All three strategies (learner-constructed CM, fill in the map CM, and summarizing) produced significant pre-to-post gains in reading comprehension¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Paired t tests showed significant pre-post improvement in every group (sig1=.001, sig2=.001, sig3=.007), indicating all strategies had positive effects. → Hassan Soleimani & Fatemeh Nabizadeh 2012

Evidence¶

Hassan Soleimani & Fatemeh Nabizadeh 2012¶

Hassan Soleimani & Fatemeh Nabizadeh. (2012). The Effect of Learner Constructed, Fill in the Map Concept Map Technique, and Summarizing Strategy on Iranian Pre-university Students' Reading Comprehension. English Language Teaching, 5(9). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p78

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Paired t tests within each of the three groups (N=30 per group as printed in Table 4) comparing pretest and posttest reading comprehension. Table 4 prints t=9.62, 10.86, and 7.58 with df=29 and mean differences of 3.30, 4.06, and 2.23; no standardized effect size is printed.

"As Table 4 displays in all three groups there was significant difference between the performance of the subjects in reading comprehension pre and post tests of each group (sig 1=.001, sig2 =.001 and sig3 =.007). In other words all strategies (learner constructed and fill in the map CM technique and summarizing strategy) had positive effect on subjects' reading comprehension."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The fill in the map concept map group performed significantly better than the summarizing strategy group on reading comprehension posttest — related
• Differences between the learner-constructed CM group and the other two groups were not statistically significant — related
• Summary writing produced no significant comprehension improvement and the most disputational talk, and did not significantly differ from completing a map in learning outcomes — reports the opposite
• ANOVA showed a significant difference in reading comprehension posttest performance among the three strategy groups — related