Posttest writing means favored the discussion group descriptively but the difference was not statistically significant¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Descriptive posttest means were 7.4 (SD 1.5) for the discussion group and 6.6 (SD 1.4) for the control group, which the authors read as not significantly different. → Khoshsima et al. 2016

Evidence¶

Khoshsima et al. 2016¶

Hooshang Khoshsima, Esmail Zare-Behtash, Mahboobeh Khosravani. (2016). Examining the Impact of Novel Pre-activity Tasks on Macroskills: The Case of Group Discussion on Writing Ability. Advances in Language and Literary Studies 7(1). https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.1p.148

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive statistics from Table 4 of the same 16-session quasi-experiment: posttest means of 7.4 (SD 1.5) for the discussion group and 6.6 (SD 1.4) for the control group. These are descriptive means only; the inferential test appears in Table 5 and no effect size is printed.

"As mean score and standard deviation for discussion group are 7.4 and 1.5 and for control group are 6.6 and 1.4, it can be concluded that these groups are not significantly different as also shown in next table."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Flipped classroom instruction produced significantly better post-test writing scores than traditional instruction among Iraqi EFL sophomores — related
• Reading and writing gains from the didactic model emerged only at post-test, not at mid-test — related