Trial reportCognitive processing2012
A randomized controlled trial comparing computer-aided learning with versus without tuition/lecture in promoting English proficiency.
Trial report in Cognitive processing, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare test scores in English-error detection between Thai high school students undergoing self-learning by an online tool (computer-assisted learning: CAL) with versus without tuition/lecture.
methodsThis prospective, randomized, controlled study enrolled a sample of grade-12 high school students from a Thai secondary school. The predictor variable was the use of error-detection exercises in 9 separate 50-min tuition sessions during a 3-week period. Each subject was randomly assigned to receive a CAL program with or without tuition/lecture during the study interval: June-September 2009. The main outcome variable was the test scores of English-error identification. To measure the outcomes, the students were evaluated twice using the 25-question test within a 1-month interval (pre-test/post-test). Appropriate sample size estimates, descriptive, uni-, and bivariate statistics were calculated, and the level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.
resultsThe sample included 69 students, 36 of whom (52.2%) were in the intervention group (CAL plus teaching). Within-group comparisons showed statistically significant improvements in post-test scores, regardless of learning methods (P < 0.05). Tuition/lecture was significantly associated with the improved post-test scores (P = 0.0012) and with a higher number of students showing improved post-test scores (P = 0.0007).
conclusionsThe results of this study suggest that tuition/lecture facilitates self-learning with CAL. In this sample, tuition/lecture still seems to be necessary for nonnative-English-speaking high school students to improve their English proficiency. CAL alone should not be used to replace conventional teaching.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22411098What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.