The three groups differed significantly on posttest reading rate but not on posttest comprehension in a MANCOVA with pretest covariates¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The omnibus MANCOVA was significant (Wilks's Λ = 0.66), with a significant univariate difference in posttest reading rate (partial η² = .33) but no significant difference in posttest comprehension. → Shimono 2018

Evidence¶

Shimono 2018¶

Shimono, T. R. (2018). L2 reading fluency progression using timed reading and repeated oral reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 30(1). http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl

q2 · i? · causal · r1

One-way MANCOVA comparing TROR, TR, and comparison groups on posttest rate and comprehension with pretest scores as covariates; follow-up Bonferroni ANOVAs found a significant rate difference but no significant comprehension difference among groups.

"For posttest reading rates, a significant difference was found, F(2, 50) = 12.13, p < .001, partial η2 = .33. However, for posttest comprehension scores, the difference was not significant, F(2, 50) = 0.67, p = .514, partial η2 = .03."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Reading Fluency — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• No significant instructional-group effects were detected at the six-month follow-up assessment — related
• Post-baseline practice condition has a significant multivariate effect on combined posttest performance and observed practice effort after adaptive AI-assisted pretesting — related
• The TROR group showed significant comprehension gains on the average and last-minus-first scoring methods, but not on the extreme methods — related
• The TROR group (timed reading plus repeated oral reading with chunking and prosody) made statistically significant reading rate gains of about 13 to 27 swpm across four scoring methods — related