Claims

Overall analytical reading practices improved significantly after CDA instruction compared with traditional teaching

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? Total analytical reading practices rose from questionnaire mean 2.80 to 3.98 and test mean 6.88 to 11.63, both 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

Paired-samples t-test on the total scale in the 43-student quasi-experiment: overall questionnaire mean rose from 2.80 to 3.98 and overall test mean from 6.88 to 11.63, with "very high significances do exist at the level of each analytical practice and overall (.000)".

"Table 5also displays the very low means of the overall of analytical reading practices in the pretest 6.88 compared to 11.63 in the posttest."

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.