The chosen article emphasizes methodological issues that might take place during the implementation of repeated-measures (RM) ANOVA studies in the framework of second language (L2) academic writing – in particular, an argumentative essay. Then, this article recommends possible solutions to the mentioned issues. It should be noted that RM-ANOVA designs are employed in cases the same participants are being measured more than one time. Hence, RM-ANOVA studies that have several sessions of collecting data sets, as well as several variables, imply that thorough planning and consistent implementation are needed.
The authors show that the related earlier investigations that used statistical analyses to explore the impact of task complexity and condition on individual learners’ second-language academic writing were implemented with various types of participants. Such a fact could have influenced the findings, given the volatility of the general mean scores that might occur from these participants’ peculiarities. To improve the accuracy of the mentioned statistical analyses, the authors decided to carry out the study among the same group of the ones taking part. Such a state of affairs would imply that the implementation of an RM-ANOVA design is required – this was the reason why the authors selected repeated-measures ANOVA in the research.
It might be rational to say that the RM-ANOVA study can be considered an effective analytical instrument within the scope of examining the effects of task design variables, as well as of task implementation variables, in the framework of second language individual argumentative essays and measures of the CAF indicators. The mentioned design serves as a great foundation for providing reasonable and reliable findings in this vein. Given the latter arguments, it may be suggested that the authors’ choice of RM-ANOVA in their investigation was appropriate because there is a necessity to shed light on the possible challenges during the implementation process.
The article contains the following figures and tables that display the results of the study. Figure 1 shows the design box of the current 2×3 RM-ANOVA investigation. Table 1 demonstrates global CAF measures of academic writing quality. Then, Figure 2 provides steps in the data collection, data management, and data analysis. Finally, Figure 3 gives a particular visual description of the stages required within the data collection procedures (Bie et al., 2020). The presence of the visual elements in the article alleviates the overall audience’s perceptions of the research, which contributes to the study’s significance.
However, it should be admitted that one will not be able to interpret this study from the described figures and tables. The point is that the authors aimed to provide challenges during the implementation of RM-ANOVA design in the particular research. The visual measures that the scholars apply seem to show these challenges – demonstrating all the crucial details. Nevertheless, the reader may face some difficulties during their interpretation as the authors provide their rationale in this regard afterward – not including brief but essential statements in the result tables and figures.
In conclusion, it is important to state that the article indeed has highlighted essential considerations that a researcher may want to pay attention to during the design and implementation of RM ANOVA studies. The only insignificant flaw that was identified is that one could not be able to interpret the findings from the figures and tables. Nevertheless, the authors have provided relevant, coherent, and in-depth research that can be relied upon in further studies.
Reference
Bie, S. S., Sim, T. S., & Nikitina, L. (2020). Designing and piloting a repeated-measures ANOVA study on L2 academic writing: Methodology and challenges. Linguistics Journal, 14(1), 183–205.