After CDA instruction, one EFL class's critical discourse analysis (explanation) scores rose significantly, the largest test gain of the three practices, and explanation was the only practice whose post questionnaire and posttest scores differed significantly¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-11-03 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Critical discourse analysis (explanation) questionnaire means rose from 2.46 to 3.70 and test means from 1.38 to 3.28, significant at .000; a paired-samples t-test comparing post questionnaire and posttest scores was significant only for explanation (.019). → Hazaea and AlZubi 2017

Evidence¶

Hazaea and AlZubi 2017¶

Abduljalil Nasr Hazaea & Ali Abbas AlZubi. (2017). Effects of CDA Instruction on EFL Analytical Reading Practices. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 11(2), 88-101. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1171140

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Single-class pre/post quasi-experiment (43 students, no comparison group: the same class was taught reading traditionally, then through CDA). Paired-samples t-test on the explanation question of the analytical reading test (question 5, rubric-marked); test means rose from 1.38 to 3.28, the highest mean improvement (1.91) of the three practices, significant at .000. The 11-item explanation subscale of the questionnaire rose from 2.46 to 3.70.

"The critical discourse analysis (explanation practices) had a mean of 3.28 compared to 1.38."

Hazaea and AlZubi 2017 (2)¶

Abduljalil Nasr Hazaea & Ali Abbas AlZubi. (2017). Effects of CDA Instruction on EFL Analytical Reading Practices. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 11(2), 88-101. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1171140

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Triangulation of post questionnaire and posttest scores in the same class, run as paired-samples t-tests of the difference between the two instruments (the authors call this a correlation, but no correlation coefficient is reported): the overall difference was not significant (.428), and only the explanation category showed a significant difference (.019, t = 2.438, df = 42).

"The only significance can be seen in the critical discourse analysis (explanation category .019)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• CDA instruction significantly improved EFL students' discourse analysis (interpretation) practice, the smallest gain of the three practices — related
• CDA instruction significantly improved EFL students' text analysis (description) practice in both questionnaire and test measures — related
• Overall analytical reading practices improved significantly after CDA instruction compared with traditional teaching — related