Post-test reading comprehension means were 81.45 for the CIRC group versus 76.09 for the control group¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The experimental group's post-test mean (81.45) exceeded the control group's (76.09). → Erlidawati & Syarfuni 2018

Evidence¶

Erlidawati & Syarfuni 2018¶

Erlidawati & Syarfuni. (2018). The Effect of Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition on Reading Comprehension of IAIN Lhokseumawe, Indonesia. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.4p.153

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive statistics table for the post-test of the quasi-experiment: control group mean 76.09 (N = 32, SD 10.297), experimental group mean 81.45 (N = 31, SD 8.869). These are descriptive means; the inferential test is reported separately.

"Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the control and experimental groups’ performance on reading comprehension posttest Groups Mean N Standard deviation Standard error mean Control 76.09 32 10.297 18.20 Experimental 81.45 31 8.869 1.593"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Post-test reading comprehension means were 87.72 for the trained group versus 72.32 for the control group — related
• The cooperative learning component's added benefit over direct instruction alone with CIRC materials was not statistically significant on main idea identification — related