Chicago teachers did not use the readers' suggested study helps, and pupils did not refer to them¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1921 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Neither a random sampling of Chicago teachers nor their pupils used the study helps suggested in the readers, despite methods similar to those outlined in the books. → L. Z 1921

Evidence¶

L. Z 1921¶

L. Z. (1921). New Publications: Review of Empirical Studies in School Reading. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=Empirical+Studies+in+School+Reading

q2 · i? · review · r1

An observational comparison reported in the review: the study methods of a random sampling of Chicago teachers resembled those in the analyzed books, yet "none of the teachers used the helps suggested in the readers nor did the pupils refer to them".

"While the methods of study outlined in the books analyzed did not vary sustantially from the methods used by a random sampling of Chicago teachers, none of the teachers used the helps suggested in the readers nor did the pupils refer to them."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Study helps, questions and directions in four sets of literary readers for grades IV-VIII were decidedly formal in nature — related
• Neither promotion nor retention significantly closed the achievement gap of low-achieving students close to the cutoff, and the lowest achievers deteriorated further — related