Reading Comprehension

1. Hypothesis

Prediction, explanation and evidence prompts will improve inferential comprehension more than direct question answering.

2. Experiment design

Design: literacy intervention pilot with standardised pre/post assessment; baseline, active comparison, calibrated AI condition, user-controlled condition, failure or handback scenario and delayed follow-up Methods: standardised literacy assessments; reading-session telemetry; controlled tutoring pilots; audio analysis; teacher and parent reports; pre-registered analysis; active comparison; subgroup and accessibility analysis; delayed retention or longitudinal follow-up; adverse-effect capture; reproducibility testing; participant debrief Independent variables: prompt type; text complexity; support level; prior knowledge Dependent variables: literal and inferential comprehension; recall; transfer Confounders: baseline capability; prior exposure; age; motivation; context; technology access; implementation fidelity Measures: comprehension assessment; evidence citation; delayed recall Success criteria: Statistically and practically meaningful improvement; preserved or improved human skill and agency; acceptable burden; no disproportionate subgroup harm; reproducible performance; effective handback, correction and recovery. Failure conditions: No meaningful benefit; gains mask reduced understanding or skill; dependency, fatigue, stress or exclusion exceeds benefit; effects fail to transfer or persist; user control is ineffective; correction or handback fails.

3. Seed result / current evidence

DEFENSIBLE SEED RESULT — NON-EMPIRICAL. The current evidence supports Reading Comprehension as a testable research proposition. Problem basis: Current approaches to reading comprehension are fragmented, poorly calibrated or insufficiently measured, making it difficult to distinguish real benefit from substitution, novelty or surveillance effects. Directional expectation: If the hypothesis is supported, the intervention condition should improve literal and inferential comprehension; recall; transfer while avoiding material deterioration in independence, confidence calibration or delayed performance. Proposed observations: comprehension assessment; evidence citation; delayed recall. Seed data profile: Evidence Strength 10/100; Confidence 25/100; Maturity 20/100; Overall Health 36/100; Novelty 78/100; Strategic Importance 95/100. Evidence boundary: No validated results yet.; experiments 0, studies 0, participants 0. This is suitable for protocol formation and baseline comparison, not as a finding of effect.

4. Seed conclusion

DEFENSIBLE SEED CONCLUSION — PROVISIONAL. Reading Comprehension warrants structured testing because the CSV identifies a defined problem, falsifiable hypothesis, measurable outcomes and relevant literature foundations. The present position is that “Prediction, explanation and evidence prompts will improve inferential comprehension more than direct question answering.” is plausible and decision-relevant, but unvalidated. Proceed to controlled testing against the stated success and failure conditions. Confirm, narrow or reject this seed after effect sizes, uncertainty, subgroup outcomes, adverse effects, persistence and handback performance are observed.

Prior-art search performed before starting

PRIOR-ART SEED BASELINE — PARTIAL. The CSV records these literature domains: Science of reading; simple view of reading; phonological processing; oral-language development; literacy intervention research. It also records: UNESCO Literacy — https://www.unesco.org/; AERO — https://www.edresearch.edu.au/; International Dyslexia Association — https://dyslexiaida.org/; OECD Education — https://www.oecd.org/education/. Evidence register status: “Seeded; authoritative source register refreshed; empirical evidence not yet ingested”. This is defensible as a starting prior-art inventory, but not as proof of a completed systematic search because search dates, databases, exact queries, reviewer, result counts, screening decisions, claim mapping and a replayable receipt are absent.

Prior-art material named: Existing literature: Science of reading; simple view of reading; phonological processing; oral-language development; literacy intervention research. References: UNESCO Literacy — https://www.unesco.org/; AERO — https://www.edresearch.edu.au/; International Dyslexia Association — https://dyslexiaida.org/; OECD Education — https://www.oecd.org/education/

Critical gap / next action

Create and attach a dated prior-art search log; lock the protocol; execute the proposed study; link raw data and analysis; then replace the results and conclusion placeholders with evidence-bounded findings.