QDPR accounted for 53% of variance in phoneme knowledge and 24% of variance in pronunciation ability in simple regressions¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · 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? QDPR learning model accounted for 53% of the variation in learners' knowledge of the target phonemes (R2=.53, p<.01). → Moedjito 2017
q2 i? QDPR accounted for 24% of the variation in learners' ability to produce the target phonemes (R2=.24, p<.01). → Moedjito 2017
Evidence¶
Moedjito 2017¶
Moedjito. (2017). Improving EFL Learners' Pronunciation of English through Quiz-Demonstration-Practice-Revision (QDPR). English Language Teaching, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n1p10
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Simple regression analyses (Table 4) after Pearson correlations of .73 (knowledge) and .49 (ability), both at p<.01. The article reports "R2 = .53" for knowledge and "R2 = .24" for ability; no standardised effect size is printed, so impact is uncoded.
"QDPR learning model might contribute significantly to EFL learners' knowledge of English target phonemes, R2 = .53 at p < .01"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- QDPR significantly improved Indonesian EFL learners' knowledge of the target English phonemes in a one-group pretest-posttest study — related
- QDPR significantly improved Indonesian EFL learners' ability to pronounce the target English phonemes — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-03 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.