Claims

Seventh-graders using the CWB online interactive writing system significantly outperform a paper-and-pencil control group in argumentation on the post-test

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · checked against its sources 2026-11-03 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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? After ten weeks, the experimental group using the CWB online interactive system scored significantly higher than the control group in argumentation (t = 4.675, p = .000). → 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

Quasi-experiment with 67 seventh-graders in Taoyuan County, Taiwan: experimental group (n=32) wrote with the CWB online interactive system, control group (n=35) used paper-and-pencil, both under conditioned writing instruction. Post-test argumentation means were 28.44 (SD 4.899) vs 21.97 (SD 6.266); the article reports "indicating a significant difference".

"As shown in Table A.4, the t-value after the experiment in the area of “argumentation” is 4.675 and the p-value is .000<.05, indicating a significant difference."

Discussion

Learner Variables

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.