Empowering primary writers through daily journal writing.

Empowering primary writers through daily journal writing. Incorporating a journal writing routine into the classroom iscritical to developing autonomous writers. During the course of a fullyear, a first-grade classroom embarked on a quest to discover theimportance of creating successful writers. This study confirms thesignificance of implementing and establishing authentic and meaningfuljournal writing sessions. The quantitative analysis demonstrates theconstant growth and achievement that empowered this group of students tobecome writers. The journal entry examples depict one student'spersonal writing journey and personalize the research. The findingsdelineate how journal writing, with proper teacher support, empowersstudents by increasing their writing abilities, through increasedconfidence and control over written language. Keywords: differentiated instruction, efficacy, first grade,journal writing ********** Writing is an integral ingredient of the primary curriculum.Through writing, children learn to tame the printed world around them bymanipulating words to express themselves. Successful writing experiencescan lead to successful reading experiences by building thechildren's level of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). Positivethinking does affect student work, and success often does breed success.As teachers, we must immerse children in meaningful writing experiences. This article clearly delineates the positive results of a yearlongjournal writing endeavor in one first-grade classroom. The purpose ofthis article is to depict the students' writing growth, over thecourse of the academic year, and demonstrate the need to seamlesslyinterweave journaling into the entire day and into the children'shome lives. REVIEW OF LITERATURE The power of the mind is unimaginable. Compliments and kind wordsare often overridden by thoughts of self-doubt and self-criticism. Weare usually our own worst enemy. Bandura (1977, 1986, 1997) used theterm self-efficacy to explain how people view their ability to achieveor execute a task. One's belief about ability often leads tosuccessful outcomes, regardless of overall skills (Bandura, 1997;Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Maimon, 2002). Children are morelikely to perform a task if they believe they will be successful.Journal writing can promote efficacious behaviors by providing studentswith a task that is individually challenging yet attainable. As teachers, we must promote and encourage confidence in ourstudents' abilities to write, and at the same time, be activeparticipants in their learning progress. Writing and reading areintricately interwoven, one aspect building and relying upon the other(Clay, 1975). Therefore, a well-orchestrated writing system caninfluence children's reading development because of its ability tolink symbols to sounds, an essential skill to the decoding process(Clarke, 1988; Eitelgeorge & Barrett, 2004). The teacher ofbeginning writers must provide opportunities and purposes for writingand engage children's interests as active participants (Clay, 2002;Graves, 1994, 2003). Educators must inspire, motivate, and empowerchildren to explore writing and be immersed in the process of writing. Teachers have unique opportunities to reach all studentsindividually through successful journal writing sessions. According toVygotsky (1978), the most effective individualized instruction takesplace within the child's zone of proximal development--a learningenvironment in which the task is not too easy and not too difficult, dueto cognitive support. Educators must work to determine students'individual strengths and needs and then encourage them to soar into anew level of maturity. To provide this type of atmosphere in theclassroom, students should be involved in meaningful journal writingexperiences (Fulwiler, 1987). Educators must take the opportunity to conference with each childduring journal writing sessions (Graves, 2003). It is imperative todifferentiate the instruction based on the strengths and needs of eachstudent. This process enables the teacher to properly identify andtarget the student's abilities. While conferencing one-on-one withthe student, the primary teacher has the ability to tailor theinstruction, decide on a goal that is challenging, yet attainable, forthe child, and, at the same time, build his or her confidence byconfirming strengths. These steps help to facilitate, and furthercreate, the abilities of a more successful writer (Keene &Zimmerman, 2007). By differentiating the instruction, through one-on-oneconferencing, students become empowered to develop and reinforce theskills and strategies they need to master during authentic journalwriting sessions (Bissex, 1980; McGee & Richgels, 2004). Writing is a vital tool and, with the proper motivating guidance,students will become successful writers. When teachers create anenvironment that promotes self-efficacy, students develop intoautonomous writers (Lambirth & Goouch, 