Are Learners Aware of Their Strategy Use? Investigating EFL Learners’ Self-Perceived Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies with the MARSI-R
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated EFL learners’ self-perceived metacognitive strategy use with the revised Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI-R). Data collection followed two steps. In the first step, 213 EFL learners responded to the inventory twice (before and after a reading comprehension task). In the second step, 81 out of the 213 participants answered an open survey inquiring learners’ perception and changes of perception of metacognitive reading strategy use during the reading process. Results indicate that learners’ self-perceived strategy use changed significantly after performing the reading task. Learners’ feedbacks in the survey show that learners’ self-perceived strategy use might not reflect the actual use of strategies. This inconsistency between self-perceived reading strategy use and the actual strategy use might mislead learners in their foreign language learning. Further empirical studies are needed to validate the instrument and explore classroom instructions that help learners better understand their actual strategy use during the reading process.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".