The four instruction groups were equivalent in writing quantity before the intervention¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? A one-way ANOVA on the homogenizing pretest found no statistically significant difference among the control, conventional, web-based, and hybrid groups. → Shafiee et al. 2015

Evidence¶

Shafiee et al. 2015¶

Sajad Shafiee, Mansour Koosha & Akbar Afghari. (2015). CALL, Prewriting Strategies, and EFL Writing Quantity. English Language Teaching, 8(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n2p170

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Pretest ANOVA on idea units for the argumentative paragraph prompt across the four groups (Ns of 24, 27, 25, 22); means were 11.29, 12.11, 12.92, and 12.86. No effect size is printed.

"There was not a statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level in the homogenizing writing pretest scores for the four groups: F (3.94) = 1.67, p = .17."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Conventional and web-based delivery of prewriting strategy instruction do not differ significantly in their effect on EFL writing quantity — related
• Hybrid delivery of prewriting strategy instruction outperforms both conventional and web-based delivery for EFL writing quantity — related
• The four groups were homogeneous in general English proficiency before treatment (placement-test ANOVA sig .881) — related
• The experimental and control groups were homogeneous in English proficiency before the intervention — related
• The four groups were equivalent in prior science knowledge before the intervention — related
• The three groups were equivalent on EPT pre-test scores before the intervention — related