2006). Teachers and studentsmust be actively involved for the journal writing sessions to prosper.This student-teacher interaction motivates students to succeed. Whenteachers, children, and others work together to inspire, entice, andsupport developing writers, children write well (Graves, 1995; Lambirth& Goouch, 2006). This kind of commitment will eventually causechildren to successfully communicate their ideas, motivate and challengethem to spread their wings, and help develop meaningful writing skills.Consistent journal writing sessions can engage students and inspiretheir development into master writers. DEFINING JOURNAL WRITING Journal writing has numerous definitions. It can entail studentscopying information from the board, free writing on any topic, and/orformally writing in response to a given prompt. The following elementsdefined the journal writing process in this first-grade classroom: dailypractice, consistent feedback, integration into other classroompractices, a supportive environment, sharing opportunities, and ahome/school connection. Journal writing occurred daily, spanning from the first day to thelast day of school. The students knew that the morning routine involvedplacing homework in the correct bins, moving their attendance slips, andwriting in their composition journal notebook. Consistent feedback was another critical element (Graves, 1994,2003). Each student received specific feedback at least twice a week.This task was accomplished through the teacher reading and responding toa minimum of five journals a day through brief one-on-one conferences,and through the parent volunteer program. The"miniconferences" involved the teacher sitting next to thestudent and reading the journal out loud (often receiving help from thestudent). Then, the teacher chose one aspect to discuss and wrote thechild's "writing secret" at the bottom of the page--forexample, "Capitalize the first word" or "Remember to usea period." The journal writing process also was interwoven throughout the day.The Word Wall, spelling dictionary, alphabet/sound charts, Elkoninboxes, science terms, and family meeting were all part of journalwriting. The students knew they had to spell the word wall wordscorrectly and even created a fun name for offenders: "Word WallCriminals." Students used the Elkonin boxes and their alphabetsound charts to assist them in writing unknown words. The family meetingprovided a forum for sharing. Each day, two or three students read theirstories aloud (practicing fluency), while their classmates activelylistened and responded. The classroom environment was continually being managed to createoptimum writing environments (Graves, 1995). Classical music playedquietly while the lights were dimmed; scary music played, the lightswere turned off, and students wrote using flashlights; Scottish musicplayed and a leprechaun was hidden in the room. The students were also acutely aware that they were writing for anaudience. They had the opportunity to read their work during familymeeting time, to the teacher in miniconferences, to a parent volunteer,and to their parents during parent-teacher conferences and open housenights. The last component--the home/school connection--was critical.Parent volunteers were asked to spend the first 30 to 40 minutes of theday walking around and listening to students' journal entries.While parents often orally applauded the students' content andefforts, they were given specific messages they could write in thestudent journals (see Figure 1). Parents were also given the opportunityto arrive later in the day and listen to students' journal entries. METHOD Participants and Setting The 15 student journals selected for review were from the sameteacher's first-grade classroom. The teacher also served as one ofthe researchers in this study. This classroom consisted of 26 students.Six student journals were not included in the data analysis, due to thechildren moving in or out of the classroom. Three student journals weremissing significant writing sections, due to the loss of one or morecomposition notebooks, and two of the children were unwilling to leavetheir writing journals at the end of the school year for use in thecurrent study.FIGURE 1 Parent/volunteer writing prompt sheet."Here's Your Secret to Good Writing!"Sounds and Spelling1. Write the sounds you bear2. Writing begins on the left side of the page3. Stretch the word-c ... a ... t4. Write the beginning sound (listen for the beginning sound ... now write it)5. Write the ending sound (listen for the ending sound ... now write it)6. The word have is on the Word Wall. Check the word wall7. Reread and check your writing for errorsConventions1. Put spaces between your words2. How do you begin every sentence?3. What do you need at the end of your sentence?4. Add "juicy words"--big, little, delicious, colorful, slowly5. Does your story have a beginning, a middle, and an end?6. Do you need the word and at the beginning of your sentence?7. Use transitional words The participants were composed of eight boys and