Reading Better?: Enhancing Thai EFL Secondary School Students' Reading Comprehension Abilities with the Use of Graphic Organizers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of utilizing graphic organizers to enhance Thai EFL students' reading comprehension abilities and their opinions regarding using graphic organizers for reading comprehension. To gather information from sixty-four upper secondary school students at a public school in Bangkok, this research study used 1) instructional instruments: ten reading passages from a coursebook and ten graphic organizers designed by the researcher; and 2) research instruments: two English reading comprehension tests with multiple-choice, true/false, and short-answer questions, and focus-group interviews about students' opinions toward English reading instruction using graphic organizers. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including mean scores, normalized gains, standard deviations, and inferential statistics, namely the dependent t-test and Cohen’s d. The results indicated that the mean score on the reading comprehension post-test was significantly higher than the mean score on the pre-test at the 0.05 level of significance, and the experimental group acquired a higher score (M=87.00, SD=10.55) than the control group (M=51.18, SD=12.127) with the effect size of .846. Students exhibited a favorable opinion toward English reading instruction employing graphic organizers; and the average normalized gain was in the high gain range, g> = 0.78. Additionally, this research established that English reading instruction employing graphic organizers benefited students with low reading abilities and improved their abilities to comprehend what they read. The findings of this study provide potential avenues for improving students' reading comprehension.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".