Length of exposure to CALL (15 vs 30 minutes) shows no significant difference in immediate grammar gain but favours the longer-exposure group on the delayed post-test¶

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? On the immediate post-test, the first experimental group (M = 11.60) did not differ significantly from the second experimental group (M = 11.93). → Karim Sadeghi & Masoumeh Dousti 2013 q2 i? On the delayed post-test two weeks later, the second experimental group with longer exposure (M = 11.67) significantly outperformed both the control (M = 9.40) and the first experimental group (M = 9.87). → Karim Sadeghi & Masoumeh Dousti 2013 (2)

Evidence¶

Karim Sadeghi & Masoumeh Dousti 2013¶

Karim Sadeghi & Masoumeh Dousti. (2013). The Effect of Length of Exposure to CALL Technology on Young Iranian EFL Learners' Grammar Gain. English Language Teaching, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n2p14

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Tukey HSD comparison on immediate post-test scores of the two CALL groups, which differed only in exposure length (a quarter hour vs half an hour). The comparison was not significant (p = .79); equivalence was not tested.

"However, first experimental group (M = 11.60, SD =1.18) did not differ significantly from second experimental group (M = 11.93, SD =1.58)."

Karim Sadeghi & Masoumeh Dousti 2013 (2)¶

Karim Sadeghi & Masoumeh Dousti. (2013). The Effect of Length of Exposure to CALL Technology on Young Iranian EFL Learners' Grammar Gain. English Language Teaching, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n2p14

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Delayed post-test administered two weeks after treatment; ANOVA gave F (2, 42) = 9.95, p = .0, and Tukey comparisons showed the longer-exposure group significantly outperformed the control and the shorter-exposure group (mean difference 2.26 and 1.80, p = .00).

"the mean score for control group ( M = 9.40, SD =1.54) was significantly different from the second experimental group ( M = 11.67, SD =1.58)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Integrating CALL technology significantly improves young Iranian elementary EFL learners' immediate grammar gain compared with book-based teaching — related
• Corrective feedback on second-language errors has a significant effect on L2 development that is maintained on delayed tests — related
• PBL-taught learners showed significantly higher vocabulary retention on delayed post-tests in all modules except module 3 — related