Regular curriculum instruction improved intratextual and nontextual comprehension but not intertextual comprehension in control students¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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.
q3 i? Control group gains were statistically significant on intratextual, nontextual and total RCES scores, but the increase in intertextual understanding scores was not statistically significant. → Pilten 2016
Evidence¶
Pilten 2016¶
Gulhiz Pilten. (2016). The Evaluation of Effectiveness of Reciprocal Teaching Strategies on Comprehension of Expository Texts. Journal of Education and Training Studies. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i10.1791
q3 · i? · causal · r1
Dependent samples t-tests on the 28 control students' pre- and post-test RCES scores after 11 weeks of curriculum-projected activities. Intratextual, nontextual and total gains were significant; the intertextual dimension was not, with no effect size printed.
"The increase in the “intertextual understanding scores” dimension is not statistic ally significant [t=.372, p>.05]."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Experiment and control groups were equivalent on all RCES dimensions before the intervention — related
- Reciprocal teaching produced significantly greater expository text comprehension gains than regular curriculum instruction in fourth graders over 11 weeks — related
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.