Claims

Both instructional programmes improved children's literacy performance from pre-test to post-test

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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? Comparing first and second literacy skill assessment tests, participating children showed progress in learning new literacy concepts and enhanced academic performance under both programmes. → Gahwaji 2016

Evidence

Gahwaji 2016

Gahwaji, N. (2016). The Effects Of Two Different Instructional Programmes On Literacy Skills Of Kindergarten Children. Journal of International Education Research, 12(1). https://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/JIER

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Within-group comparison of the first (pre) and second (post) skill assessment tests after eight weeks of instruction via either TIP or the educational games programme; the article reports descriptive progress with no test statistic for the gain itself.

"it was clearly found that participating children shown progress in learning of newer literacy concepts and even their academic performance has also enhanced."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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