Comparison of Taiwanese and Canadian Students' Metacognitive Awareness of Science Reading, Text, and Strategies
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
AbstractThis study used a Chinese-language version of the Index of Science Reading Awareness to explore the science reading metacognition and comprehension of Taiwanese students. Structural equation modelling results confirmed the underlying model comprised three clusters of metacognitive knowledge: beliefs and confidence in science reading, knowledge of structure of science text, and knowledge of science reading strategies. The main contribution of the current research was to provide evidence about the relationship between metacognitive awareness and comprehension of science text. In addition, data comparisons to Canadian (British Columbia) benchmarks from the original development revealed that metacognitive awareness of science reading deteriorated from elementary to middle school in both countries, and there were no significant differences of metacognitive awareness of science reading between Canadian and Taiwanese students. Instructional suggestions for raising students' metacognitive awareness on science reading were discussed.Keywords: MetacognitionReading comprehensionScience education AcknowledgementsThe authors thank the National Science Council for funding this research (NSC 99-2511-S-005-MY3). We acknowledge and express appreciation to Professor Larry Yore (University of Victoria) and Shari Yore for their mentoring assistance in relation to this article. We also give sincere thanks to constructive suggestions by this article's reviewers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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