Claims

Comprehension gains appeared on main-idea and inference items but not on word-meaning-guessing items

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · 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? Both groups made significant progress on items asking students to determine the main idea and draw inferences (questions 1, 3, 5), except question 2 asking students to guess word meanings. → Bogale 2018

Evidence

Bogale 2018

Bogale, Y. N. (2018). Conceptualizing Reading to Learn: Strategy Instruction and EFL Students' Reading Comprehension. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 10(2), 93–117. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1207221

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Item-level paired analysis of the researcher-developed pre/post tests. The article reports progress on main-idea and inference items but notes students "could not do so even after the instruc tion" on the word-meaning item, citing Wong (2010) on similar difficulty.

"It was found that both groups of students made significant progress on each item, especially on questions number 1, 3, 5 e xcept question number 2. Question number 1 asks students to determine the main idea o f the text, whereas questions number 3 and 5 ask the students to draw inferences and question 2 asks students to guess meaning of words in the reading text."

Discussion

Learner Variables

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.