Reading passages segmented along phrase boundaries (pausal or syntactic) yields higher comprehension scores than standard prose format in elementary students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1983 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Comprehension scores were significantly higher for pausal (M = 38.2%) and syntactic (M = 38.7%) phrase formats than for the prose format (M = 33.04%), with no statistical difference between the two phrased formats. → David S. Weiss 1983 q3 i? The Text Segmentation main effect on comprehension was significant in the quasi F' first passage analysis (p < .005). → David S. Weiss 1983 (2)

Evidence¶

David S. Weiss 1983¶

David S. Weiss. (1983). The effects of text segmentation on children's reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 6:1, 77-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538309544555

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Scheffé follow-up contrasts (p < .05) on the Comprehension main effect in the first passage analysis of 648 grade 4 and 7 students, comparing three text formats. Both phrased formats outperformed prose: "significantly higher than the Comprehension scores obtained with the prose format (M = 33.04%)". No effect size was printed.

"Comprehension scores for the pausal (M = 38.2%) and syntactic (Ai = 38.7%) phrase formats were significantly higher than the Comprehension scores obtained with the prose format (M = 33.04%). There was no statistical difference between the syntactic and pausal phrase formats."

David S. Weiss 1983 (2)¶

David S. Weiss. (1983). The effects of text segmentation on children's reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 6:1, 77-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538309544555

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Quasi F' analysis of variance (2x3x3x3 Grade by Reading Level by Passage Difficulty by Format design, with participants and passages as random effects) on first-passage comprehension scores. The quote reports the significant main effects; only p-values were printed, so no effect size is reported.

"Significant Text Segmentation (p < .005), Reading Level (p < .005), and Passage Difficulty [p < .001) effects were evident."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Poor readers reading phrased passages comprehend at the level typical of average readers reading prose, and average readers approach good readers' prose level — related
• The segmentation advantage is maintained across repeated readings and is widespread across participants — related
• Text segmentation benefits all reading levels: no interactions with grade, reading level, or passage difficulty — a narrower finding that bears on this claim