The Effect of Teaching Metacognitive Reading Strategies on Reading Self-efficacy ofIranian Intermediate EFL Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research regarding the teaching of reading for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL) is still ongoing.One of the many problems students face nowadays is not their inability to read but their lack of interest, indifference or rejection of reading. This study focused on the effect of teaching metacognitive reading strategy on reading self-efficacy of EFL Iranian students. It was hypothesized that teaching metacognitive reading strategies can have impact on reading selfefficacy of Iranian intermediate EFL students. The data was collected from Iranian students at Dorsa language institute located in Hashtgerd, Alborz province. To make the homogeneity of all the participants, the researchers administrated a language proficiency test (PET) as pre-test to seventy one EFL learners. Out of seventy one students, forty students were selected. They were divided into one experimental and one control group based on their scores. The researchers used independent sample T– Test to measure the statistical differences between the two groups. This indicated that there is no significant difference between two groups. Before receiving instruction the students completed a reading self-efficacy questionnaire. After eleven sessions of strategy-based instruction, the researchers administrated the post-tests to both experimental and control groups. Finally, the results of the analysis of the data revealed that teaching metacognitive reading strategies enhanced reading self-efficacy of the subjects.
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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".