CHLS self-study significantly benefited advanced-level students but not intermediate- or lower-level students¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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.
q3 i? Advanced subgroups differed significantly at posttest (A-1 M = 83.4 vs B-1 M = 78.1, p = .04), while intermediate and lower subgroups did not. → Ji Hye Shin & Peggy Albers 2015
Evidence¶
Ji Hye Shin & Peggy Albers 2015¶
Ji Hye Shin & Peggy Albers. (2015). An Analysis of the Effect of a Cyber Home Learning System on Korean Secondary School Students' English Language Achievement and Attitude. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 32(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1083964
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Posttest scores disaggregated by pretest-derived ability subgroups (advanced, intermediate, lower) compared experimental and control counterparts. The advanced contrast reached significance (p = .04); the article concludes "CHLS English content was effective only with advanced-level students."
"participants in Group A-1 (M = 83.4, SD = 10.46) demonstrated significant difference in test performance from Group B-1 (M = 78.1, SD = 8.66), t(160) = .50, p = .04. This result suggests that CHLS English content was effective only with advanced-level students."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Intermediate- and lower-level subgroups showed no significant posttest differences between CHLS and control conditions — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- CHLS self-study produced no statistically significant overall improvement in English posttest performance compared with regular classroom instruction alone — related
- Proficiency level and input delivery method (FFI vs. no-FFI) interact significantly in their effect on grammatical knowledge — related
- L2 proficiency level is a significant moderator: multiple glosses benefit intermediate and advanced learners more than elementary learners — related
- Proficiency level (intermediate vs advanced) did not significantly influence reading or strategy gains in either language — related
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.