The four groups were homogeneous in general English proficiency before treatment (placement-test ANOVA sig .881)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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? A one-way ANOVA on placement test scores found no meaningful differences among the four groups before instruction (sig .881; Levene sig .597). → Motlagh 2015
Evidence¶
Motlagh 2015¶
Motlagh, S. F. P., & Nasab, M. S. B. (2015). Assessing Input Enhancement as Positive Factor and Its Impact on L2 Vocabulary Learning. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.1p.227
q2 · i? · causal · r2
Homogeneity check using the Oxford/Cambridge placement test before instruction; learners scoring 20-40 were selected. ANOVA sig .881 and Levene sig .597 both above .05; the article reports no meaningful differences among groups. No effect size is printed.
"So, sig. is .881 and it is above 0.05 and the equality of variances would be approved. Also the meaningful analysis of variance is .597 and it is above 0.05 so the null hypothesis is not rejected and as a result the placement scores in the four groups didn't have a meaningful differences."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Before treatment, the experimental and control groups showed no significant difference in overall language proficiency — related
- Experimental and control groups were homogeneous in idiom knowledge before treatment — related
- Experimental and control groups were equivalent in vocabulary before the glossing treatment — related
- Baseline English proficiency (ACCESS) showed no significant treatment-control difference among ELLs, but a small effect size (0.13) favored controls — related
- No significant pre-test difference existed between the two groups' entry listening knowledge — related
- Experimental and control groups were statistically equivalent in mathematics self-efficacy perceptions before the intervention — related
- The four groups were equivalent in prior science knowledge before the intervention — related
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.