Editing + dialect awareness students showed marginally lower post-intervention DVAR than controls and significantly higher editing scores than editing-only students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Editing + dialect awareness students had lower post-intervention DVARs than controls (mean difference = 9.66, p = .060) and significantly higher editing scores than editing-only students (mean difference = 10.17, p = .069). → Thomas-Tate et al. 2013

Evidence¶

Thomas-Tate et al. 2013¶

Shurita Thomas-Tate, Carol McDonald Connor, & Lakeisha Johnson. (2013). Design Experiments: Developing and Testing an Intervention for Elementary School-age Students who use Non-mainstream American English Dialects. SREE Spring 2013 Conference Abstract. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED563056

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Pairwise comparisons from the same randomized design experiment. The DVAR contrast versus control was marginal (p = .060) and the editing contrast versus editing-only was significant at the α = .075 threshold, with "mean difference = 10.17, p = .069". No effect sizes printed.

"had lower post-intervention DVARs (mean difference = 9.66, p = .060, see Figure 1, bottom). Students in the editing + dialect awareness condition also achieved significantly higher editing scores than did students in the editing alone intervention (mean difference = 10.17, p = .069)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Editing + dialect awareness students significantly outperformed control students on the post-intervention editing task — related
• Among NMAE-using 2nd–4th graders, intervention condition significantly affected performance across editing, DELV-S DVAR, and writing-task outcomes — a broader claim this one bears on
• The authors conclude dialect shifting is malleable and that explicitly contrasting home and school language enhances dialect-shifting instruction — a broader claim this one bears on
• Editing-only intervention did not significantly differ from control except a trend on the editing task, and no group differences emerged on the writing sample — related