The language variable only partially affected reading habits: native speakers read and finished more books in some comparisons, with no differences on other variables¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Before treatment, native speakers in the ER group had read more books than non-native speakers, but after treatment and at follow-up there was no difference within each group. → Rodrigo 2014 q3 i? After treatment within the ER group, 100% of native speaker respondents versus 86% of non-native readers finished the books they picked, a significant difference. → Rodrigo 2014 (2)

Evidence¶

Rodrigo 2014¶

Rodrigo, V., Greenberg, D., & Segal, D. (2014). Changes in reading habits by low literate adults through extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(1), 73-91. http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Chi-square comparing native and non-native speakers within the ER group on number of books read; the article reports the pre-treatment difference as significant with "Eta = .341" but no standardized effect size in d, g, or r form, so no magnitude is coded. The authors interpret this as the intervention helping non-native speakers catch up.

"before treatment, the native speakers in the ER group had read more books than the non-native speakers (χ2 = 7.925, df = 3; n = 125; p = .048, Eta = .341), but, in the post assessment and in the follow-up, there is no difference in the amount of books read by native and non-natives in each group."

Rodrigo 2014 (2)¶

Rodrigo, V., Greenberg, D., & Segal, D. (2014). Changes in reading habits by low literate adults through extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(1), 73-91. http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Post-treatment Chi-square within the ER group on book completion by language background; the article reports the difference as significant with "Eta = .278" but no standardized effect size in d, g, or r form, so no magnitude is coded. The no-ER group showed no language difference on this item post-treatment.

"there is a group difference for the ER group after the treatment: in this group (χ2 = 5.804, df = 1, n = 75, p = .016, Eta = .278), 100% (n = 39) of the native speaker respondents versus 86% (n = 36) of the non-native readers finished the books they had picked."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The ER group developed book-completion behavior after treatment, and the difference persisted at 6-month follow-up — related
• The ER group showed more bookstore and library visiting than the no-ER group, with the library difference significant at follow-up — related
• Low literate adults in an extensive reading intervention read more books than no-ER peers after treatment and at 6-month follow-up — related
• VIP effects did not differ between English language learners and fluent English speakers in the study authors' analyses — related