Before treatment, focused, unfocused, and control groups did not differ significantly in accuracy for either structure type¶

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¶

q2 i? Pretest t-tests and ANOVAs found no significant accuracy differences among focused, unfocused, and control groups for rule-bound or non-rule-bound structures. → Alavinia 2018

Evidence¶

Alavinia 2018¶

Alavinia, P., Shafaei, A., & Salimi, A. (2018). The Effects of Focused/Unfocused Audio-Appended Reading Tasks on Intermediate Female EFL Learners' Written Accuracy. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 203-220. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11214a

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Pretest comparisons: rule-bound t = 0.28, p = .78 (M = 0.42 vs 0.40); non-rule-bound t = -0.11, p = .91 (M = 0.52 vs 0.53); ANOVAs F = 0.07, p = .92 and F = 0.53, p = .59. No effect sizes printed; equivalence was not formally tested.

"there was no significant difference between the performances of learners of focused an d unfocused rule -bound groups in terms of accuracy on rendering task pretest of the study"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Focused audio-appended reading tasks produced significantly higher written accuracy than unfocused tasks for the rule-bound structure (passive voice) on the posttest — related
• The three groups were equivalent on EPT pre-test scores before the intervention — related
• The four groups were homogeneous in general English proficiency before treatment (placement-test ANOVA sig .881) — related
• On the non-rule-bound posttest, focused outperformed both unfocused and control groups, and unfocused outperformed control — related
• On the rule-bound posttest, focused outperformed both unfocused and control groups, and unfocused outperformed control — related
• A between-subjects ANOVA on average pretest-posttest scores showed a significant difference between treatment and control groups — related