No significant sex differences in reading scores emerged in any of the three strategy groups¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In the cognitive group, male and female learners' reading scores did not differ significantly (p = 0.54). → Mahdiyeh Seyed Beheshti Nasab & Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh 2015 q2 i? In the metacognitive group, male and female learners' reading scores did not differ significantly (p = 0.76). → Mahdiyeh Seyed Beheshti Nasab & Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh 2015 (2) q2 i? In the social/affective group, male and female learners' reading scores did not differ significantly (p = 0.47). → Mahdiyeh Seyed Beheshti Nasab & Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh 2015 (3)

Evidence¶

Mahdiyeh Seyed Beheshti Nasab & Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh 2015¶

Mahdiyeh Seyed Beheshti Nasab & Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh. (2015). A Complete Review for Metacognitive, Cognitive, and Social/Affective Strategies as Essential Components of Learning strategies and their relationships with EFL Learners' Reading Comprehension Promotion. Advances in Language and Literary Studies. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.3p.166

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Independent-samples t-test comparing female (mean 26.50, SD 14.97) and male (mean 23.25, SD 14.22) learners in the cognitive group; Table 9 prints t = .609, df = 28, p = .547. No effect size is printed.

"Based on results obtained of independent t-test evaluation, significant level of test is p=0.54 and it is above 0.05, so null hypothesis is approved and alternative hypothesis is rejected. At last, there are not significant differences in the reading scores of male and female learners in cognitive group."

Mahdiyeh Seyed Beheshti Nasab & Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh 2015 (2)¶

Mahdiyeh Seyed Beheshti Nasab & Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh. (2015). A Complete Review for Metacognitive, Cognitive, and Social/Affective Strategies as Essential Components of Learning strategies and their relationships with EFL Learners' Reading Comprehension Promotion. Advances in Language and Literary Studies. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.3p.166

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Independent-samples t-test comparing female (mean 38.78, SD 12.20) and male (mean 39.71, SD 4.46) learners in the metacognitive group; Table 16 prints t = -.196, df = 28, p = .846. No effect size is printed.

"due to the t-test results it can be observed that significant level of test is p=0.76 and it is more than 0.05, so null hypothesis is certified and alternative hypothesis is rejected. Furthermore, there are not meaningful differences in males and female learners' reading scores in metacognitive group."

Mahdiyeh Seyed Beheshti Nasab & Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh 2015 (3)¶

Mahdiyeh Seyed Beheshti Nasab & Seyyed Fariborz Pishdadi Motlagh. (2015). A Complete Review for Metacognitive, Cognitive, and Social/Affective Strategies as Essential Components of Learning strategies and their relationships with EFL Learners' Reading Comprehension Promotion. Advances in Language and Literary Studies. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.3p.166

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Independent-samples t-test comparing female (mean 31.05, SD 8.99) and male (mean 28.70, SD 7.18) learners in the social/affective group; Table 25 prints t = .717, df = 28, p = .479. No effect size is printed.

"Generally, based on the independent t-test results, p=0.47 and it is above 0.05 significant level, so null hypothesis is approved and alternative hypothesis is rejected; furthermore, there is not meaningful differences among learners' reading scores in social-affective group."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• No significant gender difference in word-problem performance on either formatted or unformatted test forms — related
• Strategy-use scores showed no significant correlation with reading scores in the cognitive and social/affective groups — related