seven girls andrepresented the varied literacy abilities found in this classroom. This classroom was situated in a high socioeconomic level area;however, approximately 25% of the student body was bused to the schoolfrom a low-income, federally subsidized housing area. This Floridaschool district is one of the largest in the United States and continuesto experience growth issues. The school itself was brand-new andequipped with SmartBoards, four computers in every classroom, andcomputer projection equipment. Data This article is based on two sources of data: (1) student writingjournals and (2) teacher/ researcher observation notes. The journalswere part of the students' everyday curriculum and received theirdaily attention. The teacher/researcher's observation notes alsoframed the basic template of this article and, as a result, should notbe ignored. Quantitative Analysis Procedures and Results The student journals were separated. Only journals that depictedwriting throughout the entire year were included in the analysisprocess. Student journals were analyzed by computing the followingcategories: correctly spelled words, total words, and correct use ofpunctuation for all three sample dates. Three specific dates were chosenfor data analysis: August 14, January 14, and May 25. Student absenceresulted in a 2-day deviation standard. The raw data were transformed into mean and standard deviationscores as an initial statistical procedure (see Table 1). The mean gainscores for each category demonstrated marked growth. A repeated-measuresANOVA then was conducted to explore the participants' developmentin all three categories. Table 2 depicts a summary of the StatisticalPackage for the Social Sciences (SPSS, ver. 16.0) analysis results. Arepeated-measures ANOVA on correct spelling produced a significantresult, F(2, 13) = 16.808, p < .05, with a significance level of.000. Wilks's lambda produced a significant result, F(2, 13) =9.388, p < .05, with a significance level of .003. Arepeated-measures ANOVA on total words used produced a significantresult, F(2, 13) = 14.961, p < .05, with a significance level of.000. Wilks's lambda produced a significant result, F(2, 13) =10.432, p < .05, with a significance level of .002. Arepeated-measures ANOVA on correct punctuation produced a significantresult, F(2, 13) = 10.578, p < .05, with a significance level of.000. Wilks's lambda produced a significant result, F(2, 13) =8.726, p < .05, with a significance level of .004. All three categories--correct spelling, words used, and correctpunctuation--depicted a steady upward trend in mean scores. Figure 2places all three line graphs together. This consistent and largeincrease in these three categories of writing skills depicts childrenusing inventive spelling techniques to express themselves while buildingwriting endurance. It would appear that correct spelling mirrors theprocess in steady growth without the same upward gains. Punctuation, asmany primary educators would testify, is the last element for studentsto grasp well enough to use in everyday writing. Although the threecategories depict different levels of gain, all of them demonstratesteady growth over time. TYLER'S WRITING JOURNEY The ANOVA analysis, tables, and figures depict the significance ofdaily journal writing. This section allows the reader a glimpse into onestudent's writing journey. [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] Tyler's first writing (on August 14) was a string of letters:K N N S D S A D S A L S U D O S U D O U S T G T o S A D (all S letterswere backwards). Tyler's journal writing from August 25 paints avivid picture of how individual assessment can lead to immediateefficacious behavior (see Figure 3). Tyler had chosen to write aboutalien astronauts and spent about 15 minutes on his writing and 15minutes on his drawing. Upon completion, Tyler was instructed to meetwith the teacher/researcher at the reading table. Prior to leaving hisseat, Tyler had read his journal to a parent volunteer, who had writtena personal writing secret "remember spacing" and thecompliment "good job" on his journal--along with the date.When asked to read his journal, Tyler stated, "Alien astronauts arescared." He then proceeded to talk about the picture he had drawndepicting alien astronauts fighting a large spacecraft and rocket inspace. Tyler stated that the aliens were scared because our astronautswere forcing them to leave space instead of landing on Earth and thealiens were almost out of rocket fuel. He went into an elaborate storythat explained why the aliens were there and bow our astronauts weregoing to fight them. [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] The teacher/researcher told Tyler she was proud of his hard workand impressed with his picture and story about the alien astronauts.Then, she asked him to turn back to his very first journal entry and thefew pages after it. Tyler tried to skip the third and fourth entries;however, he complied with the teacher and turned back to those pages.One page was blank except