Each approach improved only its own targeted knowledge: gains on approach-aligned posttests but not on opposite-approach measures¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Posttest main effects were significant for the cognitive-oriented section (effect size 0.76) and the reader-response section (effect size 0.82), with each group improving only on its own treatment's items. → Liang 2011

Evidence¶

Liang 2011¶

Liang, L. A. (2011). Scaffolding Middle School Students' Comprehension and Response to Short Stories. RMLE Online, 34(8). ISSN 1940-4476. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ925248

q2 · i3 · causal · r2

Pretest-posttest procedural knowledge assessments scored by trained scorers with rubrics (inter-rater reliability 92%–98%). Both groups scored near zero on pretests; "the cognitive-oriented group's means improved for the cognitive-oriented items but not for the reader-response items" and vice versa.

"A significant main effect for treatment was noted for the cognitive-oriented section of the posttests, F (1, 158) = 490.00, p < .001 with an effect size of 0.76, and for the reader-response section on the posttests, F (1, 158) = 711.36, p < .001, with an effect size of 0.82."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Approach-specific SRE instruction produced large treatment effects on the assessments aligned to each approach's purpose — related
• Fundamental-attribution-error training effects did not transfer to independent out-context posttests — related
• Both SRE approaches produced significant but small effects on basic story comprehension measures — related