The association between reading motivation and reading achievement in Chinese students: Exploring the role of personality
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
It is documented that individualistic (Western) versus collective (Eastern) societies may have different expectations of students. For example, compared to their Western counterparts who tend to be more intrinsically motivated to learn, learning in China tends to be characterized by group-level success, being prideful and ensuring positive career outcomes. Further, it is possible that individual differences, such as personality, may be mediating the relationship between reading motivation and achievement. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the associations between reading motivation, personality traits and reading grade in a sample of students from Mainland China (n = 422) between the ages of 11 and 19 (M =14.61, SD = 1.55). Using path analysis, we examined if reading motivation might be working indirectly through individual personality traits to influence reading grade in this sample. Our results highlight the role of individual differences in the relationship between reading motivation and achievement. Further, results of our study emphasize the importance of fostering Openness, particularly within Chinese students, as it could be associated with higher reading achievement. Taken together, our results suggest that educators working with Chinese students should consider individual differences when fostering reading motivation to increase reading achievement in students.
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 | 0.024 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it