The L2 control group's minimal growth suggests other variables such as grammar lessons did not drive the experimental group's gains¶

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 L2 control group grew 3.75% on the written DCT and 0% on the oral DCT, leading the researchers to suggest other variables did not likely play a role in the experimental group's growth. → Barros García 2018

Evidence¶

Barros García 2018¶

Barros García, M. J., & Bachelor, J. W. (2018). Pragmatic Instruction May Not Be Necessary Among Heritage Learners of Spanish: A Study on Requests. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 3(1). https://jflet.com/jflet/

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Brief descriptive analysis of the 8-student L2 control group, which received regular instruction without the pragmatic lessons. The article reports growth of "3.75%" (written) and "0%" (oral) and offers the authors' suggestion that other variables were unlikely causes; no statistical test is reported.

"A growth of 3.75% occurred in this group between pre- and post-written DCTs and by 0% between pre- and post-oral DCTs. With this in mind, it can be suggested that other variables did not likely play a role in group 2's growth between pre- and post-tests."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Pragmatic lessons produced descriptive but not statistically significant gains in the L2 experimental group's request performance — related
• Pragmatic lessons on requests did not significantly improve SHL learners' pragmatic request competence, with scores decreasing from pre- to post-test — related
• The L2 experimental group improved more than the SHL group after the pragmatic interventions on both DCT measures — related
• The authors interpret the experimental group's score increase as larger than the control group's, suggesting a possible but unsatisfied effect of error correction