Scientific-stream students significantly outperformed literary-stream students in passive-voice achievement regardless of teaching method¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q3
Currency · newest study 2012 · 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? Post-test achievement differed significantly by stream of study in favour of scientific-stream students (F = 15.968, Sig. 0.000). → Abdallah M Abu Naba'h 2012
Evidence¶
Abdallah M Abu Naba'h 2012¶
Abdallah M Abu Naba'h. (2012). The impact of computer assisted grammar teaching on EFL pupils’ performance in Jordan. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 8(1), 71-90. http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu//viewarticle.php?id=1408
q3 · i? · causal · r1
The same 3-way ANCOVA on post-test scores tested the stream variable. Scientific-stream mean was 25.56 versus 24.6 for literary students, a difference of 0.96 in favour of the scientific stream.
"The calculated (F) value was (15.968) which is a statistically significant value at the significance level (α < 0.05). This indicates that there is an effect on students’ achievement attributed to the stream of study (scientific, literary)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
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.