We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Given the various differences between learners, teachers, and instructional methods in English Medium Instruction (EMI), a common purpose of EMI research involves investigating the potential variation between groups. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) test is a common technique used to address such a research aim, as it tests whether there are significant differences between the means of different groups. This chapter introduces the ANOVA test to readers by highlighting how it has been used in research within the field of EMI. To illustrate how different forms of the ANOVA test can be employed, the chapter then provides two case studies: (1) the use of a one-way between subjects ANOVA to examine the differences between three groups of students with respect to their perceptions of the role of English in their academic and career goals and comprehension level of EMI courses; and (2) the use of a mixed ANOVA in a quasi-experimental study that examined the differences in pre- and posttest writing performance and academic motivation of two groups provided with different types of feedback. Each of the case studies summarizes the assumptions required for the use of ANOVA, discusses potential problems that may face EMI researchers, and introduces alternative procedures.
This chapter examines the conceptualization and measurement of contact phenomena in the context of bilingualism across various languages. The goal of the chapter is to account for various phonetic contact phenomena in sociolinguistic analysis, as well as providing context for elaborating on quantitative methodologies in sociophonetic contact linguistics. More specifically, the chapter provides a detailed account of global phenomena in modern natural speech contexts, as well as an up-to-date examination of quantitative methods in the field of sociolinguistics. The first section provides a background of theoretical concepts important to the understanding of sociophonetic contact in the formation of sound systems. The following sections focus on several key social factors that play a major part in the sociolinguistic approach to bilingual phonetics and phonology, including language dominance and age of acquisition at the segmental and the suprasegmental levels, as well as topics of language attitudes and perception, and typical quantitative methods used in sociolinguistics.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is a commonly used test in public administration research when the dependent variable is measured at the interval level and the independent variable is measured at the nominal level with more than two categories.The chapter covers when and how to use ANOVA along with the assumptions of the ANOVA test.Conducting ANOVA in the R Commander and interpreting the output and statistical significance of the test are the main foci of the chapter.
Chapter 4 presents methods of analysis of variance (ANOVA). Based on the GLM, it is shown that ANOVA differs from regression only in the nature of the independent variables. Whereas in regression, the independent variables are usually metric, in ANOVA, they are categorical. In univariate ANOVA, there is one factor (that is, independent variable). In factorial ANOVA, there are multiple factors. In multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA), there are multiple dependent variables. In addition, this chapter discusses ANOVA for repeated observations and ANOVA with metric covariates.
The correlation test is a standard procedure for deciding if two variables are linearly related. This chapter discusses a test for independence that avoids the linearity assumption. The basic idea is the following. If two variables are dependent, then changing the value of one them, say c, changes the distribution of the other. Therefore, if samples are collected for fixed value of c, and additional samples are collected for a different value of c, and so on for different values of c, then a dependence implies that the distributions for different c’s should differ. It follows that deciding that some aspect of the distributions depend on c is equivalent to deciding that the variables are dependent. A special case of this approach is the t-test, which tests if two populations have identical means. Generalizing this test to more than two populations leads to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which is the topic of this chapter. ANOVA is a method for testing if two or more populations have the same means. In weather and climate studies, ANOVA is used most often to quantify the predictability of an ensemble forecast, hence this framing is discussed extensively in this chapter.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a family of tests widely used in HCI but these tests are not as robust as claimed by those who use them. This chapter looks at exactly what ANOVAs are testing and therefore what makes suitable robust alternatives to ANOVA when the assumptions of ANOVA are not met.
Drought stress ‘particularly at seedling stage’ causes morpho-physiological differences in wheat which are crucial for its survival and adaptability. In the present study, 209 recombinant inbred lines (RILs) from synthetic wheat (W7984)× ‘Opata’ (also known as SynOpRIL) population were investigated under well-watered and water-limited conditions to identify quantitative trait loci (QTL) for morphological traits at seedling stage. Analysis of variance revealed significant differences (P < 0.01) among RILs, and water treatments for all traits with moderate to high broad sense heritability. Pearson's coefficient of correlation revealed positive correlation among all traits except dry root weight that showed poor correlation with fresh shoot weight (FSW) under water-limited conditions. A high-density linkage map was constructed with 2639 genotyping-by-sequencing markers and covering 5047 cM with an average marker density of 2 markers/cM. Composite interval mapping identified 16 QTL distributed over nine chromosomes, of which six were identified under well-watered and 10 in water-limited conditions. These QTL explained from 4 to 59% of the phenotypic variance. Six QTL were identified on chromosome 7B; three for shoot length under water-limited conditions (QSL.nust-7B) at 64, 104 and 221 cM, two for fresh root weight (QFRW.nust-7B) at 124 and 128 cM, and one for root length (QRL.nust-7B) at 122 cM positions. QFSW.nust-7B appeared to be the most significant QTL explaining 59% of the phenotypic variance and also associated with FSW at well-watered conditions. These QTL could serve as target regions for candidate gene discovery and marker-assisted selection in wheat breeding.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.