Claims

The study's findings are limited to pre-intermediate and intermediate learners tested on paper, with abstract words, over eight sessions

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 2018 · 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.

q1 i? The authors state the findings can only be generalised to pre-intermediate and intermediate students, and that CAVI groups were tested on paper rather than on-screen, which may have favoured teacher-led groups. → Nejati 2018

Evidence

Nejati 2018

Nejati, E., Jahangiri, A. & Salehi, M. R. (2018). The effect of using computer-assisted language learning (CALL) on Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary learning: An experimental study. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science. 13(2), 351–362. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1183258

q1 · i? · causal · r2

Authors' stated delimitations in Section 9: the population restriction, and that "Tests were given on pen and paper rather than on-screen", so TLI groups may have an advantage over CAVI groups. Further limitations include CALL barriers, financial constraints and training needs.

"First, the research was conducted on pre-intermediate and intermediate students , which mean s the findings of the research can only be generali sed to this population."

Discussion

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.