Claims

Discovery learning strategies produce significant achievement gains in English grammar for standard V learners compared with conventional methods

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? The experimental group showed a significant difference between pre-test and post-test achievement mean scores in English grammar after discovery learning instruction. → Singaravelu 2012 q2 i? The control group showed a significant difference between its post-test and its second post-test after receiving the discovery learning treatment. → Singaravelu 2012 (2)

Evidence

Singaravelu 2012

Singaravelu, G. (2012). Discovery Learning Strategies in English. i-manager's Journal of English Language Teaching, Vol. 2 No. 1, January - March 2012. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1070208

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Rotational group experimental study with 30 experimental-group pupils of standard V; pre-test mean 57.43 (S.D. 5.07) and post-test mean 86.76 (S.D. 6.72), with the calculated 't' value (19.08) greater than table value (2.00).

"In Table 2, the calculated 't' value is (19.08) greater than table value (2.00). Hence null hypothesis is rejected at 0.05 levels."

Singaravelu 2012 (2)

Singaravelu, G. (2012). Discovery Learning Strategies in English. i-manager's Journal of English Language Teaching, Vol. 2 No. 1, January - March 2012. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1070208

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Comparison of the control group's post-test (mean 57.43, S.D. 5.07) with its second post-test after the discovery learning treatment (mean 79.86, S.D. 5.87), with 30 pupils per stage and 't' value (15.83).

"In Table 3, the calculated 't' value is (15.83) greater than table value (2.00). Hence null hypothesis is rejected at 0.05 levels."

Discussion

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.