The animated-sitcom group outperformed the explicit-instruction control group on the posttest (p=.03)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·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? The experimental group outperformed the control group in the posttest, with a statistically significant between-group difference. → Saeedi and Biri 2016
Evidence¶
Saeedi and Biri 2016¶
Saeedi, Z., & Biri, A. (2016). THE APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHING GRAMMAR TO EFL LEARNERS: THE ROLE OF ANIMATED SITCOMS. Teaching English with Technology, 16(2), 18-39. https://www.tewtjournal.org
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Independent-samples t-test (df=32) comparing the video group (N=17) and explicit-instruction control group (N=17) on the 30-item posttest; posttest mean difference of 1.17 was "statistically significant (p= .03)". No effect size printed.
"the participants of the experimental group outperfo rmed those of the control group in the posttest, i.e. the difference between their perform ance was found to be statistically significant (p= .03)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Experimental-group EFL learners taught conditional sentences via an animated sitcom improved significantly from pretest to posttest (p=.003) — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- Explicit instruction alone produced no statistically significant pretest-to-posttest gain in conditional sentences (p=.18) — related
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.