The experimental and control groups did not differ significantly in reading comprehension at pretest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? An independent-samples t-test found no significant pretest difference between groups (t=0.74, df=58, p>0.05); no effect size is printed for this comparison. → Torabian and Tajadini 2017

Evidence¶

Torabian and Tajadini 2017¶

Asefeh Torabian, Massoud Tajadini. (2017). Fostering EFL Learners' Reading Comprehension: Animation Film Technique. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.2p.55

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Independent-samples t-test on the 60 homogenized learners (30 per group, selected via the Oxford Placement Test). Pretest means were 12.93 (control) and 13.27 (experimental); the article prints no effect size for this null comparison.

"Regarding the P – value that is more than 0.05 (P – value =0.5), it can be said with more than 95% confidence, that mean of reading comprehension in control and experimental group in pre-test was not significantly different (t=0.74, df=58, p>0.05)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Before treatment, the reciprocal teaching and control groups did not differ significantly on IELTS reading pretest scores — related
• The experimental and control groups were statistically comparable in reading comprehension before the treatment began — related
• T-test found a statistically significant difference between groups (t = -13.203, df = 242, p = 0.000) — related