Claims

The control group instructed through the traditional method showed no statistically significant improvement in writing from pre-test to post-test

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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? The control group's slight pre-post gain (30.40 to 31.20) was non-significant (t = -1.072, p = .29). → Zennure Elgün Gündüz 2016

Evidence

Zennure Elgün Gündüz 2016

Zennure Elgün Gündüz, İsmail Doğan Ünal. (2016). Effects of Multiple Intelligences Activities on Writing Skill Development in an EFL Context. Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(7): 1687-1697. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040722

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Paired-samples t-test on the control group's essay scores (N = 25); Table 3 reports means of 30.40 (pre) and 31.20 (post), t = -1.072, p = .29. The article reports a non-significant difference; no effect size is printed, so equivalence was not tested.

"However, this slight difference was found to be non -significant (p>.05). As a result, it may be suggested that traditional way of instruction was not much effective in improving the students’ L2 writing skill."

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.