Procedure
All participants were recruited within the scope of two courses on psychological education
that they attended as part of their own studies. These courses ran for an entire 15-week
semester with one lesson given per week. The pretest was administered in the second week of
the semester. This session began with participants receiving an individual test person code
and providing some demographic information (age, gender, number of semesters at univer-
sity, and country of birth). After the research assistant had explained how the test on aca-
demic skills would work, the participants were then given 4 minutes to take the reading test.
Following this, some general information about the purpose of the investigation was given,
aimed at motivating the students to participate in the study and enabling informed consent.
The overall length of the testing session was approximately 20 minutes. The intervention
period started one week after the pretest session and, therefore, was implemented from the
third week of the semester to the tenth week. The posttest was administered one week after
the training concluded. For this, participants were asked to undertake the same standardized
reading tasks as in the pretest and to indicate whether they would use RT in their own future
lessons. For a schematic overview of the study design, see Figure 1.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
For both conditions, 12% of the pretest data and 12% of the posttest data were missing due to
the fact that students had missed one of the test sessions. However, the persons whose reading
test data were missing were not excluded from the analyses. The missing values for each meas-
urement point were replaced by the mean value of the corresponding condition instead. This
procedure was chosen to retain the statistical power of the sample (Cho & Leonhart, 2013).
The descriptive statistics were then computed. For the demographic characteristics, some
values were also missing because a number of the participants refused to state their age or
the number of semesters they had been attending the university. While checking for potential
group differences in these characteristics, participants with missing values were excluded.
There were no statistically significant differences between the two conditions (see Table 1).
Furthermore, at pretest, there was no significant difference between the two conditions in
reading comprehension,
F
(1, 59)
¼
1.54,
p
¼
.22, or in reading speed,
F
(1, 59)
¼
0.13,
p
¼
.72.
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for reading comprehension and reading speed.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: