No significant instruction-by-time interaction was found on the discourse completion test¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The two-way repeated-measures ANOVA on DCT scores found no significant interaction effect between instruction and time, despite a printed Eta2 of .142. → Takimoto 2014

Evidence¶

Takimoto 2014¶

Takimoto, M. (2014). Evaluating the Effects of Input-based Approaches to the Teaching of Pragmalinguistics and Sociopragmatics in Second Language Pragmatics: A Case of English Request Hedges. The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, I(I). https://iafor.org/journal-of-language-learning

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Omnibus interaction test from the same two-way repeated-measures ANOVA on DCT scores (45 learners, three groups, three test times). The article prints F (4, 42) = 3.49 and Eta2 = .142 but labels the interaction not significant; the printed p = .142 < .05 appears to be a typo, quoted verbatim.

"However, no significant interaction effect between instruction and time was found, F (4, 42) = 3.49, p = .142 < .05, Eta2 = .142."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Time and Continuity — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• Combined pragmalinguistics- and sociopragmatics-focused input-based instruction (CI) produced significantly better written production of English request hedges than sociopragmatics-focused instruction alone (SI) and a control group — related
• Posttest scores differed significantly across the four gender-by-instruction subgroups in a one-way ANOVA — related