Both groups improved greatly from pretest to posttest and maintained performance from posttest to delayed posttest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Repeated-measures t tests showed highly statistically significant pretest-to-posttest and pretest-to-delayed-posttest gains in both groups. → Ramirez 2013 q2 i? The posttest-to-delayed-posttest differences were not statistically significant, indicating both groups maintained their performance over the two-week interval. → Ramirez 2013 (2)

Evidence¶

Ramirez 2013¶

Ramirez, H., & Jones, D. (2013). Effects of reading strategies and the writing process with written recasts on second language achievement. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5929/2013.3.1.7

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Paired-sample (repeated-measures) t tests within each group across the three test administrations in the 116-student study; gains were "highly statistically significant (p > .00) for both groups", with effect sizes the article calls of very large practical importance.

"The difference between the posttest – pretest, and the delayed posttest – pretest means for both groups was highly statistically significant (p > .00) for both groups."

Ramirez 2013 (2)¶

Ramirez, H., & Jones, D. (2013). Effects of reading strategies and the writing process with written recasts on second language achievement. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5929/2013.3.1.7

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Repeated-measures comparison of posttest to delayed posttest within each group; the article reports the differences were "not statistically significant", indicating both groups maintained performance over the two-week interval. No effect size is printed for this contrast.

"The delayed posttest – posttest differences, although not statistically significant, show that both groups maintained their performance over that time period."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Young EFL learners receiving input-providing corrective feedback improve significantly in grammar from pretest to immediate and delayed posttests, with gains retained — related
• Within-group score changes across pre-test, post-test and retention test were significant in both pretested groups, with larger variance explained in the experimental group — related
• Both structured input and structured output instruction produced durable gains in -ed knowledge maintained over a three-week delayed posttest — related
• Within the experimental group, attitudes rose significantly from pretest to posttest and monitoring test, and the gain held between posttest and monitoring test — related
• Learners in all three corrective-feedback groups improve irregular past tense performance on both GJT and EIT from pretest to posttests, a within-group gain that does not separate the feedback types — related
• All four groups showed statistically significant pretest-to-posttest achievement gains, but gains differed greatly in size — related
• The treatment's benefits on the second conditional were maintained on delayed posttests four and eight weeks after instruction — related