Conventional and web-based delivery of prewriting strategy instruction do not differ significantly in their effect on EFL writing quantity¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The Scheffe test found no statistically significant difference between the conventional group and the web-based group on posttest writing quantity. → Shafiee et al. 2015

Evidence¶

Shafiee et al. 2015¶

Sajad Shafiee, Mansour Koosha & Akbar Afghari. (2015). CALL, Prewriting Strategies, and EFL Writing Quantity. English Language Teaching, 8(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n2p170

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Scheffe post-hoc comparison in Table 5 prints a mean difference of .05037 between ConG and WBG with Sig. 1.000; posttest means were 19.62 (ConG) and 19.68 (WBG). No effect size is printed for this contrast.

"Moreover, among the three experimental groups, the difference between the conventional group and web-based group failed to reach statistical significance."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Hybrid delivery of prewriting strategy instruction outperforms both conventional and web-based delivery for EFL writing quantity — related
• Teaching prewriting strategies significantly increases EFL learners' writing quantity compared with product-oriented writing instruction — a broader claim this one bears on
• The four instruction groups were equivalent in writing quantity before the intervention — related