Effectiveness of Writing Teaching Techniques

This assignment investigates the impact of various writing instruction methods on student improvement. The study compares three techniques: tracing letters, posture-focused writing, and continuous cursive writing. Data analysis involves paired samples tests to compare improvements within each technique and one-sample t-tests to evaluate overall performance against a baseline. The results highlight the effectiveness of continuous cursive writing in enhancing writing skills.

SPSS Software & Psychology
1

PART- 2
Exercise 1
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .885a .783 .776 3.22190
a. Predictors: (Constant), Number of CBT session , Number of Self Hypnosis Sessions
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 2138.371 2 1069.186 102.998 .000b
Residual 591.695 57 10.381
Total 2730.066 59
a. Dependent Variable: Phobia Scale Score
b. Predictors: (Constant), Number of CBT session , Number of Self Hypnosis Sessions
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 2.652 3.123 .849 .399
Number of Self Hypnosis
Sessions 1.226 .109 .982 11.249 .000
Number of CBT session -.146 .088 -.146 -1.670 .100
a. Dependent Variable: Phobia Scale Score
Correlations
Number of Self
Hypnosis Sessions
Phobia Scale Score
Number of Self Hypnosis Sessions
Pearson Correlation 1 .879**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 60 60
Phobia Scale Score Pearson Correlation .879** 1
2

Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 60 60
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlations
Phobia Scale Score Number of CBT
session
Phobia Scale Score
Pearson Correlation 1 .550**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 60 60
Number of CBT session
Pearson Correlation .550** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 60 60
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Hypothesis
There is reduction in Phobia scale score due to self hypnosis sessions as well as number
of CBT sessions.
Results
From the calculation of regression among the three variables it has been attained that
value of significance for to self hypnosis sessions is 0.00. However the significance value in case
of number of CBT sessions is 0.10.
By the means of correlation among the variables that is self hypnosis sessions as well as
Phobia scale score the significance value is 0.879. Further when analyzing the relationship
among Phobia scale score as well as number of CBT sessions value of significance is 0.550.
Discussion
It has been gained from the interpretation of tables that in case of regression the
significance value is below 0.05 in case of self hypnosis session this implies that there is
existence of significant relationship among the variables. On the other hand in case of number of
CBT sessions the significance value is higher than 0.05. This reflects that there is no significant
3

difference among the variables. In contrast to this correlation presents that variables are highly
related. This means that there is impact of CBT session and self hypnosis on the reduction in
Phobia scale score. Increase of number of self hypnosis and CBT session would increase in
Phobia scale score which highlights higher reduction in the Phobia scale score.
Exercise- 2
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Abstract Reasoning Pre Lego
Task 20 12 29 20.55 6.083
Abstract Reasoning Pre Painting
Task 20 11 26 18.45 4.594
Abstract Reasoning Post Lego
Task 20 21 36 27.25 4.700
Abstract Reasoning Post Painting
Task 20 20 44 31.10 6.431
Valid N (listwise) 20
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Abstract Reasoning Pre Lego Task 20 20.55 6.083 1.360
Abstract Reasoning Pre Painting
Task 20 18.45 4.594 1.027
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean
Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Abstract Reasoning Pre
Lego Task 15.109 19 .000 20.550 17.70 23.40
Abstract Reasoning Pre
Painting Task 17.962 19 .000 18.450 16.30 20.60
4

One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Abstract Reasoning Post Lego Task 20 27.25 4.700 1.051
Abstract Reasoning Post Painting
Task 20 31.10 6.431 1.438
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean
Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Abstract Reasoning Post
Lego Task 25.928 19 .000 27.250 25.05 29.45
Abstract Reasoning Post
Painting Task 21.627 19 .000 31.100 28.09 34.11
Hypothesis
Playing with LEGO improves abstract reasoning in children more than painting a picture
Results
On comparing the mean of pre and post Lego and painting the results obtained presents
that pre Lego has mean of 20.55 and pre painting mean is 18.45. However the post Lego
possesses the mean of 27.25 and post painting has the mean of 31.10.
Discussion
From the analysis of the score it has been gained that mean difference in pre results
presents that Lego playing increases the abstract reasoning. However from the post results it has
been gained that painting enhances the abstract reasoning. Further by the means of making
analysis of pre Lego and post Lego the mean difference is less. On the other hand the pre
painting and post painting means difference is higher. This implies that children who are painting
improve abstract reasoning higher in comparison with Lego. This reflects the hypothesis is
rejected. The t test value presents that significance value 0.000.
5

