Claims

Pragmatic lessons produced descriptive but not statistically significant gains in the L2 experimental group's request performance

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 L2 experimental group's paired t test gave a two-tailed P value of 0.2952 (not significant), with post-test increases of 7.5% on the written DCT and 2.5% on the oral DCT. → Barros García 2018

Evidence

Barros García 2018

Barros García, M. J., & Bachelor, J. W. (2018). Pragmatic Instruction May Not Be Necessary Among Heritage Learners of Spanish: A Study on Requests. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 3(1). https://jflet.com/jflet/

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Paired t test within the 8-student L2 experimental group (second-semester college Spanish, native English speakers) after the three pragmatic lessons. The article reports the P value "equals 0.2952" and descriptive gains of 7.5% (written) and 2.5% (oral); no effect size is printed.

"The two-tailed P value for group 2 equals 0.2952; as such, the difference between pre- and post-tests is not considered to be statistically significant. However, post-test scores in group 2 increased by 7.5% between the pre- and post-written DCTs and by 2.5% between the pre- and post-oral DCTs."

Discussion

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.