Claims

Explicit instruction in reading strategies was essential to bring about increased use of reading strategies by experimental-group learners

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2012 · checked against its sources 2026-11-02 (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.

q3 i? Post-test strategy use differed significantly between groups, with small to large effect sizes on specific strategies. → Cekiso 2012

Evidence

Cekiso 2012

Cekiso, M. (2012). Effects of strategy instruction on the reading comprehension and strategy awareness of Grade 11 English Second Language learners in the Eastern Cape. Reading & Writing 3(1), Art. #23. https://doi.org/10.4102/rw.v3i1.23

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Comparison of Reading Strategies Questionnaire post-test means (N = 30 per group) in the quasi-experiment. Table 2 marks strategies with p < 0.05 and d-values ranging from 0.30 to 1.50, e.g. making predictions (d = 1.50) and checking anticipated information (d = 1.21).

"The post-test results, however, indicated that the learners in the experimental group used certain strategies statistically (p < 0.05), as well as practically, significantly (small to large effect sizes), more often than the learners in the control group"

Discussion

Learner Variables

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.