Learners' metacognitive reading strategy type (global, problem-solving, or support) showed no statistically significant effect on reading test scores¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? A one-way ANOVA found no significant effect of reading strategy type on reading test scores. → Altay 2017

Evidence¶

Altay 2017¶

Altay, İ. F., & Altay, A. (2017). The impact of online reading tasks and reading strategies on EFL learners' reading test scores. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 136-152. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1159168

q2 · i? · causal · r1

One-way ANOVA on the experiment group's reading test scores with MARSI-derived strategy type as the independent variable. The article reports no significant effect, "[F(3, 47) = .65, p=0.58]", so no post-hoc test was run.

"When the scores of learners on reading test were dependent variable, there was not a significant effect of strategies on reading test scores at the p<.05 level for four groups of learners with different strategy use in reading test [F(3, 47) = .65, p=0.58]."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Most learners used an amalgam of all three metacognitive strategy types rather than favoring a single strategy — related
• Successful readers out-use less successful readers on global and support strategies but not problem-solving strategies — related
• Feedback type (metacognitive cues, expert map review, both, or scores only) produced no statistically significant difference in mean accuracy change on either technical problem — related