Self-assessed language competence increased in both groups, but perceived progress diverged among low-level students in the contrast group¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q1–q2
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Average self-assessed CEFR levels increased by 0.30 in the treatment group and 0.20 in the contrast group. → Jurkovič 2010 q1 i? In the contrast group, perceived competence appears to have decreased among low-level students while increasing among high-level students. → Jurkovič 2010 (2)

Evidence¶

Jurkovič 2010¶

Jurkovič, V. (2010). Effect of Explicit Language Learning Strategy Instruction on Language-test and Self-assessment Scores. English Language Teaching, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n1p16

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Descriptive comparison of CEFR global self-assessment rating scale scores at the beginning and end of the course for both groups; dispersion was almost equal between groups.

"Data presented in Table 3 show that the average values indicating self-assessed language competence increased in both groups (by 0.30 in the treatment group and 0.20 in the contrast group)."

Jurkovič 2010 (2)¶

Jurkovič, V. (2010). Effect of Explicit Language Learning Strategy Instruction on Language-test and Self-assessment Scores. English Language Teaching, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n1p16

q1 · i? · causal · r1

Distribution analysis of self-assessed CEFR levels (Figure 5): the share of students at level A1 increased by nine percent while the share at A2 decreased by the same value; the author offers this as an interpretive pattern, not a tested result.

"It seems that in the contrast group the perceived language competence among low-level students decreased while increasing among high-level students."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Academic Self-Concept — outcome: instruction changes it
• Self-Efficacy — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Explicit strategy instruction did not significantly enhance self-assessed language progress in mixed-ability groups — related
• Both groups were highly heterogeneous in language competence, spanning A1 to C1, which the author identifies as the primary reason for the scarce efficiency of training — related
• No statistically significant treatment–contrast differences emerged when students were compared within similar initial CEFR ability sub-groups — related