Claims

The coursework cohort's phoneme identification exceeded inservice teachers without professional development and was comparable to inservice teachers with 30 hours of professional development

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · 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.

q2 i? The experimental cohort outperformed the inservice-without-PD group in phonemic awareness and performed comparably to the inservice group that had received 30 hours of professional development. → McNeill 2018

Evidence

McNeill 2018

McNeill, B. C. (2018). Improving Preservice Teachers' Phonemic Awareness, Morphological Awareness and Orthographic Knowledge. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1). http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol43/iss1/2

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Group comparison in the Results section against two inservice groups from Carreker et al. (2010): 38 inservice teachers without professional development and 56 inservice teachers with 30 hours of professional development. The discussion reports the cohort's phonemic awareness was "comparable to the 'inservice with PD' group".

"The experimental group outperformed the in-service (without professional development) group in phonemic awareness. They performed similarly to the 'inservice with PD' and 'inservice without PD' groups in the morpheme awareness task."

Discussion

Learner Variables

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.