The CBI experimental group improved significantly from pretest to both post-tests¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·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? The experimental group's mean rose from 56.8 at pretest to 71 (Post-test I, t = 7.13) and 73 (Post-test II, t = 8.7). → Arulselvi 2016
Evidence¶
Arulselvi 2016¶
Evangelin Arulselvi. (2016). The Effectiveness of Content-Based Instruction in English Language Teaching. Excellence in Education Journal, 5(2). https://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+Effectiveness+of+Content-Based+Instruction+in+English+Language+Teaching%22
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Within-group comparison in the experimental CBI group (N = 30): pretest M = 56.8 (SD 7.2) versus Post-test I M = 71 (SD 8.2), reported as "a significant difference between its pre- test and post-test -1 mean achievement scores".
"Achievement scores of the pretest and post-test I of the experimental group were compared. The experimental group showed a significant difference between its pre- test and post-test -1 mean achievement scores( t = 7.13)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- No significant difference between the experimental group's Post-test I and Post-test II scores — related
- CBI produced higher academic achievement than the conventional method for B.Ed. students in Optional 1 English — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.