Students taught with the PRWR reading strategy achieve better academic content-area reading comprehension than 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¶

q2 i? Posttest reading comprehension differed significantly between the PRWR experimental group and the TRA control group (Mann-Whitney U p = .045). → 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

A 2x2 factorial quasi-experimental posttest-only study in which class C (35 students) was taught with PRWR and class E (23 students) with Translation and Reading Aloud; a Mann-Whitney U test on the 30-item posttest gave "the obtained p-value from the Mann -Whitney U Testing was .045".

"Table 6 demonstrated that the obtained p-value from the Mann -Whitney U Testing was .045, meaning that the obtained p-value was less than the level of significance .05 (Sig .045 < .05)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• There is no interaction between reading strategy and English proficiency in academic content-area reading comprehension — related
• Students with high English proficiency taught with PRWR achieve better reading comprehension than high-proficiency students taught with Translation and Reading Aloud — a narrower finding that bears on this claim