Before implementation, treatment students performed significantly below control students on the standardized reading test¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2023: local conditions change quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? An independent samples t-test on pretest RIT means showed a significant difference favoring the control group over the treatment group. → Paul Macaruso 2020

Evidence¶

Paul Macaruso 2020¶

Paul Macaruso, Shani Wilkes, Jen Elise Prescott. (2020). An investigation of blended learning to support reading instruction in elementary schools. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09785-2

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Independent sample t-test comparing Fall 2016 pretest RIT means of the treatment and control groups, establishing pretest scores as a covariate. The article reports the significant difference favoring control with the means and test statistic printed above.

"The t-test showed a significant difference (t(3720) = 3.821, p < .001) favoring the control group (177.68) over the treatment group (174.24)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Elementary students in blended learning schools using Core5 obtained significantly higher posttest reading scores than control students after controlling for pretest differences — related
• Baseline equivalence held between conditions, but both groups scored far below the grade 8 proficiency cut score — related
• In the full-sample analysis, baseline demographic and prior-achievement differences between treatment and matched comparison groups were minimal, with effect sizes below the WWC threshold — reports the opposite
• Experimental and control groups were equivalent in vocabulary before the glossing treatment — related
• No significant pre-test difference existed between the two groups' entry listening knowledge — related
• The GCR and control groups were equivalent in grammar performance before treatment — related
• Treatment and comparison groups differed significantly at pretest on most writing and language measures, favoring comparison — related
• Before treatment, the experimental and control groups showed no significant difference in overall language proficiency — related
• Experimental and control pupils showed equivalent reading ability at pre-test — reports the opposite
• Experimental and control groups did not differ significantly on the ESP reading pretest — reports the opposite
• At pretest the control group scored significantly higher than the treatment group on the TLC-Main Idea subtest — related
• Students' initial ability influenced their statistics learning outcomes in both the experimental and control classes — related