Claims

Teaching vocabulary through TMM software produced significantly higher post-test vocabulary scores than conventional instruction in Iranian intermediate EFL learners

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · checked against its sources 2026-11-02 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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 taught with TMM software scored significantly higher on the post-test than the control group taught conventionally (t(59) = 2.59, p = .01). → Enayati and Gilakjani 2020

Evidence

Enayati and Gilakjani 2020

Fatemeh Enayati, & Abbas Pourhosein Gilakjani. (2020). The Impact of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) on Improving Intermediate EFL Learners' Vocabulary Learning. International Journal of Language Education, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v4i2.10560

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Quasi-experimental control-group study: 31 experimental learners used TMM software and 30 control learners received conventional instruction for 12 sessions; independent samples t-test on post-test scores showed "a statistically significant difference" with means 42.16 vs 37.47.

"there is a statistically significant difference (t (59) = 2.59, p = .01, p < .05) in vocabulary learning measures for the experimental group ( 𝑥̅ = 42.16) , who experienced vocabulary in struction through TMM, and control group ( 𝑥̅ = 37.47)"

Discussion

Learner Variables

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.