Impact of Cornell Notes vs. REAP on EFL Secondary School Students’ Critical Reading Skills
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the effect of two notetaking strategies (Cornell Notes vs. REAP) on EFL secondary school students’ critical reading skills. The Alternative Treatment Design with Pretest was used where three intact classes of first-year EFL secondary school students were randomly assigned as a control group and two experimental groups. All participants were administered to a critical reading skills test both before and after the treatment. For 12 weeks, participants in the control group received their regular instruction while those in the first experimental group used Cornell Notes and those in the second experimental group used REAP. Using one-way analysis of variance did not reveal any significant differences among the means of scores of the three groups on the pretest of critical reading skills (f=0.36, p>0.05). However, the one-way analysis of variance indicated that significant differences existed among the means of scores of the three groups on the posttest of critical reading skills (f=14.45, 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it