Claims

Transfer from mini-game practice to spoken production is smaller than transfer to written tasks

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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? Practice transferred to written productive tasks and, to a smaller extent, to spoken productive tasks. → Cornillie 2015

Evidence

Cornillie 2015

Cornillie, F., & Desmet, P. (2015). Design and empirical evaluation of controlled L2 practice through mini-games—moving beyond drill-and-kill?. Critical CALL – Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference, Padova, Italy. http://dx.doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2015.000325

q2 · i? · causal · r2

The article's summary of its experimental findings: transfer occurred to near-transfer judgment tasks and complex written tasks, and to a smaller extent to spoken productive tasks measured by the OEIT. No effect size is printed for the spoken outcome.

"Results show that intensive receptive practice helped learners to develop knowledge that was accurate and quickly retrievable on tests of near transfer, and that practice also transferred to more complex written productive tasks, as well as—to a smaller extent—to spoken productive tasks."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-03
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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