Claims

The Herringbone technique is more effective than the Tri Focus Steve Snyder technique for teaching reading comprehension to ninth-grade EFL students

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (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.

q2 i? Ninth-grade students taught reading comprehension with the Herringbone technique scored significantly higher on a multiple-choice post-test than students taught with the Tri Focus Steve Snyder technique (post-test means 77.5 vs 68). → Rosyida 2018

Evidence

Rosyida 2018

Rosyida, F., & Ghufron, M. A. (2018). Herringbone and Tri Focus Steve Snyder Technique: The Techniques for Teaching Reading Comprehension Viewed from Students' Reading Habit. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 603-616. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11341a

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Quasi-experiment in one Indonesian junior high school: class IX-A (n=26) taught with HT, class IX-B (n=25) with TFSST, six meetings, then a 30-item multiple-choice post-test analysed by two-way ANOVA. The article reports "Fobs= 436.6268 is higher than Fα= 4.4071" for the teaching-technique factor.

"Based on the mean score, students who were taught by using HT obtained 77.5; whereas the students who were taught by using TFSST obtained 68, so it can conclude d that students who were taught by using HT is better than the students who were taught by using TFSST."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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