No statistically significant treatment–contrast differences emerged when students were compared within similar initial CEFR ability sub-groups¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Independent samples t tests within A1/A2, B1, and B2/C1 sub-groups revealed no significant differences between treatment and contrast groups on either measure. → Jurkovič 2010

Evidence¶

Jurkovič 2010¶

Jurkovič, V. (2010). Effect of Explicit Language Learning Strategy Instruction on Language-test and Self-assessment Scores. English Language Teaching, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n1p16

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Sub-group comparisons (Tables 5–8) using independent samples t tests after merging CEFR levels into A1/A2, B1, and B2/C1 groups; all reported t values were non-significant (e.g., A1/A2 test difference t = 0.41, p = 0.69).

"The results have not revealed any statistically significant differences between the treatment and contrast groups if students were divided into sub-groups based on their initial language competence as measured by both instruments"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Explicit language learning strategy instruction did not have a statistically significant effect on language progress as measured by the OPT in mixed-ability higher-education groups — a broader claim this one bears on
• Both groups were highly heterogeneous in language competence, spanning A1 to C1, which the author identifies as the primary reason for the scarce efficiency of training — related
• Vocabulary performance shifted from B1–B2 CEFR levels at pre-test to B2–C1 at post-test after four weeks of Mangomon play — related
• Self-assessed language competence increased in both groups, but perceived progress diverged among low-level students in the contrast group — related