The Relationship Between the Study Habits and Attitudes and Metacognitive Reading Comprehension Self-Awareness, Reading Comprehension, Reading Attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study is to analyze the correlation between study habits and attitudes and metacognitive readingcomprehension self-awareness, reading comprehension and reading attitude of fifth-grade students. 313 students (193female, 188 male) consisted the sample group of the study using relational screening model. SSHA-Survey of StudyHabits and Attitudes, Form C”, “Metacognitive Reading Comprehension Self-Awareness Scale”, “ReadingComprehension” and, “Reading Attitudes Scale” were used. Moreover, students’ level of Turkish course success hasbeen identified by their grades from school reports of the first term of fifth grade. As the result of the study, it wasfound that the study orientation scores of the students were higher than the average and that their study attitudes werehigher than their studying habits. There was a mid-scale, positive and significant correlation between thesub-dimensions of their studying attitudes and habits. The levels of correlation between students’ success in Turkishcourse and their study orientation; between their metacognitive awareness of reading comprehension, readingcomprehension and studying habits with their studying orientation; between their metacognitive awareness of readingcomprehension, reading comprehension and reading attitude with study orientation, and between their metacognitiveawareness of reading comprehension and reading attitude with their study attitudes was found to be positive, mid-scaleand significant. However, the level of correlation between their metacognitive awareness of reading comprehensionand reading comprehension was found to be positive, low-scale and significant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".