Claims

Students at different proficiency levels used the thinksheet differently, with advanced students revisiting prior steps and beginning students failing to complete or use them as intended

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r1 · q1
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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.

q1 i? Advanced students improved their initial paraphrases, included relevant details by revisiting the reading text, and reorganized their sentences from Steps 1 and 2. → Cho 2015 q1 i? Many beginning students did not complete their writing or wrote a too short summary, did not use important ideas from Steps 1 and 2, and left out supporting details. → Cho 2015

Evidence

Cho 2015

Cho, H., & Brutt-Griffler, J. (2015). Integrated reading and writing: A case of Korean English language learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(2), 242-261. http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl

q1 · i? · qualitative · r1

Qualitative examination of students' thinksheets found that "most students at the advanced level a) improved their initial paraphrases on lexical and syntactic levels, b) included relevant details by revisiting the reading text, and c) reorganized their sentences used in Step 1 and Step 2," while many beginning students did not complete their writing or use their selected ideas.

"In their summary, most students at the advanced level a) improved their initial paraphrases on lexical and syntactic levels, b) included relevant details by revisiting the reading text, and c) reorganized their sentences used in Step 1 and Step 2. Many students at the beginning level, on the other hand, a) did not complete their writing or wrote a too short summary, b) did not use important ideas they had selected in Step 1 and Step 2, and c) left out details that could support the main ideas or added unnecessary details."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-03
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.