The three intact classes were equivalent in general proficiency before treatment, supporting comparability of groups¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · 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? A one way ANOVA on Cambridge Young Learners English Test scores found no significant difference among the three intact classes, F(2, 46) = .29, p = .74. → Karim Sadeghi & Masoumeh Dousti 2013
Evidence¶
Karim Sadeghi & Masoumeh Dousti 2013¶
Karim Sadeghi & Masoumeh Dousti. (2013). The Effect of Length of Exposure to CALL Technology on Young Iranian EFL Learners' Grammar Gain. English Language Teaching, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n2p14
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Homogenization check on 49 female learners aged 11-13 using the Cambridge Young Learners English Test (KR-21 reliability 0.76); means were 60.82, 62.00, and 62.44. The non-significant result indicates equal starting proficiency; equivalence was not directly tested beyond this ANOVA.
"there is no significant difference at the p < .05 level in pre-test scores for the three intact classes: F (2, 46) = .29, p = .74"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Integrating CALL technology significantly improves young Iranian elementary EFL learners' immediate grammar gain compared with book-based teaching — related
- A one-way ANOVA found no significant difference in writing proficiency among the five pre-test groups — related
- The four groups were homogeneous in general English proficiency before treatment (placement-test ANOVA sig .881) — related
- The two intact classes did not differ significantly in overall English proficiency before the study — related
- Before treatment, the experimental and control groups showed no significant difference in overall language proficiency — related
- The three groups did not differ significantly on the pretest, supporting attribution of later differences to treatment — related
- The experimental and control groups were homogeneous in English proficiency before the intervention — 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.