Claims

OPS-English intervention produced a significant post-test difference in speaking scores favouring the experimental group over the control group

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · checked against its sources 2026-11-02 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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? Form One students taught with OPS-English vocabulary activities scored significantly higher on the post-test than control students (experimental mean 9.60 vs control mean 3.83). → Singh et al. 2015

Evidence

Singh et al. 2015

Manesha Kaur Rajendra Singh, Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh, & Lin Siew Eng. (2015). Effectiveness of Oral Proficiency in English for Secondary Schools (OPS-English) Programme in Improving English Language Vocabulary among Secondary School Students. Advances in Language and Literary Studies 6(6). https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.6p.201

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Independent-samples t-test comparing post-test speaking scores of the experimental and control groups in an 8-week pretest-posttest control group study (N = 70). The article reports "t (68) = -10.064, p= .000" with a mean difference of 5.771, no effect size printed.

"There is a significant difference in the scores of post-test for control group (Mean= 3.83, Standard deviation =1.992) and for experimental group (Mean=9.60, Standard deviation = 2.746) conditions; t (68) = -10.064, p= .000."

Discussion

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.