Claims

Skimming, inferring, and context-clues strategy use rose significantly after training, but note-taking use did not change

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2
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.

q2 i? Frequency of skimming use changed significantly (p = .000), as did inferring (p = .001) and context clues (p = .000). → Elham Dehghanpour & Mahmood Hashemian 2015 q2 i? Note-taking frequency showed no significant pretraining-posttraining difference (p = .13). → Elham Dehghanpour & Mahmood Hashemian 2015 (2)

Evidence

Elham Dehghanpour & Mahmood Hashemian 2015

Elham Dehghanpour & Mahmood Hashemian. (2015). Efficiency of Using a Web-Based Approach to Teach Reading Strategies to Iranian EFL Learners. English Language Teaching, 8(10). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n10p30

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Subsection analyses of the paired pre/posttraining questionnaire (Table 4): skimming t(29) = -6.60, p = .000; inferring p = .001; context clues p = .000. Only test statistics and p-values are printed; no effect sizes.

"A substantial change in the degree of frequency among the participants towards the use of inferring and using context clues strategies in the pretraining and posttraining questionnaires were also observed due to the fact that the p-values for these two strategies are .001 and .000, respectively."

Elham Dehghanpour & Mahmood Hashemian 2015 (2)

Elham Dehghanpour & Mahmood Hashemian. (2015). Efficiency of Using a Web-Based Approach to Teach Reading Strategies to Iranian EFL Learners. English Language Teaching, 8(10). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n10p30

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Null result for the note-taking subsection: paired t(29) = -1.54, p = .13, means 7.83 to 8.00. The article attributes this to participants already applying note-taking at lower proficiency levels; equivalence was not tested.

"Because the p-value is greater than the alpha level (.13 > .05) for the not-taking subsection of the questionnaire, it could be argues that the difference was less marked between the participants in applying this strategy in the pretraining (M = 7.83, SD =.59) and posttraining (M = 8.00, SD = .00) questionnaires, t (29) = -1.54."

Discussion

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.