Tertiary EFL students whose instruction was supplemented with Facebook tasks showed almost double the average test improvement of a traditionally taught comparison group over one semester¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · 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? Over a three-month semester, the Experiment group's average improvement was 12.82% versus 6.28% for the Control group. → Shams 2014
Evidence¶
Shams 2014¶
Shaila Shams. (2014). Efficacy of Online Social Networks on Language Teaching: A Bangladeshi Perspective. The IAFOR Journal of Education, Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014. https://iafor.org/journal
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Quasi-experimental comparison of two English 101 sections (Control n=30, Experiment n=27) taught by the same instructor, tested with matched diagnostic Start and End tests. The article reports the Experiment group's improvement "stood at 12.82%" versus 6.28% for the Control group; no significance test or effect size is printed.
"This meant that the average improvement i n the Control group was 6.28% while that of the Experiment group stood at 12.82% which was almost double."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The traditionally taught Control group outperformed the Facebook group on the pretest, entering the semester with higher English aptitude — related
- Facebook-supplemented instruction benefited medium-skilled (50-80%) students most, while the highest-ability students improved less than traditionally taught peers — related
- Saudi EFL preparatory students taught through a blended e-learning approach for 8 weeks outperformed a traditionally taught control group on an achievement test — related
- The experimental and control groups did not differ significantly in writing scores at pre-test, supporting attribution of post-test differences to the instructional methods — related
- Both ITS and traditionally instructed groups improved significantly from pre-test to post-test — a broader claim this one bears on
- The 70-80% ability subset was the only out-of-trend result, with a sudden improvement spike in the Facebook group and uniformly positive course ratings — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.