Claims

Critical readers underlined and took notes of more critical points (ironies, questions, metaphors) and summarized less than less-critical readers

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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? Teachers who preferred summarizing mostly rewrote the author's expressions, whereas reviewers took notes and underlined expressions. → Karabay 2015

Evidence

Karabay 2015

Aysegul Karabay. (2015). The guiding effects of a critical reading program on the use of external reading strategies when confronting an ironical text. Educational Research and Reviews. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2419

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Authors' interpretation of the coded essays and notes, stated in the Discussion. Summarizers "rewrote the author’s expressions"; reviewers took notes and underlined with less summarization. No effect size is printed.

"Th e majority of the pre-service teachers who preferred sum - marizing rewrote the author’s expressions. Converse ly, the pre-service teachers who preferred reviewing took notes, underlined expressions and used less summarization."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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