Wim Gombert

96 CHAPTER 6 RESULTS CHUNK COVERAGE (RQ1) Table 14 presents the overall chunk coverage per instructional group, which was calculated by the number of words in chunks, divided by the number of words in the entire text, subsequently multiplied by 100. It demonstrates that SB students (M= 38.12, SD=8.83) showed a lower chunk coverage than DUB students (M= 44.09, SD=7.40) with a large e ect size. TABLE 14. Overall chunk coverage by instructional group SB DUB Cohen’s d Mean 38.12* 44.09* 0.73 SD 8.83 7.40 Min 19.29 24.61 Max 51.40 58.46 *) significant at p<0.05 Table 15 presents the chunk coverage for each type of chunk per group. As far as partially schematic chunks are concerned, SB students used signi cantly fewer structures than DUB students (p<.001) with a very large e ect size (Cohen’s d = 1.37). ere was no e ect regarding complements (Cohen’s d = 0.07, p = 0.79). ere were signi cant di erences for three types of fully xed chunks: DUB students used signi cantly more compounds (M=5.54, SD=2.52) than SB students (M=2.14, SD=1.9). ey also used more xed phrases (M=7.75, SD=3.89) than SB students (M=4.29, SD=3.35). On the other hand, SB students produced signi cantly more collocations (M=10.12, SD=4.31) than DUB students (M=4.1, SD=2.63). As for the other two types of fully xed chunks, particles and discourse, no signi cant di erences were found between the groups.