Claims

For advanced (Level I) learners, conventional instruction was slightly more suitable than corpus-based instruction, though the difference was not statistically significant.

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · 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? Level I learners in the control group scored slightly better than Level I learners in the experimental group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. → Shi 2015

Evidence

Shi 2015

Jing Shi. (2015). An Analysis of the Application of Wikipedia Corpus on the Lexical Learning in the Second Language Acquisition. English Language Teaching, 8(8). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n8p171

q2 · i? · causal · r1

In the quasi-experiment comparing corpus-based and conventional lexical teaching, the author reports that for Level I learners "students in the control group did better than students in the experimental group, but the differences does not meet the standard of significance." No effect size is printed.

"First, learners in Level I of two groups did worse in the posttest than the pretest, and students in the control group did better than students in the experimental group, but the differences does not meet the standard of significance."

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.