for a large X drawn through the page; theother page had a large X drawn through some random letters. Theteacher/researcher asked Tyler to put his finger on the X page and thenlook at the writing about the alien encounter. She then asked Tyler howhe thought he was doing in writing. Tyler's face completelytransformed as he smiled and quickly stated that he was doing muchbetter now because he knew so well what the story was about that hecould even draw a picture when he was done. He then apologized formaking Xs on his paper and promised not to do that anymore because hewas a good writer now. The teacher/researcher accepted his apology andshowed him how he did a good job of matching the letters and sounds inthe words ileen (alien) and rsntnes (astronauts). Then, she showed Tylerthe importance of spacing by writing him a letter without any spaces init. The letter read, "IlikeyouTyler!" Tyler told his teacherthat the letter was hard to read and asked her to read it to him. Theteacher/researcher rewrote the same letter with spaces and asked him totry again. This time, Tyler was able to read the letter and laughed athis teacher's first attempt. Tyler was reminded that spacing helpsthe reader understand the writing and that he could use his finger as a"spacer." Tyler's writing sample from August 25 showed theteacher/researcher that he was beginning to feel comfortable with thewriting process and his ability to translate his oral language anddrawings into print (Schickedanz & Casbergue, 2004; Sulzby, 1986;Wiseman, 2003). The teacher/researcher's new goal for Tyler was forhim to create a narrative story that included a beginning, a middle, andan ending. Tyler was shown how to use the class Word Wall and hispersonalized writing dictionary to correctly spell commonly chosenwords, such as "space," "ant," and"Saturn." Tyler's median and final journal entries allow the reader toenter his world of "slow but steady" writing practice and itsensuing success (see Figure 4). Figure 4 depicts Tyler's medianwriting sample. The retelling of this story was: One warm day a F3 tornado hit our school, nrrrr nrrrr nrrrrr [Tyler makes a loud whirring noise], now for the noise of a F3 tornado ... it is incredibly loud and painful! The tornado was wrecking the house and funneling. The F3 is gone now because the weather pressure has changed due to a barometer shift. It is only a F2 now it is racing, brushing and turning, in every which way possible into outer space. It is picking up speed and it is churning and ferocious. The country has aliens in it park and they are turning it into a F1 with their ray-gun technology ... their guns are not working properly on Earth so the F1 is not a F2 ... now a F3 ... now a F4 ... now a F5 ... oh no!!! How many tornados are going to be created now? There is a new F1 F2 and F3 and a crazy F4. A comparison of Tyler's retelling and his actually writingdemonstrates that he still has more "story" going on his headthan he is able to express in print. However, this writing sample doesdemonstrate his increased writing stamina, confidence, and improvedability to match letters/ sounds, use spacing, and correctly spellcommon sight words (is, the, now, a, one). Figure 4 also depictsTyler's final writing sample. His retelling of this story was: One day me and Tristan turned into ants. When me and Tristan walked outside some ants saw us. The ants said one of us was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Me and Tristan said "yes" we are one of you and the ants came rushing at us and started to carry us away ... but at 2 p.m. me and Tristan got bigger and bigger and they couldn't carry us to their leader. At 3 p.m. me and Tristan got biger and biger and the ants just stared and twitched their antennas. At 2:45 p.m. me and Tristan were kids again and we lived happily ever after. [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] Tyler's concluding writing sample depicts his incrediblewriting journey. He started with a string of letters, moved intoinvented writing with portions of the story containing correctly spelledsights words and large sections of the story missing, and progressed toa concluding writing sample that demonstrated strong letter/soundcorrespondence, directionality, story structure, and a desire tointerweave his current math lesson (telling time) into his writing.Tyler was one of the first-grade students the principal had on a"watch list" for retention the first half of the year. Hissignificant writing and reading gains removed him from that list.Tyler's concluding writing still demonstrates his struggle withwriting all the details of the story in his head, but he is aware of hisgrowth and is determined to continue his improvement. More important,Tyler acts like a successful writer and appears to understand that hisgrowth is a direct result of his hard work and dedication over time. EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS The practice of daily journal writing in one primary classroomdemonstrated that this endeavor has the potential to