The TROR group showed significant comprehension gains on the average and last-minus-first scoring methods, but not on the extreme methods¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2021: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? TROR comprehension rose significantly by about 8% (average method) and about 12% (pretest to posttest), while the extreme-method difference was not significant. → 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 comprehension percentages for the TROR group's four scoring-method passages; pretest-to-posttest comprehension rose about 12% (56.25% to 68.13%), while the extreme method showed a 9% drop that was not significant (p = .054).

"Contrasting the pre- and posttest comprehension scores, a significant gain of about 12% was observed, t(19) = -2.97, p = .008. Cohen’s d was -0.66, which also indicates a small effect."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Reading rate gains in both treatment groups were accompanied by comprehension increases during the treatment, with rates generally below the 70% threshold — related
• The TR group's comprehension results were mixed: a significant 11% average-method gain but a significant 12% decrease on the three-extremes passages — related
• The TROR group (timed reading plus repeated oral reading with chunking and prosody) made statistically significant reading rate gains of about 13 to 27 swpm across four scoring methods — related
• The three groups differed significantly on posttest reading rate but not on posttest comprehension in a MANCOVA with pretest covariates — related