Shadow-Reading Effect on Reading Comprehension: Actualization of Interactive Reading Comprehension: (A Vygotskyan View!)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Reading comprehension has been the main concern for second language learners and researchers. Today with rising interests towards Vygotskyan Sociocultural Theory (SCT), attempts have been made to insert Vygotskyan approach into Foreign/Second Language classrooms emphasizing the role of scaffolding and meaningful interactions to promote learners’ comprehension. Having this on mind, the current study used shadow-reading as a means of meaning internalization to see if it affects on reading comprehension. To this end, 52 junior EFL learners from two universities were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. A pretest of reading comprehension including 4 reading passages with 20 Multiple Choice items was administered to the learners to see if they were at the similar level of reading comprehension. During 10 sessions, the learners were provided with shadow-reading strategy in which they were required to listen and repeat the passage in a well-disciplined imitative task and, then summarize what they had comprehended from the text. A reading comprehension post test was also administered at the end of the semester after 10 sessions of conducting shadowing. The data of the first and the last sessions was analysed. The findings of the study showed that shadow-reading has significantly influenced learners’ comprehension. The results also lent support to Vygotskyan theory in that using shadowing as a means of meaningful imitation and interaction facilitates comprehension among learners. The results also shed light on the way through which instructors try to promote learners’ comprehension. It seems that shadow reading due to its sociocultural traits can be used as an appropriate means of promoting reading comprehension all over the world.</p>
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".