The CWB online interactive system group shows significantly greater total-score progress in Chinese essay writing than the paper-and-pencil control group¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · 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? Post-test total scores differed significantly between groups (t = 3.798, p = .000), while pre-test total scores did not (t = 1.476, p = .145). → 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 · r2

Independent-sample t-test of total scores (argumentation plus organization plus language use) in the quasi-experiment. Post-test means were 67.56 (SD 11.427) for the experimental group versus 54.97 (SD 15.234) for the control group; pre-test means showed no significant difference (t = 1.476, p = .145).

"Statistical analysis of the scores in the post-test of the experimental group and control group shows that the t-value is 3.798 and the p-value is .000<.05, indicating a significant difference."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Writing Skills — outcome: instruction changes it

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.