Claims

IC-JPA instruction did not produce a statistically significant difference in correct academic language usage compared to traditional instruction

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · 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? There was not a statistically significant difference in correct academic language usage between the IC-JPA treatment group and the comparison group, F(1,32) = .011, p = .919. → Hendy 2020

Evidence

Hendy 2020

Hendy, Elizabeth and Cuevas, Joshua Dr. (2020). The Effects on Instructional Conversations on English Language Learners. Georgia Educational Researcher: Vol. 17 : Iss. 2 , Article 5. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/gerjournal/vol17/iss2/5

q2 · i? · causal · r1

ANCOVA with Unit 4 language usage posttest as dependent variable, condition as grouping variable, and language usage pretest as covariate. Language usage was scored from open-ended responses by two raters using a teacher-created rubric with names hidden. No effect size printed.

"When controlling for the initial language usage, the result was F(1,32) = .011, p = .919. These results indicate that there was not a statistically significant difference in correct academic language usage between the two groups."

Discussion

Learner Variables

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.