The traditional lecture-only method's pre-to-post gain was small and its significance is inconsistently reported¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·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? The control group's mean difference from pre-test to post-test was .100 with a paired t-test Sig. of .745, though the article also calls the difference significant (.036 < .05). → Kolesnikova 2016
Evidence¶
Kolesnikova 2016¶
Iryna V. Kolesnikova. (2016). Combined Teaching Method: An Experimental Study. World Journal of Education, 6(6). https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v6n6p51
q2 · i? · causal · r2
Paired-samples t-test on the control group (N = 20) reported in Tables 4 and 5: pre-test mean 6.325, post-test mean 6.425, mean difference .100, t-value -.330, DF 19, Sig. .745 in Table 5; Table 4 prints Correlation Sig. .036 marked significant. No effect size is printed.
"the mean difference of scores between pre and post-test (.100) shows that the control group has shown significant (.745) improvement in their performance in the post-test as compared to the pre-test."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Post-test scores were significantly higher for the combined-method group than the lecture-only group — related
- Traditional instruction also significantly improves Iranian EFL learners' writing ability from pre-test to post-test — related
- Control-group children taught by the traditional method also showed a small but statistically significant pre-to-post change in lack of attention scores — related
- Control-group LD students taught by traditional lecture show no significant pre-test to post-test difference — reports the opposite
- The combined (traditional plus active learning) teaching method significantly improved pre-to-post knowledge scores — related
- The control group taught by the traditional method showed no significant pre-test to post-test improvement — reports the opposite
- Pre-post score correlations were near-perfect in the experimental group (r = .990) and moderate in the control group (r = .63) — related
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.