Claims

Experimental group scores continued to rise from Post-test I to Post-test II

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · 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 group's Post-test II mean (64) was significantly higher than its Post-test I mean (52.4), t = 5.85. → Whitehead 2019

Evidence

Whitehead 2019

Evangelin Whitehead. (2019). Application of Meta-Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Listening Comprehension to the Level III Student-Teachers. The Excellence in Education Journal, 8(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1228050

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Within-group comparison of the experimental group's two post-tests (Post-test I M = 52.4, SD = 7.5; Post-test II M = 64, SD = 8.7), showing continued gains during the training semester; the article reports "significant difference" at 0.05.

"Achievement scores of Post-test 1 and Post-test II of the experimental group were compared and there existed significant difference between these two scores in that the 't' value was 5.85 which is significant at 0.05 level of significance."

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.