The effect of evaluative language on high- and low-graded post-graduate students’ academic writing ability across gender

Figures & data

Figure 1. Appraisal system categories and subcategories (adapted from Martin & White, 2005)

Table 1. Demographic background of the participants

No. of Students	60 (30 experimental; 30 control; MA students of TEFL)
Gender	36 Females & 24 Males
Native Language	Persian
Major	TEFL
University	IAU, Ahvaz Branch
Academic Year	2018–2019

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the writing pre- and post-test of the female and male groups

		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
						Lower Bound	Upper Bound
FEMALE	PRE EXPERIMENTAL	18	63.0000	5.48795	1.29352	60.2709	65.7291	53.00	71.00
	POST EXPERIMENTAL	18	67.8333	3.66622	.86414	66.0102	69.6565	59.00	74.00
	PRE CONTROL	18	61.3333	5.28037	1.24460	58.7075	63.9592	51.00	71.00
	POST CONTROL	18	62.0000	4.83857	1.14046	59.5938	64.4062	53.00	72.00
	Total	72	63.5417	5.41239	.63786	62.2698	64.8135	51.00	74.00
MALE	PRE EXPERIMENTAL	12	63.92	3.059	.883	61.97	65.86	59	69
	POST EXPERIMENTAL	12	69.17	1.899	.548	67.96	70.37	66	72
	PRE CONTROL	12	64.33	4.376	1.263	61.55	67.11	59	72
	POST CONTROL	12	64.42	4.719	1.362	61.42	67.41	59	73
	Total	48	65.46	4.177	.603	64.25	66.67	59	73

Table 3. Test of homogeneity of variances

	Levene Statistic	df1	df2	Sig.
FEMALE	1.177	3	68	.325
MALE	2.581	3	44	.065

Table 4. One-way ANOVA for the writing pre- and post-test of the female and male groups

		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
FEMALE	Between Groups	467.375	3	155.792	6.570	.001
	Within Groups	1612.500	68	23.713
	Total	2079.875	71
MALE	Between Groups	221.750	3	73.917	5.437	.003
	Within Groups	598.167	44	13.595
	Total	819.917	47

Table 5. multiple comparisons for the writing-post-test of the female and male groups

(I) Group MF	(J) Group MF	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Ex Female	Ex Male	−1.34000	1.30061	.909	−4.3334	2.6001
	Con Female	5.83333*	1.62321	.001	2.5943	9.0724
	Con Male	3.41000*	1.20721	.003	1.2694	7.7050
Ex Male	Ex Female	1.34000	1.30061	.909	−2.6001	4.3334
	Con Female	7.17000*	1.36409	.001	1.8140	9.0860
	Con Male	4.750*	1.505	.003	1.72	7.78
Con Female	Ex Female	−5.83333*	1.62321	.001	2.5943	9.0724
	Ex Male	−7.17000*	1.36409	.001	−9.0860	−1.8140
	Con Male	−2.42000	1.27535	.801	−3.4956	3.3033
Con Male	Ex Female	−3.41000*	1.20721	.003	−7.7050	−1.2694
	Ex Male	4.750*	1.505	.003	1.72	7.78
	Con Female	.2.42000	1.27535	.801	−3.3033	3.4956
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 6. Descriptive statistics for the writing pre- and post-test of the high- and low-graded groups

		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
						Lower Bound	Upper Bound
E.PRE	LOW GRADE	16	59.81	2.810	.702	58.32	61.31	53	63
	HIGH GRADE	14	67.43	2.311	.618	66.09	68.76	64	71
	Total	30	63.37	4.627	.845	61.64	65.09	53	71
E.POST	LOW GRADE	16	66.56	2.920	.730	65.01	68.12	59	70
	HIGH GRADE	14	70.43	1.785	.477	69.40	71.46	67	74
	Total	30	68.37	3.113	.568	67.20	69.53	59	74

Table 7. One-way ANCOVA for the writing post-test of the high- and low-graded groups

Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.	Partial Eta Squared	Noncent. Parameter	Observed Power^b
Corrected Model	213.141^a	2	106.571	42.424	.000	.759	84.847	1.000
Intercept	21.868	1	21.868	8.705	.006	.244	8.705	.812
E.PRE	101.541	1	101.541	40.421	.000	.600	40.421	1.000
E.PRE.CODE	6.785	1	6.785	2.701	.002	.091	2.701	.354
Error	67.825	27	2.512
Total	140,501.000	30
Corrected Total	280.967	29
a. R Squared = .759 (Adjusted R Squared = .741)
b. Computed using alpha = .05

Table

Score	Range	Content
	27–30	EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: knowledgeable • substantive • thorough development of thesis• relevant to assigned topic • audience/reader awareness
	22–26	GOOD TO AVERAGE: some knowledge of subject •adequate range • limited development of thesis• mostly relevant to topic, but lacks detail • somewhat the awareness of audience/reader
	17–21	FAIR TO POOR: limited knowledge of subject • little substance • inadequate development of topic • inadequate audience/reader awareness
	13–16	VERY POOR: does not show knowledge of subject • non-substantive • not pertinent • OR not enough to evaluate • no awareness of audience/reader
Organization plan for an argument
	18–20	EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: presents the complete introduction (attention grabber, writer’s thesis) • presents the reason(s) supporting the claim • summarizes the views differing from writer’s • discusses for and against the views • brings essay to closure
	14–17	GOOD TO AVERAGE: somewhat introduces the thesis • presents and supports the reason(s) to some extent • loosely presents the main body of essay • limited discussion for and against the views • loosely sums up argument
	10–13	FAIR TO POOR: incomplete thesis • disconnected reasons • incomplete discussion of views • ambiguous and incomplete summary of argument
	7–9	VERY POOR: no organization of thesis, reason(s) and conclusion
Vocabulary
	18–20	EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: sophisticated range • effective word/idiom choice and usage • word form mastery • appropriate register
	14–17	GOOD TO AVERAGE: adequate range • occasional errors of word/idiom form, choice, usage but meaning not obscured
	10–13	FAIR TO POOR: limited range • frequent errors of word/idiom form, choice, usage • meaning confused or obscured
	7–9	VERY POOR: essentially translation • little knowledge of English vocabulary, idioms, word form • OR not enough to evaluate
Language use
	22–25	EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: effective complex constructions • few errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions
	18–21	GOOD TO AVERAGE: effective but simple constructions • minor problems in complex constructions • several errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions but meaning seldom obscured
	11–17	FAIR TO POOR: major problems in simple/complex constructions • frequent errors of negation, agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions and/or fragments, run-ons, deletions • meaning confused or obscured
	5–10	VERY POOR: virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules • dominated by errors • does not communicate • OR not enough to evaluate
Mechanics
	5	EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: demonstrates mastery of conventions • few errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing
	4	GOOD TO AVERAGE: occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing but meaning not obscured
	3	FAIR TO POOR: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing • poor handwriting • meaning confused or obscured
	2	VERY POOR: no mastery of conventions • dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing • handwriting illegible • OR not enough to evaluate

Martin, J. R., & White, P. P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.

 Google Scholar