The fill in the map concept map group performed significantly better than the summarizing strategy group on reading comprehension posttest¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · 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? In the pairwise comparison, only the fill in the map CM group versus the summarizing group difference was significant (MD=1.93; Sig.=.007). → Hassan Soleimani & Fatemeh Nabizadeh 2012
Evidence¶
Hassan Soleimani & Fatemeh Nabizadeh 2012¶
Hassan Soleimani & Fatemeh Nabizadeh. (2012). The Effect of Learner Constructed, Fill in the Map Concept Map Technique, and Summarizing Strategy on Iranian Pre-university Students' Reading Comprehension. English Language Teaching, 5(9). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p78
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Post hoc multiple comparison of posttest scores among three intact groups of 30 intermediate female pre-university students after a five-session treatment. The article reports the fill in the map CM group "performed significantly better than the summarizing group" with MD=1.93 and Sig.=.007; no effect size is printed.
"only in the case of the comparison of group two and three, the difference was significant ( MD=1.93; Sig.=.007). In other words, the fill in the map CM group performed significantly better than the summarizing group."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- All three strategies (learner-constructed CM, fill in the map CM, and summarizing) produced significant pre-to-post gains in reading comprehension — related
- Differences between the learner-constructed CM group and the other two groups were not statistically significant — related
- ANOVA showed a significant difference in reading comprehension posttest performance among the three strategy groups — a broader claim this one bears on
- Summary writing produced no significant comprehension improvement and the most disputational talk, and did not significantly differ from completing a map in learning outcomes — related
- Scheffe post-hoc comparisons ranked concept mapping highest, followed by cooperative learning, then conventional teaching, with all pairwise differences significant — 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.