Collaborative joint reading through a teacher's blog produces significantly larger reading comprehension gains than individual reading of the same stories on paper¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · checked against its sources 2026-11-02 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? After three months, gain scores on the same TOEFL reading test differed significantly across the four gender-by-condition groups (one-way ANOVA, F(3,58) = 48.742, sig. = .000); Scheffé post hoc tests showed the blog-collaboration groups gained more than the individual print-reading groups (mean gains 4.00 and 4.44 against 1.57 and 2.04), with no significant gender difference within either condition. → Behjat 2013

Evidence¶

Behjat 2013¶

Behjat, F. (2013). Joint Book Reading: How Do Blogs Foster Collaborative Comprehension? i-manager's Journal of English Language Teaching, Vol. 3 No. 2, April-June. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1068891

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Quasi-experiment with availability (non-random) sampling: 62 Iranian EFL students (13 male, 49 female) over a three-month treatment in which the experimental group read e-books on the teacher's blog collaboratively while the control group read the same stories individually. The F statistic is an omnibus one-way ANOVA across four groups defined by gender and condition (male and female control, male and female experimental), not a two-group blog-versus-print test; the article reports the gain scores as "significantly different from each other". Scheffé post hoc contrasts locate the difference between conditions: male experimental vs male control, mean difference 2.43, p = .000; female experimental vs male control, 2.87, p = .000; male experimental vs female control, 1.96, p = .000; male vs female within the control group (p = .599) and within the experimental group (p = .689) were not significant. Mean gains: male control 1.57, female control 2.04, male experimental 4.00, female experimental 4.44. No effect size is printed.

"Table 4 indicates that the value of F (F=48.742) is much higher than the significance level (sig.=.000), which means that the participants' gain scores, the difference between the participants' performances in the pre- and post-test of reading comprehension, were significantly different from each other."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Reading and Language — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Male and female experimental and control students were homogeneous in reading comprehension before the treatment — related
• Female students in the blog-based collaborative reading group showed the largest reading comprehension gains, and the gender null hypothesis was rejected — related
• Post-treatment gain-score differences were concentrated between male control students and blog-group students, while within-condition gender contrasts were not significant — related
• Traditional reading instruction without attention to learning styles yields non-significant gains in reading comprehension and self-efficacy — related
• Traditional reading comprehension instruction produced no statistically significant pre-test to post-test improvement in the control group — related
• Female EFL learners attain significantly higher reading comprehension scores than male learners under question-generation strategy — related
• Experimental-group females significantly outperformed both control-group subgroups in post-hoc comparisons — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• No significant gender difference in mastering thanking under explicit instruction: the second null hypothesis was retained — related
• The treatment-by-gender interaction on post-test achievement is not significant — related