Age has no significant effect on retention performance for learners aged 20–30¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? For the 20–30-year age group, two-way ANOVA found no statistically significant effect on retention at any of the four time intervals. → Nader Haghani & Samira Kiani 2018

Evidence¶

Nader Haghani & Samira Kiani 2018¶

Nader Haghani & Samira Kiani. (2018). On the Efficiency of Text Production in Vocabulary Learning: An Empirical Study on Iranian GFL-Learners. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n3p176

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Two-way ANOVA for the 20–30-year age group (CG n = 15, EC n = 21); the article reports "F (1, 34) = .80, p = .379" for short-term retention and non-significant results at all other intervals. No effect size printed.

"The F-value for short-term retention is statistically insignificant (F (1, 34) = .80, p = .379). This also applies to the medium-term retention (F (1, 34) = 1.44, p = .239)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Text production significantly improves retention at all four intervals for 30–40-year-old GFL learners — related
• A combined model of demographics, aerobic fitness, and the two critical activity windows accounts for over 30% of variance in long-term memory retention — related
• Cue type, tracking mode, and age produced a significant three-way interaction on preschoolers' recall performance — related
• The amplitude of the negative priming effect did not differ between adolescents and adults — related
• Text production in text-oriented vocabulary exercises improves short-term (30-minute) retention of new GFL vocabulary — related