No significant difference in prior vocabulary knowledge between the SMS and paper groups at pretest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2014: local conditions change quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The two groups did not differ significantly in vocabulary level before treatment (t(60)=-1.01, p>.05), with the control group descriptively higher (Mean=37.13 vs 33.34). → Haisen Zhang 2011

Evidence¶

Haisen Zhang 2011¶

Haisen Zhang, Wei Song, Jack Burston. (2011). REEXAMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VOCABULARY LEARNING VIA MOBILE PHONES. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ944968

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Pretest using a 30-item TOEFL vocabulary multiple-choice section administered to both intact classes before treatment. The test showed "no significant difference" between groups; equivalence was not formally tested beyond this comparison.

"When the difference between the two groups was measured by a two-tailed independent-samples T test, there remained no significant difference in the vocabulary level of the two groups (t(60)=-1.01, p>.05), as was also evidenced by the TOFEL test."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Delayed test five weeks after treatment showed no significant retention difference between SMS and paper groups — related
• Experimental and control groups were homogeneous in idiom knowledge before treatment — related
• Chinese EFL students learning vocabulary via daily SMS messages outperformed a paper-based self-regulated group on the immediate posttest after a three-week intervention — related
• No significant pre-test difference existed between the two groups' entry listening knowledge — related
• The two groups did not differ significantly in prior agricultural science knowledge before the treatment — related
• Experimental and control groups were equivalent in vocabulary before the glossing treatment — related
• Before treatment, the experimental and control groups showed no significant difference in overall language proficiency — related
• The three groups were equivalent on EPT pre-test scores before the intervention — related
• The two intact classes did not differ significantly in overall English proficiency before the study — related
• No significant difference existed between the two groups on the word knowledge pretest — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)