Claims

Before the intervention, most students reported little classroom technology use, but most felt motivated when teachers used technological tools

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2023: baselines and conditions change

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? 43.56% of students said their teachers use no technological resources, about 60% reported no technology in grammar (59.51%) and vocabulary (56.44%) activities, yet 74.23% felt motivated when teachers did use such tools. → Cabrera 2018

Evidence

Cabrera 2018

Cabrera, P., Castillo, L., González, P., Quiñónez, A., & Ochoa, C. (2018). The impact of using Pixton for teaching grammar and vocabulary in the EFL Ecuadorian context. Teaching English with Technology, 18(1), 53-76. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1170640

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Pre-questionnaire administered to all 163 students (translated into Spanish and piloted with 20 students) to diagnose technological skills, reported in section 4. The article also reports 43.56% said teachers use no technological resources and 25.76% did not feel motivated, citing low proficiency. All figures are descriptive.

"The majority of students affirmed that when their t eachers use technological tools, they feel motivated (74.23%) because they facilitat e the language learning process."

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.