Claims

Percentage scores on all eight tested communicative skills were higher after the Interactive Multimedia Package than after conventional method

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · 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? Table 1 reports higher percentage scores under the Interactive Multimedia Package than under conventional method on each of the eight tested skills, e.g. fluency in response 18.18 vs 6.24 and narrating a story 21.26 vs 7.14. → G. Singaravelu 2011

Evidence

G. Singaravelu 2011

G. Singaravelu. (2011). Interactive Multimedia Package in Ameliorating Communicative Skill in English. i-manager's Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(4), October-December. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1071105

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive comparison of pre-test/post-test percentage scores across eight skills (Table 1): e.g. fluency in response 6.24 vs 18.18, narrating a story 7.14 vs 21.26, skill of questioning 8.08 vs 24.55, using appropriate words 2.45 vs 8.36. Values are descriptive percentages; no inferential test per skill is reported.

"Table 1 clarifies the percentage of scores in conventional method and innovative method as follows in Fluency in response, Narrating a story, Skill of questioning, Describe a picture, Letter writing, Reporting, Essay writing and Using appropriate words"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.