80 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS e holistic scores by expert teachers and the level of writing pro ciency provided by a computer program for morphosyntactic analyses of written FL French are summarized in table 10. TABLE 10 Overview of holistic scores by expert teachers and morphosyntactic profiling SB program N=24 DUB program N=32 Cohen’s d Significance (2-tailed) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Holistic scores by expert teachers (scores 1-4) 2.50 (0.95) 2.58 (0.92) d = 0.09 p=.757 Morphosyntactic profiling by Direkt Profil (scores 1-6) 4.05 (1.22) 4.25 (1.14) d = 0.17 p=.534 Although the DUB learners scored higher on both measures, the di erences were not signi cant and e ect sizes were low. Table 11 provides an overview of the results on CAF measures. TABLE 11 Overview of CAF measures SB program N=24 DUB program N=32 Cohen’s d Significance (2-tailed) Complexity: Guiraud Index Tense Use Ratio Average Sentence Length Accuracy: Subject-Verb Agreement Determiner-Noun Agreement Fluency: Text Length Mean (SD) 8.97 (1.12) 2.68 (1.93) 14.72 (3.73) 7.33 (1.63) 9.15 (0.83) 293 (75) Mean(SD) 8.80 (1.00) 2.43 (1.05) 17.33 (2.78) 7.90 (1.28) 8.83 (0.99) 356 (128) d = 0.16 d = 0.16 d = 0.79 d = 0.39 d = 0.35 d = 0.60 p=.541 p=.584 p=.001*** p=.147 p=.213 p=.044* * significant at p<.05 *** significant at p<.001 e DUB students produced signi cantly longer and more complex sentences and produced longer texts overall with medium e ect sizes (Plonsky & Oswald, 2014). For a better understanding of these results, the rst paragraphs of two essays of two students will be given as an example:
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw