MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021145643 · doi:10.5539/elt.v13n5p191

Effects of Business Reading Model on Thai Learners’ Reading and Creative Thinking Abilities

2020· article· en· W3021145643 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amornrat Ammaralikit, Wisa Chattiwat

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Reading comprehensionPsychologyReading motivationMathematics educationPedagogyCritical thinkingCreative thinkingComprehensionCreativityComputer scienceLinguisticsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In second language research, reading has attracted the attention of numerous researchers. However, little has been carried out to investigate effects of a reading instructional model on Thai learners’ business reading and creative thinking abilities. Thus, this study investigates whether a business reading model designed based on Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) and Project-Based Learning (PBL) enhances Thai undergraduates’ reading and creative thinking abilities. The study also investigates what reading strategies the students use frequently to improve their reading abilities. Based on pretest-posttest design, this study measured 35 undergraduates’ reading abilities and strategies through a reading comprehension test. Additionally, a mini project was assigned to gauge the students’ creative thinking abilities following the treatment. The findings demonstrate that the business reading model significantly increased the participants’ reading abilities and helped promote their creative thinking abilities. It is also discovered that the top three reading strategies these students used frequently to increase their reading abilities include finding the main idea, taking notes, and mapping the concept and integrating information. The study concludes by providing useful insights for researchers or educators who are interested in business English reading instruction. Pedagogical recommendations for further studies are also offered in this study.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207