Both groups were highly heterogeneous in language competence, spanning A1 to C1, which the author identifies as the primary reason for the scarce efficiency of training¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q1
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The treatment group ranged from A1 to C1 at the beginning and end of the course, and learners at different competence levels use different strategies with different training needs. → Jurkovič 2010

Evidence¶

Jurkovič 2010¶

Jurkovič, V. (2010). Effect of Explicit Language Learning Strategy Instruction on Language-test and Self-assessment Scores. English Language Teaching, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n1p16

q1 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive distribution analysis of OPT-calibrated CEFR levels (Figure 2); the author's interpretation is that "the training needs of students at different levels of language competence seem to be different", citing Griffiths (2003).

"In addition, Figure 2 indicates heterogeneous levels of language ability among students in the treatment group, ranging from A1 to C1 at the beginning as well as end of the language course."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Explicit language learning strategy instruction did not have a statistically significant effect on language progress as measured by the OPT in mixed-ability higher-education groups — related
• No statistically significant treatment–contrast differences emerged when students were compared within similar initial CEFR ability sub-groups — related
• Self-assessed language competence increased in both groups, but perceived progress diverged among low-level students in the contrast group — related