Paired Reading Strategy and Comprehension Level Among Grade 10 Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of paired – reading strategy in improving the reading comprehension of Grade ten learners. In this study, the subjects were profiled first about their age, sex, parents’ highest educational attainment, family income and availability of reading materials. Then, the subjects reading comprehension level was also determined before and after the exposure in paired – reading strategy.The subjects of this study are the Grade 10 – Ruby learners which are assigned as control group and Grade 10 – Jade learners which were assigned as experimental group. Both groups are enrolled in Palina East National High School, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, where the study was conducted, during the school year 2019 – 2020.In this study, the researcher utilized descriptive research design in addressing the problems about the profile of the subjects and their reading comprehension level. Then, a quasi - experimental research design was also used to determine the effectiveness of paired reading strategy in improving the reading comprehension of the learners. And in gathering the data needed in this study, a test which is the Oral Reading Comprehension assessment was utilized.Findings of the study revealed that both groups, the control and the experimental group, are at the literal level of reading comprehension before exposing to paired – reading strategy, then after the experimentation, the control group reached the interpretive level of reading comprehension while the experimental group reached the applied level of reading comprehension. Results were further supported by the findings of test of difference between the post-test of both groups which revealed that the experimental group had statistically better performance compared to the control group. Thus, paired reading strategy is more effective than traditional teaching in facilitating reading comprehension among learners.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".