Claims

Reading strategies training improves literal reading comprehension of elementary-proficiency EFL vocational students relative to conventional teaching

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · checked against its sources 2026-11-02 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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? After twelve sessions of training in predicting, text mapping, and summarizing, the experimental group scored significantly higher than the control group on literal comprehension (ANCOVA F = 9.85, p = .003). → Mistar et al. 2016

Evidence

Mistar et al. 2016

Junaidi Mistar, Alfan Zuhairi & Nofita Yanti. (2016). Strategies Training in the Teaching of Reading Comprehension for EFL Learners in Indonesia. English Language Teaching, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n2p49

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Quasi-experiment with two intact grade-ten classes (N=71) in a Mojokerto vocational school; ANCOVA with mid-semester teacher-made test as covariate. The treatment effect on literal comprehension was significant: "an F-value 9.85 ( p<.003)". Descriptive post-test means were 88.33 (experimental) vs 81.81 (control).

"For the literal comprehension, for example, the analysis of the significance of the difference between the experimental group and the control group found an F-value 9.85 ( p<.003)."

Discussion

Learner Variables

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.