The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Curiosity on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to find out whether 1) students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using INSERT strategy was higher than those taught by using SQ3R strategy, 2) Students’ achievement in reading comprehension having high curiosity was higher than those having low curiosity, 3) there was an interaction between teaching strategies and curiosity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension. Quasi experimental research with factorial design 2 × 2 was used in this study. The total number of sample were 76 persons, with 38 students of each class (experimental and control classes). The first class was treated by using INSERT strategy and the second class was treated by using SQ3R strategy. The students were also divided into two groups based on curiosity, such as high and low curiosity. The data were collected through reading comprehension by using objective test, whereas for aptitude like curiosity, questionaire was used. The data were then analyzed by applying two-way ANOVA at the level of significance at α = 0.05. The data analysis revealed that (1) students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using INSERT was higher than those taught by using SQ3R, with Fobs (27.32) > Ftab (3.98), (2) students’ achievement in reading comprehension with high curiosity was higher than those students with low curiosity with Fobs (6.92) > Ftab (3.98), (3) there was an interaction between teaching strategies and students’ curiosity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension with Fobs (15.43) > Ftab (3.98). Tuckey test was then applied to verify the interaction between each sample comparison.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".