# Vlog-Based Multimodal Composing: Enhancing EFL Learners' Writing Performance
## 3 The Study
### Data Collection and Analysis  
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine if there were any relevant pre-existing differences between the control and experimental groups of three pairs. The ANOVA results are presented in Table 4. For the total scores, the experimental groups of pair A and pair C had somewhat higher scores, while pair B had lower scores. In terms of readability, all the experimental groups had somewhat higher scores, which means that writings of experimental groups in the pretest were easier to read, and the same as that in lexical complexity. In the field of syntactic complexity, pair A and pair B gained a somewhat higher score. However, the results of ANOVA indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between control groups and experimental groups of three pairs in the pretest.  
To answer the first research question, \(t\)-tests were performed on the data from both experimental and control groups of participants to determine whether the application of multimodal composing based on mobile SNS was effective in improving EFL learners' writing performance. The \(t\)-tests were performed separately for the control and experimental groups of three pairs. The results were shown in Table 5. Regarding the second research question, the gains in total scores, readability, lexical, and syntactic complexity from pretest to posttest were computed for both sides of three pairs, and AVONA was performed to examine the intervention effect. Lastly, for the third research question, pertaining to students' perceptions of and attitudes towards using multimodal composing based on vlog, content analysis of the responses from the experimental-group questionnaire was performed. RQ3 focused on learners who used multimodal composing in English writing, so the learners in control groups did not respond to the learning attitude questionnaire.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Pair A/B/C**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Experimental Group**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control Group**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**F**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-6}  & **Mean** & & & & & \\ \hline
**Pair A** & 79.333 & 5.025 & 78.391 & 4.963 & 0.024 & 0.363 \\ Score & 76.454 & 6.065 & 76.315 & 7.714 & 1.745 & 0.923 \\ Readability & 0.759 & 0.059 & 0.755 & 0.069 & 0.629 & 0.744 \\ Syntactic complexity & 20.780 & 15.632 & 25.753 & 26.786 & 3.636 & 0.290 \\
**Pair B** & 78.972 & 3.470 & 79.110 & 15.215 & 17.136 & 0.948 \\ Score & 66.681 & 18.086 & 66.006 & 27.981 & 1.025 & 0.882 \\ Lexical complexity & 0.789 & 0.063 & 0.747 & 0.131 & 1.427 & 0.039 \\ Syntactic complexity & 32.439 & 44.292 & 32.205 & 34.303 & 0.195 & 0.976 \\
**Pair C** & 83.097 & 7.184 & 75.653 & 16.294 & 0.656 & 0.005 \\ Readability & 61.384 & 25.244 & 60.759 & 24.651 & 0.031 & 0.903 \\ Lexical complexity & 0.769 & 0.052 & 0.749 & 0.170 & 4.165 & 0.452 \\ Syntactic complexity & 24.850 & 19.209 & 24.886 & 28.66 & 0.094 & 0.994 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Analysis of variance of the pretest.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Comparison between**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total Scores**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Readability**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Lexical Complexity**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Syntactic Complexity**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **F** & \(p\) & **F** & \(p\) & **F** & \(p\) & **F** & \(p\) \\ \hline Pair A & 1.002 & 0.023 & 0.393 & 0.080 & 2.447 & 0.240 & 39.833 & 0.019 \\ Pair B & 1.985 & 0.041 & 18.265 & 0.014 & 1.088 & \textless{}0.001 & 8.662 & 0.077 \\ Pair C & 91.048 & \textless{}0.001 & 11.063 & 0.084 & 7.575 & 0.019 & 35.844 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Analysis of variance of score gains.