Lecture-taught LD students remain significantly behind normal-group students at post-test¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · 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? Control-group LD students taught by lecture scored significantly lower at post-test than normal-group students, and the article concludes lecture method could not enable them to cope with normal students. → Sivaram and Ramar 2014
Evidence¶
Sivaram and Ramar 2014¶
R.T. Sivaram, R. Ramar. (2014). Effect of CAI on Achievement of LD Students in English. li-manager's Journal of English Language Teaching, Vol. 4, No. 1, January-March. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1068387
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Post-test comparison of 25 control-group LD students (mean 23.2) and 25 normal-group students (mean 51.6); Table 4 reports a t-value of 14.29, significant at the 0.01 level. The normal group was also taught by lecture.
"There is significant difference in the post-test performance between the control group LD students and the normal group students."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- CAI-taught LD students narrow but do not close the gap with normal-group students — related
- CAI-taught LD students significantly outperform lecture-taught LD students on the post-test — related
- Control-group LD students taught by traditional lecture show no significant pre-test to post-test difference — related
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.