Claims

Students with high English proficiency taught with PRWR achieve better reading comprehension than high-proficiency students taught with Translation and Reading Aloud

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

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? Among high-English-proficiency students, the PRWR group significantly outperformed the TRA group (Mann-Whitney U p = .001). → Azhar Aziz Lubis; Gunadi Harry Sulistyo 2018

Evidence

Azhar Aziz Lubis; Gunadi Harry Sulistyo 2018

Azhar Aziz Lubis; Gunadi Harry Sulistyo. (2018). PRWR: Evidence of Its Effectiveness in Teaching Academic Content-Area Reading across English Proficiency. Dinamika Ilmu, Vol. 18 No. 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.21093/di.v18i1.1070

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Non-parametric Mann-Whitney U comparison of posttest reading comprehension for high-proficiency students in the PRWR experimental versus TRA control groups, run because homogeneity testing returned .011; the article reports "the obtained p-value from the Mann -Whitney U testing was .001".

"Table 7 shows that the obtained p-value from the Mann -Whitney U testing was .001, meaning that the obtained p-value was lower than the level of significance .05 (sig .001 < .05)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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