Peer-supported low-achieving university students significantly outperformed unsupported controls on English posttest scores after a 15-week LTA program¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Supported students' posttest scores were significantly higher than not-supported controls (p = 0.001); no effect size is printed for this posttest comparison. → Sarı et al. 2017 q3 i2 The supported group's pretest-posttest gain had a printed effect size of d = 0.59, versus d = 0.19 for the not-supported group. → Sarı et al. 2017 (2)

Evidence¶

Sarı et al. 2017¶

İrfan Sarı, Nadir Çeliköz, Süleyman Ünal. (2017). The Effect of Peer Support on University Level Students’ English Language Achievements. Journal of Education and Practice, Vol.8, No.1. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1131776

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Independent T-test on posttest scores of the unsuccessful experimental group (Supported, posttest M = 48.38) versus the unsuccessful control group (Not Supported, M = 43.02), each n = 200, t = 3.198, df = 398, p = .001. The article reports "meaningful difference between the postt est scores of supported and those who are not supported"; no effect size is printed for this comparison.

"The p was realized as 0.001 at the p<0.05 which mea ns there is meaningful difference between the postt est scores of supported and those who are not supported."

Sarı et al. 2017 (2)¶

İrfan Sarı, Nadir Çeliköz, Süleyman Ünal. (2017). The Effect of Peer Support on University Level Students’ English Language Achievements. Journal of Education and Practice, Vol.8, No.1. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1131776

q3 · i2 · causal · r1

Paired T-test analysis of pretest-posttest gains: the peer-supported group rose from 42.00 to 48.38 over the semester, with the article reporting "the d of the supported group is 0,59" (d = 0.59) versus d = 0.19 for the not-supported group (Green and Salkind, 2005 benchmarks).

"Looking a t the effect size (d) to clearly identify the effect of the trea tment, the d of the supported group is 0,59 which i s at the acceptable level but 0,19 (slight increase) for the not supported group"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Social Supports — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Underachieving college English students taught with Readers' Theater remedial instruction achieved significantly higher oral reading fluency than control-group peers after 15 weeks — related
• Unsupported low-achieving students showed only a slight achievement increase (d = 0.19) under traditional instruction — related
• Both RT and regular remedial instruction significantly improved underachievers' oral reading fluency over 15 weeks — related
• Peer teaching produced significantly higher mathematics achievement than no peer teaching among low-scoring undergraduate female students in Oman — related
• Peer support significantly improves oral production in both reading aloud and speaking among low English achievers — related
• Peer support significantly improves speaking oral production among high English achievers — related