Reading and writing gains from the didactic model emerged only at post-test, not at mid-test¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Reading and writing scores showed no statistically significant group difference at mid-test but a significant difference favoring the study group at post-test (p = .014). → Hmidani 2017

Evidence¶

Hmidani 2017¶

Hmidani, T. (2017). Didactic model: Teaching the English temporal system to Arabic freshman learners of English. Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 19(Suppl. 1), 81-97. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v19n_sup1.68617

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Repeated measures ANOVA on reading and writing test scores at mid- and post-test. The post-test comparison favored the study group with "4.81 (sd = .98)" versus 3.90 (sd = .39), p = .014; the mid-test difference was not significant. Table 2 reports post-test F = 7.38.

"the results indicated no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the mid-test: (4.75, sd = .95) for the study group and (3.36, sd = .52) for the control group with p-value higher than .005. However, the post-test revealed the precedence of the study group over the control group with 4.81 (sd = .98) for the study group and 3.90 ( sd = .39) for the control group with p-value = .014."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Vocabulary gains from the didactic model emerged only at post-test, supported by contextual-clue strategies — related
• Control-group students receiving conventional instruction showed significant gains only in media reading and total literacy, not in media writing — related
• Posttest writing means favored the discussion group descriptively but the difference was not statistically significant — related