Claims

There is no statistically significant difference in vocabulary post-test scores between students learning via animation and via paper-based text

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Post-test achievement scores of the animation group and the paper-based control group did not differ statistically significantly (p>0,05). → Kayaoğlu 2011

Evidence

Kayaoğlu 2011

Kayaoğlu, M. N., Dağ Akbaş, R., & Öztürk, Z. (2011). A Small Scale Experimental Study: Using Animations to Learn Vocabulary. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ932222

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Small-scale quasi-experiment with two pre-intermediate classes (experimental n=17, control n=22) analyzed with independent t-tests in SPSS 16.00. The post-test means were "X experiment = 24,06 ; X control = 21,45" with no statistically significant difference (p>0,05).

"The analysis of post-tests show that there is no statistically significant difference X experiment = 24,06 ; X control = 21,45) between the experimental group who learned using animation-based method and those who learned using paper-based text in a traditional language teaching method (p>0,05)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.