The TR group's comprehension results were mixed: a significant 11% average-method gain but a significant 12% decrease on the three-extremes passages¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · 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? TR comprehension increased significantly on the average method but decreased significantly on the three-extremes method passages. → Shimono 2018
Evidence¶
Shimono 2018¶
Shimono, T. R. (2018). L2 reading fluency progression using timed reading and repeated oral reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 30(1). http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Paired-samples t tests on TR group comprehension percentages; the average method showed a significant approximately 11% increase (d = -0.82), the pretest-posttest gain narrowly missed significance (p = .026), and the three-extremes passages showed a significant 12% decrease.
"There was a significant 12% decrease in comprehension for the passages from the three extremes method, t(17) = -4.43, p < .001, d = -1.04."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The TROR group showed significant comprehension gains on the average and last-minus-first scoring methods, but not on the extreme methods — related
- The TR group (timed reading only) made statistically significant reading rate gains of about 15 to 27 swpm across four scoring methods — 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.