Claims

CDA instruction significantly improved EFL students' text analysis (description) practice in both questionnaire and test measures

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

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? After CDA instruction, text analysis (description) questionnaire means rose from 2.99 to 4.15 and test means from 2.57 to 4.22, with paired-samples t-tests significant at .000. → 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

Quasi-experimental pre-post study of a class of 43 male EFL Preparatory Year students; paired-samples t-test on the 14-item description subscale showed a mean rise from 2.99 to 4.15, "with standard deviations of .364 and .541", significant at .000 (t = -11.330, df = 42).

"Table 4 shows that text analysis (description practice) scored a mean of 4.15 in the post - questionnaire compared to 2.99 in the pre- questionnaire with standard deviations of .364 and .541; respectively."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-03
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.