No significant difference between the Clicker and Non-Clicker groups on the immediate posttest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? No significant difference for group at the time of the posttest was found, F(1, 59)=2.78, p=.10, despite descriptive means of M=6.61 (Clickers) vs M=4.97 (No clickers). → Sénécal 2018

Evidence¶

Sénécal 2018¶

Sénécal, A.-M., Mezzaluna, V., & Cardoso, W. (2018). Make words click! Learning English vocabulary with clickers. In P. Taalas, J. Jalkanen, L. Bradley & S. Thouësny (Eds), Future-proof CALL: language learning as exploration and encounters – short papers from EUROCALL 2018. Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.26.852

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Mixed ANOVA comparing the Clicker Group (n=31) and Non-Clicker Group (n=30) at posttest. The article reports "no significant difference for group at the time of the posttest"; equivalence was not tested.

"no significant difference for group at the time of the posttest was found, F(1, 59)=2.78, p=.10. Thus, the results show that both groups improved in their knowledge of the target vocabulary after intervention, and that there was no significant difference between the two groups"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Descriptive patterns trend toward the Clicker Group, with higher score variability suggesting clickers may benefit some learners more than others — related
• Both Grade 8 groups improved in L2 vocabulary knowledge over time, with no significant time-by-group interaction favoring clickers — related