Before the treatment, the experimental and control groups showed no statistically significant difference in conceptual fluency on the idiom pre-test¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · 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 two groups did not differ significantly on the pre-test (t = 0.984, p > 0.005), supporting their comparability at baseline. → Mokhtari and Talebinezhad 2014
Evidence¶
Mokhtari and Talebinezhad 2014¶
Elahe Mokhtari, Mohammed Reza Talebinezhad. (2014). Using Supplementary Readings (Short Stories) in Increasing the Conceptual Fluency, the Case of Idioms in English. Advances in Language and Literary Studies. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.1p.134
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Baseline t-test on the 30-item multiple-choice idiom pre-test for the two groups of 15 learners each; pre-test means were 9.9333 (experimental) and 8.4667 (control). The article reports "no statistically significant difference between experimental and control group" on the pre-test.
"The results, as Table 2 shows, indicate that that there is no statistically significant difference between experimental and control group ( t2, 30 = 0.984, p > 0.005) in their implementation on pre-test."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Experimental and control groups were homogeneous in idiom knowledge before treatment — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- Providing lower-intermediate L2 learners with supplementary readings (short stories containing idioms) produces a statistically significant post-test advantage in conceptual fluency over idiom instruction alone — related
- The treatment and control groups had equivalent vocabulary sizes at pre-test — related
- The two groups did not differ significantly in writing quality before the treatment — related
- Before treatment, the experimental and control groups showed no significant difference in overall language proficiency — related
- The control and experimental groups showed no significant difference in vocabulary knowledge at pre-test — related
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.