Both treatment groups made significant pre-test to post-test gains on the acceptability judgment test, and the gains were maintained at delayed post-test¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 The two treatment groups made significant gains from pre-test to post-test on the AJT, F (1, 28) = 44.92, Eta2 = .616. → Takimoto 2014 q3 i? The positive effects between post-test and delayed post-test were maintained, with no significant change, F (1, 28) = 2.29, p = .141. → Takimoto 2014

Evidence¶

Takimoto 2014¶

Takimoto, M. (2014). Evaluating the Effects of Input-based Approaches to the Teaching of Pragmalinguistics and Sociopragmatics in Second Language Pragmatics: A Case of English Request Hedges. The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, I(I). https://iafor.org/journal-of-language-learning

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Repeated-measures follow-up analyses on AJT scores reported alongside Figure 2 and Table 4, where post-test means were 24.67 (CI) and 18.67 (SI) against 2.33 (control). The pre-to-post gain carries the printed effect size Eta2 = .616; the delayed-post-test maintenance contrast was non-significant with Eta2 = .076.

"the two treatment groups made significant gains from the pre-test to the post-test, F (1, 28) = 44.92, p = .000 < .05, Eta2 = .616, and the positive effects for the two treatments between the post-test and the delayed post-test were maintained, F (1, 28) = 2.29, p = .141 > .05, Eta2 = .076"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Both CI and SI groups significantly outperformed the control group on recognizing English request hedges, with no significant difference between the two treatments — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)