An Empirical Study on the Effect of Instruction on Metacognitive Strategies on EFL Reading Comprehension: The Case of Foundation-Level Students in Oman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current quasi-experimental study investigated the effect of metacognitive reading strategies on the reading comprehension and attitudes of Omani EFL foundation-level students. The sample of the study included two intact classes (N=45) and was selected based on the students’ results in the midterm reading comprehension exam and their responses to the metacognitive strategies survey (MARSI). One class functioned as the experimental group, which received instruction relating to the metacognitive reading strategies. The other class was the control group which received conventional reading instruction. Two instruments were used to collect data: a pre-post reading comprehension test to measure the students’ performance in reading and an attitude questionnaire to investigate their attitudes towards metacognitive reading strategies use. The results of the study revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between the learners’ reading comprehension in the experimental group and the control group in favor of the experimental group as a result of metacognitive reading strategies instruction. Results also showed that students in the experimental group held positive attitudes towards using metacognitive reading strategies use. In the light of these findings, implications and recommendations for practice were put forward.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".