Students in both treatment groups were highly engaged with the stories, with no marked difference between approaches¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
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 i? Field observations found students in both instructional treatment groups very engaged with both stories; interviews showed no marked engagement difference between treatments. → 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 · i? · causal · r2
Qualitative field notes and observations gathered daily during the study, plus interviews with 16 randomly selected students. Most students in both groups reported liking the stories (cognitive-oriented 79% and 60%; reader-response 56% and 68%).
"First, students in both instructional treatment groups were very engaged with both stories. They were eager to talk about their views on the main topics and were engrossed with the fates of the main characters."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Both SRE approaches produced significant but small effects on basic story comprehension measures — related
- Treated students showed high fidelity to the cognitive process of values affirmation, while student engagement varied regardless of condition assignment — 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.