Approach-specific SRE instruction produced large treatment effects on the assessments aligned to each approach's purpose¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2·i3large
Currency · newest study 2011 · 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 i3 The cognitive-oriented group scored far higher on defending answers with textual evidence (effect size .66) and the reader-response group far higher on response essays (effect size .33). → Liang 2011
Evidence¶
Liang 2011¶
Liang, L. A. (2011). Scaffolding Middle School Students' Comprehension and Response to Short Stories. RMLE Online, 34(8). ISSN 1940-4476. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ925248
q2 · i3 · causal · r2
ANCOVA of experimental-week scores from a pretest-posttest quasi-experiment with 85 sixth graders, CALT reading ability as covariate. The approach-specific measures showed large effects: "an effect size of .66" for defending answers and ".33" for essays.
"Part 3 of the short-answer quizzes, F(1, 158) = 310.34, p < .001, with an effect size of .66; and for the essays, F(1, 158) = 78.80, p < .001, with an effect size of .33."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Each approach improved only its own targeted knowledge: gains on approach-aligned posttests but not on opposite-approach measures — related
- Both SRE approaches produced significant but small effects on basic story comprehension measures — related
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.