Practice level (word, sentence, real-life dialogue) showed no significant correlation with pronunciation post-test performance, though students scored highest on dialogues¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
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.
q3 i? Differences in performance across the word, sentence, and dialogue levels were not statistically significant. → Amal Khalil Elimat & Ali Farhan AbuSeileek 2014
q3 i? Descriptively, students performed better at the dialogue level (mean 9.38) than at the sentence (8.08) and word (7.84) levels. → Amal Khalil Elimat & Ali Farhan AbuSeileek 2014
Evidence¶
Amal Khalil Elimat & Ali Farhan AbuSeileek 2014¶
Amal Khalil Elimat & Ali Farhan AbuSeileek. (2014). Automatic speech recognition technology as an effective means for teaching pronunciation. The JALT Call Journal, 10(1), 21-47. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1107929
q3 · i? · causal · r2
One-way ANOVA (Table 4) on the 48 experimental students' scores by level: word mean 7.84, sentence 8.08, dialogue 9.38, F = 19.05 with Sig .06, which the article reports as not significant at the p < .05 level.
"Word 48 7.84 1.14 19.05 .06sentence 48 8.08 1.59 Dialogue 48 9.38 1.21"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
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.