increasestudents' writing confidence and control over written language.When the classroom teacher immersed the students in an enriched writingenvironment, the students' achievement was spectacular. By creatinga rich writing environment, teachers can reap the benefits of producingtalented writers who have improved spelling and reading abilities. Educators play a vital role in the writing process. The steady andconsistent writing gains highlight the importance of effective and dailyone-on-one conferences. During meaningful dialogue with the students,teachers have the opportunity to scaffold instruction and allow childrento strive for improvement. This relationship also can empower studentsby showing them how to compare their efforts to earlier attempts; thus,the process eliminates negative comparative thinking (I am not as goodas Sally). Students begin to feel successful, and this confidence canspur them to write and begin to view themselves as expert writers.Through faithful journal writing sessions, with constant teachersupport, primary children are able to increase their knowledge of theirstrengths and begin to create attainable goals for themselves. The data demonstrated the impact that daily journal writingsessions can have on primary students' understanding and use ofcorrect punctuation and spelling. The authentic writing environment iskey to learning how to apply these grammar skills (Bissex, 1980; McGee& Richgels, 2004). Through all of the "secrets," ElkoninSound Boxes, and small-group writing instruction, these students movedaway from invented spelling and began to employ appropriate grammar andspelling techniques. The children entered first grade with differentwriting abilities and exited first grade reaching attainable goals,making personal gains, and feeling confident about their writingabilities. The creativity of the students' journal writing was evident asthe students began creating higher level stories by inserting metaphors,humor, and meaningful dialogue. These children began to include clearsections for the beginning, middle, and end to their stories. Theirlater entries demonstrated heightened confidence and creativity. Alleducators can attain this type of growth by immersing children in dailymeaningful writing sessions and building positive attainable goalsthrough individual tailored conferences. The journey that these students took gave them the confidence totake their skills further and to create longer stories, spell more wordsaccurately, and incorporate higher level cognitive thought into theirjournals. The growth and challenges were attainable and, at the sametime, encouraged the students to reach their goals. Through the processof positive interaction between teacher and students, these childrenwere able to make remarkable strides and developed the skills needed tobecome empowered readers and writers. DOI: 10.1080/02568541003635151 Submitted January 23, 2009; accepted May 7, 2009. REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory ofbehavior change. Psychological Review. 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: Asocial cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NewYork: W.H. Freeman and Company. Bissex, G. L. (1980). Gyns at wrk: A child learns to write andread. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Clarke, L. K. (1988). Invented versus traditional spelling in firstgraders' writing: Effects on learning to spell and read. Researchin the Teaching of English, 22(3), 281-309. Clay, M. (1975). What did I write? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M. (2002). An observation survey of early literacyachievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Eitelgeorge, J. S., & Barrett, R. (2004). Multiple continua ofwriting development in a first grade classroom. Reading Research andInstruction, 43, 17-64. Fulwiler, T. (1987). The journal book. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Graves, D. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann. Graves, D. (1995). Creating the writing room: Children'swriting flourishes when you build a predictable environment. Instructor,105, 34-35. Graves, D. (2003). Writing: Teachers and children at work (20thanniversary ed.). Exeter, NH: Heinemann. Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (2007). Mosaic of thought: Thepower of comprehension strategy instruction (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Lambirth, A., & Goouch, K. (2006). Golden times of writing: Thecreative compliance of writing journals. Literacy, 40(3), 146-152. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role ofself-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in theclassroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 119-137. Maimon, L. (2002). The relationship between self-efficacy and thefunctions of writing. