Claims

Experimental classes achieved higher final DLPT-5 listening and reading results than the control class, which passed 50% in listening and 66.7% in reading

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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? On the final DLPT-5, the experimental classes reached higher results than the control class, which graduated with 50% in listening (0% at level 2+ and 3) and 66.7% in reading. → Saad and Ahmed 2015

Evidence

Saad and Ahmed 2015

Saad, I., & Ahmed, M. (2015). The Significance of Journal Writing in Improving Listening and Reading Comprehension in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). Universal Journal of Educational Research 3(11): 815-821. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2015.031106

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive comparison of final outcomes for the three classes as printed in the results table and text. The control class graduated with "50% in listening (with 0% level 2+ and level 3), 66% in reading," while the experimental classes reached 100% and 71% listening and 100% and 86% reading. Percentages are descriptive; no significance test is printed.

"The third class, the control class, graduated with 50% in listening (with 0% level 2+ and level 3), 66% in reading (with 50% level 2+ and level 3), and 100% in speaking at level 1+ (with 0% level 2 and level 3)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.