The phonics trial technique was statistically more efficient than traditional exam preparation despite the control cohort receiving more exam practice¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? ANOVA showed all areas improved more in the trial than the control (orthography F 4.21, pronunciation 20.93, interview 5.59), even though the control cohort had more exam practice. → Robert Alexander Graham Coates 2017

Evidence¶

Robert Alexander Graham Coates 2017¶

Robert Alexander Graham Coates, Judith Gorham, and Richard Nicholas. (2017). The Efficacy of Phonics-Based Instruction of English as a Second Language in an Italian High School: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, No. 15, pp. 29-67. https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1692-5777

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Multi-factor ANOVA comparing cohort improvements across orthography, pronunciation and interview. The article notes the control cohort, emphasising exam practice, actually had more exam practise, which was not reflected in their final scores."all areas improved more in the trial"

"According to the ANOV A tests, all areas improved more in the trial (overall results for orthography ANOV A F value 4.21, pronunciation, 20.93 and interview, 5.59) than the control, and were statistically significant for the long vowel and digraph categories."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The trial group improved L2 pronunciation (grapheme-phoneme decoding) significantly, driven mainly by the digraph category — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• The trial group improved a shortened FCE-style interview overall (p = 0.024), with significant gains in pronunciation, discourse and lexis but not grammar — a narrower finding that bears on this claim