Claims

Ways of knowing predicted post-instruction argumentative writing performance but not pre-instruction performance

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · 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? Regression showed ways of knowing did not predict argumentative writing at pre-assessment [F=2.763, P=.103, R2 =.053] but did at post-assessment [F = 4.508, P = .039, R2 = .084]. → Ammar 2016

Evidence

Ammar 2016

Ammar, Abdullah Mahmoud Ismial. (2016). Reflective Blogfolios in the Language Classroom: Impact on EFL Tertiary Students' Argumentative Writing Skills and Ways of Knowing. Advances in Language and Literary Studies 7(5). http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.5p.247

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Regression analysis with ways of knowing as predictor and argumentative essay writing as dependent variable, run separately on pre- and post-assessment data from the 51 participants. Post R² = .084 is small; R² is variance explained, not a standardized effect size.

"ways of knowing were not able to predict argumentative writing performance in the pre -assessment [F=2.763, P=.103, R 2 =.053]. Contrariwise, post -assessment results show ways of knowing as strong predictors of students' argumentation skills [F = 4.508, P = .039, R2 = .084]."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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