Proficiency level (intermediate vs advanced) did not significantly influence reading or strategy gains in either language¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · 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.
q2 i? Gains with proficiency, and gains with proficiency and groups, were non-significant for English and Persian reading tests and both strategy questionnaires. → Talebi 2012
Evidence¶
Talebi 2012¶
Seyed Hassan Talebi. (2012). Reading in L2 (English) and L1 (Persian): An Investigation into Reveres Transfer of Reading Strategies. English Language Teaching, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n3p217
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Null results from the repeated measure ANOVAs (Tables 3, 4, 7, 8): Change x Proficiency and Change x Group x Proficiency were non-significant across all four measures (e.g., F=.012, P=.912 for the English reading test), so the article reports no proficiency moderation; no effect sizes are printed.
"Further, gains with proficiency as well as gains with proficiency and groups were both found to be non-significant indicating that proficiency level of students did not influence the performance from pre to post test situation in English."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- L2 reading strategy instruction raised self-reported Persian (L1) reading strategy awareness and use — related
- Reading strategy instruction in L2 (English) transferred to improve L1 (Persian) reading comprehension — related
- Explicit instruction of the apology speech act significantly improves Iranian EFL learners' appropriate use of apology strategies at both intermediate and advanced proficiency levels — related
- L2 proficiency level significantly influences Iranian EFL learners' overall appropriateness of apology speech act production — related
- Input-based FFI was more effective than output-based FFI at both beginner and intermediate proficiency levels, and both types showed larger effects for intermediate learners — related
- Proactive intensive FFI benefits intermediate EFL learners' grammatical knowledge more than advanced learners' — related
- CHLS self-study significantly benefited advanced-level students but not intermediate- or lower-level students — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.