Writing. The evaluations done by the two raters are presented separately, as it is possible that different criteria were used (Table 5).

Gains were significantly different for the three groups for each rater (rater 1: F = 14.32, df = 2/99, p < 0.001; rater 2: F = 18.92, df = 2/99, p < 0.001). Post hoc protected t-tests revealed that for both raters, the gains for those who wrote in Japanese were greater than the comparison group gains (rater 1: t = 3.79, df = 66, p < 0.01; rater 2: t = 5.96, df = 66, p < 0.01). Those who wrote in English actually gained less than comparisons according to the first rater, but the difference was not statistically significant (t = 1.35, df = 66, ns). According to the second rater, those who wrote in English made better gains than comparisons (t = 1.90, df = 66) which came very close to the p = 0.05 level of significance for a two-tail test. Those who wrote in Japanese made significantly better gains than those who wrote in English (rater 1: t = 5.14, df = 66, p < 0.01; rater 2: t = 4.09, df = 66, p < 0.01).

11