The two groups did not differ significantly in writing quality before the treatment¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? An independent-samples t-test found no statistically significant difference between the control and experimental groups' pre-test writing scores. → Ho 2020

Evidence¶

Ho 2020¶

Ho, P. V. P., Phung, L. T. K., Oanh, T. T. T., & Giao, N. Q. (2020). Should Peer E-Comments Replace Traditional Peer Comments? International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 295-314. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13120a

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Baseline comparison of the two intact classes before treatment: control M=5.730 (SD=.872), experimental M=5.903 (SD=.621), MD=-.173, p=.329. The article treats this non-significant difference as the basis for comparing post-treatment effects; equivalence was not formally tested.

"The mean difference of th e pre-test scores of the two groups is MD= -.173. However, according to the analysis of the independent sample T-test, the pre-test scores of the two groups are not statistically different (p=.329)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Facebook-based peer comment activities significantly improve students' writing quality over a semester — related
• Facebook-based peer comments outperform paper-and-pen peer comments on post-test writing quality — related
• The experimental and control groups did not differ significantly in writing scores at pre-test, supporting attribution of post-test differences to the instructional methods — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Paper-and-pen peer comment activities significantly improve students' writing quality over a semester — related
• Before treatment, the experimental and control groups showed no significant difference in overall language proficiency — related
• Before implementation, treatment students performed significantly below control students on the standardized reading test — related
• Experimental and control groups were homogeneous in idiom knowledge before treatment — related
• Experimental and control groups were equivalent in vocabulary before the glossing treatment — related
• Before treatment, the Logo and control groups showed no statistically significant difference in achievement on two-dimensional shapes — related
• No significant pre-test difference existed between the two groups' entry listening knowledge — related
• Chatbot and search engine classes showed no significant baseline differences in science learning ability and knowledge before the intervention — related
• The GCR and control groups were equivalent in grammar performance before treatment — related
• Experimental and control groups were equivalent in short story writing before the treatment — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• The two groups did not differ significantly on the pretest before instruction — related
• The difference in mean topography test scores between the digital-map experimental group and the paper-map control group was not statistically significant — related
• Before the FCI treatment, the experimental and control groups showed no statistically significant difference in writing ability — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• The two intact classes did not differ significantly in overall English proficiency before the study — related