The control group showed no statistically significant change in speaking scores from pretest to posttest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The control group's pretest-to-posttest comparison was not significant (Sig. (2-tailed) = .068), so no improvement was detected without metadiscourse instruction. → Touran Ahour & Saeideh Entezari Maleki 2014

Evidence¶

Touran Ahour & Saeideh Entezari Maleki 2014¶

Touran Ahour & Saeideh Entezari Maleki. (2014). The Effect of Metadiscourse Instruction on Iranian EFL Learners' Speaking Ability. English Language Teaching, 7(10). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n10p69

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Paired samples t-test on the control group's (n = 17) PET speaking pretest and posttest scores, reported in Results section 3.4.4. Table 9 prints a paired-differences mean of -2.059; no effect size is printed, and equivalence was not tested.

"As indicated in Tabl e 9, the sig. (2-tailed) was .068. It exceeded 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, no significant difference was proved between the pretest and posttest in the control group."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The experimental and control groups were statistically homogeneous in speaking ability before the treatment — related
• EFL learners who received metadiscourse instruction scored significantly higher on a speaking posttest than learners who received no such instruction — related
• The control group also made statistically significant pretest-to-posttest gains in speaking and writing, so improvement was not exclusive to the short-stories treatment — reports the opposite
• The experimental group's speaking scores improved significantly from pretest to posttest after metadiscourse instruction — related