Claims

Conventional grammar teaching produced no significant pre-to-post change in the control group

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2010 · 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? There was no significant difference between the control group's pre-test and post-test means under conventional teaching (t = 0.214 < 1.96); equivalence was not tested. → Singaravelu 2010

Evidence

Singaravelu 2010

G. Singaravelu. (2010). Impact of Co-operative Learning Strategies in English. i-manager's Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 2, August-October 2010. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1102270

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Table 2 reports the control group's pre-test (mean 8.62, SD 2.32) and post-test (mean 8.68, SD 2.42) under conventional teaching, with "null hypothesis is accepted at 0.05 levels"; only a t-value is printed, no effect size.

"The calculated t-value is (0.214) less than table value (1.96). Hence null hypothesis is accepted at 0.05 levels."

Discussion

Learner Variables

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.