Claims

Students rated the application positively on a semantic differential scale, but finding time to use it and doing exercises were scored easy with a bias toward hard

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
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.

q2 i? Grouped by Osgood's dimensions, evaluative (M = 2.03) and strength (M = 2.04) scored higher than activity (M = 1.14), which measured lowest. → Whitaker 2016

Evidence

Whitaker 2016

Whitaker, J. T. (2016). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Computer Applications in Developing English Learning. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 11(18), 12947-12958. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Dimension-level grouping of the same semantic differential survey using Osgood's (1952) evaluative, strength, and activity factors; the activity dimension measured lowest, which the author reads as students being challenged by finding time and by exercise difficulty.

"Grouping the survey questions in terms of dimension produced evaluative (M = 2.03, SD = 1.16), strength (M = 2.04, SD = 0.97), and activity (M = 1.14, SD = 1.52) results. Activity measured the lowest mean result indicating the students were challenged by finding time to use the software and by the difficulty of the exercises."

Discussion

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.