English as a Foreign Language Learners’ Major and Meta-cognitive Reading Strategy Use at Al-Balqa Applied University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This quantitative study aimed to investigate and compare the use of metacognitive reading Strategies among English as a foreign language students at Al-Balqa Applied University based on their academic field of study. The Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) (Mokhtari & Sheory, 2002) was the instrument employed. This survey divides the strategies into three categories: global, problem solving and support strategies. The 86 participants are enrolled in different academic fields of study and were classified into two groups: students of the faculties of humanities (39=45.3%) and scientific faculties students (47=54.7%). The participants proved to be high users of the overall strategies (M=3.6023, S.D.=1.3189) and they employed the strategies in the following order: problem solving, support and global. No statistically significant changes were found between the two groups concerning at the significance level of 0.05. The most employed strategy by the humanities students was the support strategy “I go back and forth in the text to find relationships among ideas in it” (M=4.5385, S.D.=.83661). The scientific faculties students top ranked strategy was problem solving “I read slowly and carefully to make sure I understand what I am reading” (M=4.2128, S.D.=0.8831). The finding obtained would help EFL curricula planners and teachers to deepen their understanding of the learners’ reading procedures.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".