Claims

Concept map method and traditional method groups did not differ significantly on the first exam after training

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · 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? After initial training, first-exam scores of the traditional method group (13.6%) and the concept map method group (15.2%) did not differ significantly by t-test. → Krishan 2017

Evidence

Krishan 2017

Tamara Mohd Altabieri Krishan. (2017). Concept Map Technique as a New Method for Whole Text Translation. English Language Teaching, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n4p62

q2 · i? · causal · r1

One-hour post test for Group 1 (traditional method) and Group 2 (concept map method), 40 students each, compared by t-test (Table 2). The article reports the difference "was not significant" with means of 13.6% and 15.2%; no effect size is printed.

"The difference between the two groups (traditional and concept map method was not significant, and the mean scores were 13.6% and 15.2% respectively."

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.