Claims

After instruction, the experimental group used more temporal conjunctive adjuncts and fewer additive and adversative conjunctive adjuncts

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · 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? CE post-writing used more temporal conjunctive adjuncts (38% vs. 35%) and other conjunctive adjuncts (26% vs. 22%), and less additive (7% vs. 12%) or adversative (26% vs. 16%) ones. → Wei 2016

Evidence

Wei 2016

Wei, J. (2016). Effects of Instruction on Chinese College Students’ Thematic Choice in Academic Writing. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(14). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1102949

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Raw numbers and proportions of conjunctive adjunct subtypes (temporal, additive, adversative, other) in CE and CC pre- and post-writing, presented in Table 7. The quoted sentence reports the CE group's printed subtype proportions; the article separately reports CC's shifts toward more additive and other adjuncts.

"CE group used more conjunct ive adjuncts expressing temporal (38% vs. 35%) and other conjunctive adjuncts (26% vs. 22%), and less conjun ctive adjuncts for additive (7% vs. 12%) or adversa tive (26% vs. 16%) in post-writing than pre-writing."

Discussion

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.