Metacognitive online reading strategy use: Readers' perceptions in L1 and L2
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to explore whether first‐language (L1) readers of different language backgrounds would employ similar metacognitive online reading strategies and whether reading online in a second language (L2) could be influenced by L1 reading strategies. To this end, 52 Canadian college students as English L1 readers and 38 Iranian university students as both Farsi L1 and English L2 readers were selected. After completing three reading tasks on the Web, their perceptions about their use of strategies were assessed via a survey of reading strategies. Analyses of the data, using an analysis of variance and the Scheffé post hoc test, revealed certain differences. The Canadian readers perceived themselves to be high‐strategy users employing mostly a top‐down approach, whereas the Iranian readers in both Farsi and English appeared to be medium‐strategy users, favouring mostly a bottom‐up approach. Additionally, the correlation between readers' perceived use of strategies and their reading scores was statistically significant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it