namely- the argumentative writing task, questionnaire, and interview.

4.1 Argumentative Writing Task

The argumentative writing tasks were the essence of the present study (See Appendix 6). These written essays served as the main instrument that yielded data required to answer research questions 1, 2 and 4 (See 1.0.3 Purpose of the Study). This section provides us with the results of the five contrastive features from the framework and one additional section. The additional section was introduced by the researcher in order to

check whether myside bias was present in the written essays. These results are the outcome of the raters’ analysis of each essay (See 3.2.5 Questionnaire, Pilot Study, and Inter Rater Reliability). In the final stage the Social Science Statistical Package (SPSS) along with NVivo were employed (See 3.3.2 Data Analysis) to obtain the results. In order to help with the presentation of the results, this part is divided into 2 main sections-namely English essays and Persian essays; and 6 subsections to encompass the 5 Contrastive Features Framework plus myside bias.