Descriptively, the experimental group reached a good achievement category in speaking and writing while the control group reached only average¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Experimental-group posttest speaking (total mean 17.77) and writing (total mean 20.27) fell in the good category; control-group speaking (13.28) and writing (15.91) fell in the average level. → Iman 2017

Evidence¶

Iman 2017¶

Jaya Nur IMAN. (2017). A QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON USING SHORT STORIES: STATISTICAL AND INFERENTIAL ANALYSES ON THE NON-ENGLISH MAJOR UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' SPEAKING AND WRITING ACHIEVEMENTS. International Journal of Languages' Education and Teaching, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.18298/ijlet.1719

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive statistics from Table 1 (N=20 each group): experimental SA total mean 17.77 (SD 1.121) and WA 20.27 (SD 1.380); control SA 13.28 (SD 0.972) and WA 15.91 (SD 0.951). These are descriptive classifications, not significance tests.

"it could be concluded that the students' speaking achievement of the experimental group was in good category"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Experimental group post-test speaking scores reached the high category while control group scores stayed in the average category — related
• Posttest speaking and writing achievement was significantly higher for students taught through short stories than for control-group students — related
• The control group also made statistically significant pretest-to-posttest gains in speaking and writing, so improvement was not exclusive to the short-stories treatment — related
• Digital storytelling instruction produced no statistically significant posttest achievement difference versus direct instruction, though experimental-group means were higher — related