The two intact classes did not differ significantly in overall English proficiency before the study¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2019: local conditions change quickly
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? A pre-study proficiency test showed no significant difference between class A and class B in overall English proficiency. → Davoudi 2016
Evidence¶
Davoudi 2016¶
Davoudi, M., & Yousefi, D. (2016). The Effect of Keyword Method on Vocabulary Retension of Senior High School EFL Learners in Iran. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(11). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1099563
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Independent-samples t-test comparing the two intact classes on an English proficiency test before the study; class A mean was 15.60 and class B mean was 15.88, with homogeneity of variances assumed (F= 2.738, Sig.= .107).
"Therefore, the results of t-test ( t= .151 , sig= .881˃ .05) indicated that there is no signifi cance differences between two classes from overall English proficiency point of view."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The two groups did not differ significantly in age or psychology pretest scores before the treatment — related
- The experimental and control groups differed significantly on the pre-test before the intervention — related
- Before treatment, the experimental and control groups showed no significant difference in overall language proficiency — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- The two groups did not differ significantly in writing quality before the treatment — related
- The two groups did not differ significantly in prior agricultural science knowledge before the treatment — related
- No significant pre-test difference existed between the two groups' entry listening knowledge — related
- No significant difference in prior vocabulary knowledge between the SMS and paper groups at pretest — related
- Experimental and control groups were equivalent in vocabulary before the glossing treatment — related
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.