Claims

All four instructional groups (PI and PBI, with and without EI) outperformed the control group on the aural interpretation task at immediate and delayed posttests

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2017 · 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.

q3 i3 On the aural interpretation task, a repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant Group × Test interaction (η2=0.15), with all instructional groups outperforming the control group at both posttests. → Adem Soruç 2017

Evidence

Adem Soruç 2017

Adem Soruç, Jingjing Qin, YouJin Kim. (2017). Comparing the Effectiveness of Processing Instruction and Production-Based Instruction on L2 Grammar Learning: The Role of Explicit Information. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 34(2), 49–70. http://dx.doi.org/1018806/tesl.v34i2.1262

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

A 5 × 3 factorial repeated measures ANOVA on aural interpretation scores of 144 Turkish EFL elementary learners across five groups and three test times. The article reports "a significant Group × Test interaction, F (8,144) =6.35, p <0.001, η2=0.15" and main effects for Test (η2=0.40) and Group (η2=0.27).

"It showed a main effect for the within-subjects variable Test, F (2,144) =91.07, p <0.001, η2=0.40; a main effect for the between-subjects variable Group, F (4,144) =12.98, p <0.001, η2=0.27; and a significant Group × Test interaction, F (8,144) =6.35, p <0.001, η2=0.15."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.