Differences between the learner-constructed CM group and the other two groups were not statistically significant¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The learner-constructed group versus fill-in-map group difference (MD=-1.20, Sig.=.135) and versus summarizing group difference (MD=.73, Sig.=.469) were both non-significant. → 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 pairwise comparisons from Table 2 among the three intact groups of 30. The learner-constructed CM group did not differ significantly from either the fill in the map group (MD=-1.20, Sig.=.135) or the summarizing group (MD=.73, Sig.=.469); no effect sizes are printed.

"the mean difference (MD) of groups one and two was -1.20 which revealed that group two was better than group one, however the difference was not significant (Sig.=.135). Additionally when groups one and three were compared the result showed that despite the better performance of group one than group three (MD=.73), again the difference was not significant (Sig. =.469)."

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
• The fill in the map concept map group performed significantly better than the summarizing strategy group on reading comprehension posttest — related
• ANOVA showed a significant difference in reading comprehension posttest performance among the three strategy groups — related