Integrating CALL technology significantly improves young Iranian elementary EFL learners' immediate grammar gain compared with book-based teaching¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? One way ANOVA showed a significant difference among control and two experimental groups on the immediate grammar post-test, F(2, 42) = 10.36, p = .0. → Karim Sadeghi & Masoumeh Dousti 2013 q2 i? Post-hoc Tukey comparisons showed the control group (M = 9.73) scored significantly lower than both experimental groups (M = 11.60 and M = 11.93), while the two experimental groups did not differ significantly from each other. → 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 · r1

Quasi-experiment with three intact classes of 15 female learners each (control, two CALL experimental groups) after 12 treatment sessions. One way ANOVA on immediate post-test scores found "significant difference at the p < .05 level" with F (2, 42) = 10.36, p = .0.

"there is significant difference at the p < .05 level in grammar post-test scores for the three groups: F (2, 42) = 10.36, p = .0"

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 · r1

Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons on the immediate post-test located the differences: control (M = 9.73, SD = 1.48) differed significantly from both experimental groups (M = 11.60 and M = 11.93); experimental 1 and 2 did not differ significantly (p = .79).

"Post-hoc comparisons indicated that the mean score for control group ( M = 9.73, SD =1.48) was significantly different from first experimental group ( M = 11.60, SD =1.18)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — related
• The three intact classes were equivalent in general proficiency before treatment, supporting comparability of groups — related
• EFL learners doing CALL-based tasks outperform learners doing written-question tasks on a grammar post-test — related