Hybrid delivery of prewriting strategy instruction outperforms both conventional and web-based delivery for EFL writing quantity¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The hybrid group's mean posttest writing quantity was significantly larger than the conventional and web-based groups' means. → Shafiee et al. 2015

Evidence¶

Shafiee et al. 2015¶

Sajad Shafiee, Mansour Koosha & Akbar Afghari. (2015). CALL, Prewriting Strategies, and EFL Writing Quantity. English Language Teaching, 8(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n2p170

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Scheffe post-hoc comparisons following the significant posttest ANOVA; Table 5 prints mean differences of 3.41582 (HG vs ConG, p = .008) and 3.36545 (HG vs WBG, p = .011), with HG mean 23.04 versus 19.62 and 19.68. No effect size is printed for these contrasts.

"On the other hand, the mean score for the hybrid group was significantly larger than the mean scores of both conventional and web-based groups."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Conventional and web-based delivery of prewriting strategy instruction do not differ significantly in their effect on EFL writing quantity — related
• Teaching prewriting strategies significantly increases EFL learners' writing quantity compared with product-oriented writing instruction — related
• The four instruction groups were equivalent in writing quantity before the intervention — related