Claims

After instruction, the experimental group used proportionally fewer marked Themes and more unmarked Themes, while the control group showed no change in marked/unmarked proportions

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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? CE group used less marked Themes (18% vs. 20%) and more unmarked Themes (82% vs. 80%) after instruction; CC showed no changes in these proportions. → Wei 2016

Evidence

Wei 2016

Wei, J. (2016). Effects of Instruction on Chinese College Students’ Thematic Choice in Academic Writing. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(14). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1102949

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Findings section comparison of marked and unmarked Theme proportions (Table 4) in CE and CC pre- and post-writing, calculated by dividing marked and unmarked Themes by total T-units. The article reports the printed percentages quoted here; no statistical test is reported.

"CE group used less marked Themes (18% vs. 20%) and more unmarked Themes (82% vs. 80%), while there has not been any changes in the proportion in marked and unmarked Themes in CC pre- and post- writing."

Discussion

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.