Intensive exposure to EFL classes alone produced no statistically significant literacy gains in adult learners lacking basic literacy¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The control group's pretest-to-posttest difference was not statistically significant (p=0.842), so equivalence was not established. → Ibrahim 2018

Evidence¶

Ibrahim 2018¶

Mahmoud Ibrahim. (2018). Explicit Versus Implicit Modes of EFL Reading Literacy Instruction: Using Phonological Awareness With Adult Arab Learners. English Language Teaching, 11(9). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n9p144

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Paired-sample t-test on the control group (n=31 completers), who attended normal intensive EFL classes using New Headway; posttest mean 6.39 (SD 6.01) versus pretest 6.32 (SD 5.37), t(30)=0.201, p=0.842.

"comparison between the mean scores of the pretest and posttest results of the control group revealed there was no statistically significant difference. Table 4 shows that p value was 0.82, which is higher than 0.05."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Traditional vocabulary teaching produced no statistically significant pretest-to-posttest gain in the control group — related
• Skill-based teaching alone produced no statistically significant pre-to-post gain in reading comprehension in the control group — related
• The control group instructed through the traditional method showed no statistically significant improvement in writing from pre-test to post-test — related
• Explicit phonological awareness instruction significantly improved adult Saudi EFL learners' oral reading literacy from pretest to posttest — related