No significant difference between the experimental group's Post-test I and Post-test II scores¶
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? Post-test I and Post-test II means (71 vs 73) did not differ significantly (t = 1.0), though Post-test II was slightly higher. → 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 of the two post-tests in the CBI group (N = 30): "no significant difference between these two scores as demonstrated by the t value 1.0"; equivalence was not tested beyond this comparison.
"Achievement scores of Post-test 1 and Post-test II of the experimental group were compared and there existed no significant difference between these two scores as demonstrated by the t value 1.0 which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The CBI experimental group improved significantly from pretest to both post-tests — 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.