Exercise- 3
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Yoga in morning 20 8 27 13.60 4.453
Yoga in Evening 20 5 19 11.70 3.799
Tai Chi in Morning 20 7 18 13.25 3.093
Tal Chi in Evening 20 6 17 12.00 2.938
Valid N (listwise) 20
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Yoga in morning 13.60 20 4.453 .996
Yoga in Evening 11.70 20 3.799 .849
Pair 2 Tai Chi in Morning 13.25 20 3.093 .692
Tal Chi in Evening 12.00 20 2.938 .657
Pair 3 Yoga in morning 13.60 20 4.453 .996
Tai Chi in Morning 13.25 20 3.093 .692
Pair 4 Yoga in Evening 11.70 20 3.799 .849
Tal Chi in Evening 12.00 20 2.938 .657
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Yoga in morning & Yoga in Evening 20 .792 .000
Pair 2 Tai Chi in Morning & Tal Chi in Evening 20 .805 .000
Pair 3 Yoga in morning & Tai Chi in Morning 20 .103 .665
Pair 4 Yoga in Evening & Tal Chi in Evening 20 .075 .752
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-
tailed)Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
6

Pair
1
Yoga in morning -
Yoga in Evening 1.900 2.732 .611 .621 3.179 3.110 19 .006
Pair
2
Tai Chi in Morning -
Tal Chi in Evening 1.250 1.888 .422 .366 2.134 2.960 19 .008
Pair
3
Yoga in morning -
Tai Chi in Morning .350 5.153 1.152 -2.062 2.762 .304 19 .765
Pair
4
Yoga in Evening -
Tal Chi in Evening -.300 4.624 1.034 -2.464 1.864 -.290 19 .775
Hypothesis
The kind of physical meditation and when it is performed reduce the stress.
Results
On comparing the mean of yoga in morning and evening as well as Tai Chi in morning
and evening the results obtained presents that yoga in morning has mean of 13.60 and yoga in
evening has mean of 11.70. However Tai Chi in morning has mean of 13.25 and Tai Chi in
evening has mean of 12.0. The test of paired sample has been applied and pairs are being
developed.
Discussion
From the analysis of the score it has been gained that mean difference in yoga in morning
and evening decreases when it is done in evening. However in case of Tai Chi in morning and
evening the mean does decreases. On the other hand for Yoga in morning and Tai Chi in
morning the mean difference is not much that is there is no difference in case it is done in
morning and evening. Moreover Yoga in evening and Tai Chi in evening has increased the
means that implies no greater impact. Thus it can be stated that yoga methods in morning and
evening affects the reduction in stress level to a greater extent.
Exercise- 4
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Class 1: Tracing Letters 40 2 94 60.85 17.842
Class 2: Posture Focussed 40 41 94 65.20 14.919
Class 3: Continuous Cursive
Writing 40 48 110 83.78 17.473
7

Valid N (listwise) 40
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Class 1: Tracing Letters 40 60.85 17.842 2.821
Class 2: Posture Focussed 40 65.20 14.919 2.359
Class 3: Continuous Cursive Writing 40 83.78 17.473 2.763
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean
Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Class 1: Tracing Letters 21.570 39 .000 60.850 55.14 66.56
Class 2: Posture
Focussed 27.640 39 .000 65.200 60.43 69.97
Class 3: Continuous
Cursive Writing 30.323 39 .000 83.775 78.19 89.36
Hypothesis
There is differences in the level of improvement within writing among the teaching techniques
Results
The outcomes that are being gained by means of descriptive are that the mean value in case
of tracing letters is 60.85. On the other hand the mean value for posture focused is 65.20.
Moreover the continuous cursive writing reflects the mean value of 83.78. Further the value of t
in case of tracing letters, posture focused, continuous cursive writing is 21.57, 27.64 and 30.32
respectively.
Discussion
It can be interpreted from the above value that continuous cursive writing has greater mean
and t value in comparison with other two. This implies such teaching tool is effective in bringing
improvement within the writing to a greater extent. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
8

9