Claims

No significant difference between the CWB online system group and the paper-and-pencil control group in language use after ten weeks

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · 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 post-test difference in language use between the two groups was not statistically significant (t = 1.630, p = .108); equivalence was not tested. → Liu et al. 2012

Evidence

Liu et al. 2012

Yuan-Chen Liu, Wan-Chun Lee, Tzu-Hua Huang, Hsiao-Mei Hsieh. (2012). IMPROVING STUDENTS’ CHINESE WRITING ABILITIES IN TAIWAN WITH THE “CONDITIONED WRITING SYSTEM”. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ989211

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Independent-sample t-test on post-test language-use scores in the ten-week quasi-experiment (experimental n=32, control n=35). Means were 18.53 (SD 3.818) versus 16.80 (SD 4.770); the article reports no significant difference and no effect size.

"However, the t-value in “language use” is 1.630 and the p-value is .108＞.05, indicating no significant difference."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-03
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.