An Investigation of Critical Reading in Reading Textbooks: A Qualitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a technique for discovering and evaluating information within texts, critical reading might be a panacea for those learners whose voices and choices are muted and ignored. A crucial question is thus to ask whether and to what extent popular reading textbooks meet the criteria for the development of critical reading. To this end, the present article seeks to identify and investigate the presence of those items within reading textbooks which help promote critical reading. Based on the literature on critical thinking, the cornerstone of critical reading, a checklist is provided whose items are indicator of whether a particular text promotes critical reading or not. Moreover, it is recognized that autonomy and engagement are prerequisites for enhancement of critical reading and that they can be achieved through strategy instruction and task-based instruction, respectively. Three reading textbooks (Select Readings: Upper-intermediate, Active Skills for Reading: Book 4, and Mosaic Reading 2) are leveled against three criteria: Critical thinking items, the use of appropriate tasks, and strategic instruction. The results indicate that these textbooks meet the first criterion to some extent, but seriously lack the last two ones.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".