Struggling readers were slow and inaccurate, with the lowest accuracy across all theoretical levels¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Struggling readers (Cluster 4, 12% of sample) had the longest or second-longest response times and the lowest accuracy across all four theoretical levels. → Fang 2021

Evidence¶

Fang 2021¶

Fang, Y., Lippert, A., Cai, Z., Chen, S., Frijters, J. C., Greenberg, D., & Graesser, A. C. (2021). Patterns of Adults with Low Literacy Skills Interacting with an Intelligent Tutoring System. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00266-y

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Mixed-effects model results for Cluster 4 (n = 31). Unlike higher performers, struggling readers did better in situation model and rhetorical structure lessons than word and textbase lessons.

"The response time of Cluster 4 on word level questions was the longest, but the accuracy was the lowest among the four clusters. For textbase, situation model and rhetorical structure level questions, the response time of Cluster 4 was the second longest, yet their accuracy remained the lowest among the four clusters."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Adults with low literacy using AutoTutor fall into four behavioral clusters: higher performers, conscientious readers, under-engaged readers, and struggling readers — a broader claim this one bears on
• Higher performers achieved the highest accuracy across all theoretical levels and the shortest response times on situation model questions — related
• Under-engaged readers answered quickly but with lower accuracy, performing worst on word-level lessons — related