The L2 experimental group improved more than the SHL group after the pragmatic interventions on both DCT measures¶

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? Comparing growth percentages, the L2 experimental group improved 14.73% more than the SHL group on the written DCT and 5.84% more on the oral DCT. → 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

Between-group comparison of pre-to-post growth percentages across the SHL group and the L2 experimental group, computed from the paired t test results. The article reports differences of "14.73% more" (written) and "5.84% more" (oral); no inferential test or effect size is printed for this contrast.

"This indicates that the L2 experimental group (group 2) improved 14.73% more than the SHL group on the written DCT and by 5.84% more on the oral DCT, thus suggesting that the pragmatic interventions helped the L2 group significantly more than the SHL group."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Pragmatic lessons on requests did not significantly improve SHL learners' pragmatic request competence, with scores decreasing from pre- to post-test — related
• The L2 control group's minimal growth suggests other variables such as grammar lessons did not drive the experimental group's gains — related
• Pragmatic lessons produced descriptive but not statistically significant gains in the L2 experimental group's request performance — related
• U.S. heritage learners of Spanish scored above the 70% proficiency threshold on request DCT pre-tests, showing no negative pragmatic transfer from English — related