The experimental and control groups did not differ significantly on the Turkish grammar pretest, establishing homogeneity before the intervention¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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.
q3 i? Before any application, no significant difference was found between the experimental and control groups on the pretest [t (24) = -1.423, p>0.01]. → Kardaş 2016
Evidence¶
Kardaş 2016¶
Kardaş, D. (2016). The use of personalized texts for teaching Turkish as a second language. Educational Research and Reviews. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2538
q3 · i? · causal · r1
Pretest comparison of the two groups (12 students each) using the Turkish test form; the article reports means of 70.8 (control) and 76.0 (experimental) with the t-test above, concluding students "were distributed homogenously". The test was prepared in English and Arabic for students with no prior Turkish.
"No difference was found out between students belonging to experimental and control groups before any application was made [t (24) = -1.423, p>0.01]."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Foreign learners of Turkish taught grammar with personalized texts scored significantly higher on the post-test than learners taught with ordinary textbook examples — a broader claim this one bears on
- No significant pre-test difference existed between the two groups' entry listening knowledge — related
- The three groups were equivalent on EPT pre-test scores before the intervention — related
- Experimental and control groups were homogeneous in idiom knowledge before treatment — related
- The experimental and control groups did not differ significantly in programming knowledge at pretest — related
- Experimental and control groups were equivalent in vocabulary before the glossing treatment — related
- Experimental and control groups did not differ significantly on the listening pretest — related
- Before the intervention, the AWT experimental group and the traditional-instruction control group showed no significant difference on any of the five writing-skill criteria — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.