MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800932876 · doi:10.5430/wje.v8n2p127

Reading Preferences of Middle School Students

2018· article· en· W2800932876 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gülnur Aydın, Bilge BAĞCI AYRANCI

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Methods and Media Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Active listeningPsychologyReading comprehensionMathematics educationAdventureComprehensionScope (computer science)Subject (documents)PedagogyLinguisticsComputer scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four fundamental language skills interact with each other. Developing reading skills will also develop listening,speaking, and writing skills. Reading comprehension, using what is understood on new subjects and learning newwords during reading can influence listening comprehension as well as oral and written self-expression. Generalcomplaints of teachers and parents regarding middle school students are that the students do not read enough.Increasing love for reading in middle school students can only be possible by determining the interests and needs ofthose students and guiding the students towards those needs and interests. When the literature was reviewed, therewere no functional researches regarding the reading preferences of middle school students. In this regard, this studywas necessary to contribute to the literature.The purpose of this study was to determine the reading preferences of middle school students. The pattern of thisresearch was created based on qualitative case study and under the scope of this study, 25 participants were selectedfor each class level including 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students. Data was collected with the semi-structuredinterview technique. Data was themed by two experts using content analysis. Similar answers were converted intonumerical data and presented in the form of tables. Examples from student statements were given to support thetables. The results of the research indicated that a majority of students preferred reading on printed resources,selected novels as genre, read texts with 300 or more pages, and preferred adventure as subject. Additionally,students expressed that unknown words in reading texts should be low, they voluntarily spend 1-2 hours per dayreading, and preferred silent reading.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicEducational Methods and Media UseFrench-language works237,207