MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066477795 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n1p67

The Role of Gender in the Use of Metacognitive Awareness Reading Strategies among Biology Students

2014· article· en· W2066477795 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arsaythamby Veloo, Mariam A Rani, K. Hariharan

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetacognitionReading (process)MatriculationPsychologyMathematics educationSituatedDevelopmental psychologyCognitionComputer scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metacognitive Awareness Reading Strategies used by students while reading academic material is one of thefactors that lead to students’ future academic achievement. This study aims to determine the association betweengender and gender differences in the perceived use of Metacognitive Awareness Reading Strategies (Global,Problem-Solving & Support Reading strategies) among Biology students in a Matriculation College situated inState of Kedah, Malaysia. In this study, 318 Matriculation College students participated, in which 97 malestudents and 221 female students studied Biology as one of the subjects. They rated their own perceived uselevel of Metacognitive Awareness Reading Strategies using Metacognitive Awareness of Reading StrategiesInventory (MARSI) adapted from Mokhtari and Reichard (2002). The findings show that female students useMetacognitive Awareness Reading Strategies more frequently compared to male students while readingacademic materials. The findings show that students apply problem-solving strategies the most compared to theother metacognitive reading strategies, while the least used strategy is the global reading strategy. However,there are no significant difference between males and females for both these strategies. In comparison, male andfemale students differ in the application of Support Reading Strategies, where more females use the strategiescompared to males. Students themselves should learn Metacognitive Awareness Reading Strategies and applythem in their Biology reading. Global reading strategies, too, should be given more attention as this is the leastused strategy. A more balanced use of all the metacognitive strategies would help students to improve their levelof achievement as each strategy has its own strengths. Future research should investigate the ways to nurturemetacognitive skills in reading as one of the strategies to improve reading comprehension and futureperformance in Biology.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207