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33(1),32-45. McGee, L. M., & Richgels, D. J. (2004). Literacy'sbeginnings: Supporting young readers and writers (4th ed.). Boston:Allyn & Bacon. Schickedanz, J. A., & Casbergue, R. M. (2004). Writing inpreschool: Learning to orchestrate meaning and marks. Newark, DE:International Reading Association. Sulzby, E. (1986). Young children's concepts for oral andwritten texts. In K. Durkin (Ed.), Language development during theschool years (pp. 95-116). London: Croom Helm. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press. Wiseman, A. (2003). Collaboration. initiation, and rejection: Thesocial construction of stories in a kindergarten class. Reading Teacher,56, 638. Jill Jones Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia Jill East Palm Beach County School District, West Palm Beach, Florida Address correspondence to Jill Jones, Liberty University School ofEducation, 1971 University Boulevard, Lynchburg, VA 24502. E-mail:jajones9@liberty.eduTABLE 1Data Analysis Chart Correct Spelling of WordsName August January MayChris 20 31 128Tyler 0 37 59Tristan 5 32 34Ashni 20 84 95Alyssa 14 37 110Michael 4 18 64Molly 20 54 66Sammy 6 24 80Claudia 51 204 313Adrian 10 38 34Stephen 9 28 12Paolo 39 31 61Kaitlyn 6 68 55Chandanie 14 56 73Kayla 0 38 75M 14.53333 52 83.93333 Total Words UsedName August January MayChris 27 43 129Tyler 0 82 69Tristan 12 50 39Ashni 24 96 98Alyssa 19 42 113Michael 6 30 79Molly 22 59 68Sammy 11 30 98Claudia 53 209 322Adrian 18 40 37Stephen 12 35 17Paolo 54 41 63Kaitlyn 13 82 71Chandanie 19 75 74Kayla 11 59 215M 20.06667 64.86667 99.46667 Correct PunctuationName August January MayChris 2 6 25Tyler 0 0 2Tristan 0 1 3Ashni 2 10 7Alyssa 0 1 17Michael 0 4 4Molly 2 5 13Sammy 1 1 6Claudia 7 24 39Adrian 0 12 6Stephen 1 6 5Paolo 0 1 5Kaitlyn 1 3 3Chandanie 1 8 7Kayla 0 5 3M 1.13333 5.80 9.66667TABLE 2SPSS 16.0 Analysis ResultsData Descriptive MultivariantCategories Statistics M SD N Tests (b)Correct August 14.53 14.242 15 Pillai's Tracespelling January 52.00 45.547 15 Wilks's Lambda May 83.93 69.844 15 Hotelling's Trace Roy's Largest RootTotal words August 20.07 15.248 15 Pillai's Traceused January 64.87 44.909 15 Wilks's Lambda May 99.47 77.189 15 Hotelling's Trace Roy's Largest RootCorrect August 1.13 1.807 15 Pillai's Tracepunctuation January 5.80 6.155 15 Wilks's Lambda May 9.67 10.245 15 Hotelling's Trace Roy's Largest RootData Hyp. ErrorCategories Value F df df SignificanceCorrect 0.591 9.388 (a) 2.000 13.000 0.003spelling 0.409 9.388 (a) 2.000 13.000 0.003 1.444 9.388 (a) 2.000 13.000 0.003 1.444 9.388 (a) 2.000 13.000 0.003Total words 0.616 10.432 (a) 2.000 13.000 0.002used 0.384 10.432 (a) 2.000 13.000 0.002 1.605 10.432 (a) 2.000 13.000 0.002 1.605 10.432 (a) 2.000 13.000 0.002Correct 0.573 8.726 (a) 2.000 13.000 0.004punctuation 0.427 8.726 (a) 2.000 13.000 0.004 1.342 8.726 (a) 2.000 13.000 0.004 1.342 8.726 (a) 2.000 13.000 0.004Mauchly's Test of Sphericity (b)Within-Subjects Effect Mauchly's W [chi square] df SignificanceCorrect spelling 0.522 8.460 2 0.015Total words used 0.578 7.127 2 0.028Correct punctuation 0.629 6.026 2 0.049 Greenhouse-Within-Subjects Effect Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-boundCorrect spelling 0.676 0.723 0.500Total words used 0.703 0.758 0.500Correct punctuation 0.729 0.793 0.500Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Type III SumSource of Squares dfCorrect Sphericity assumed 36199.244 2spelling Greenhouse-Geisser 36199.244 1.353 Huynh-Feldt 36199.244 1.446 Lower-bound 36199.244 1.000Error Sphericity Assumed 30151.422 28(Correct Greenhouse-Geisser 30151.422 18.940spelling) Huynh-Feldt 30151.422 20.250 Lower-bound 30151.422 14.000Total Sphericity Assumed 47542.800 2words used Greenhouse-Geisser 47542.800 1.406 Huynh-Feldt 47542.800 1.516 Lower-bound 47542.800 1.000Error Sphericity Assumed 44489.200 28(Total Greenhouse-Geisser 44489.200 19.690words) Huynh-Feldt 44489.200 21.229 Lower-bound 44489.200 14.000Correct Sphericity Assumed 547.733 2punctuation Greenhouse-Geisser 547.733 1.459 Huynh-Feldt 547.733 1.585 Lower-bound 547.733 1.000Error Sphericity Assumed 724.933 28(Correct Greenhouse-Geisser 724.933 20.424punctuation) Huynh-Feldt 724.933 22.195 Lower-bound 724.933 14.000 MeanSource Square F SignificanceCorrect Sphericity assumed 18099.622 16.808 0.000spelling Greenhouse-Geisser 26757.557 16.808 0.000 Huynh-Feldt 25027.014 16.808 0.000 Lower-bound 36199.244 16.808 0.001Error Sphericity Assumed 1076.837(Correct Greenhouse-Geisser 1591.940spelling) Huynh-Feldt 1488.981 Lower-bound 2153.673Total Sphericity Assumed 23771.400 14.961 0.000words used Greenhouse-Geisser 33803.723 14.961 0.000 Huynh-Feldt 31352.951 14.961 0.000 Lower-bound 47542.800 14.961 0.002Error Sphericity Assumed 1588.900(Total Greenhouse-Geisser 2259.469words) Huynh-Feldt 2095.657 Lower-bound 3177.800Correct Sphericity Assumed 273.867 10.578 0.000punctuation Greenhouse-Geisser 375.460 10.578 0.002 Huynh-Feldt 345.491 10.578 0.001 Lower-bound 547.733 10.578 0.006Error Sphericity Assumed 25.890(Correct Greenhouse-Geisser 35.495punctuation) Huynh-Feldt 32.662 Lower-bound 51.781Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-SubjectsEffects Table.(a.) Exact statistic.(b.) Design: Intercept within-subjects design.