The Effectiveness of Applying the Habits of Mind Approach on Developing Female Fifth Graders’ Reading Self-Efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-efficacy, which refers to one’s own capabilities to perform a task successfully, has been found to be a significant predictor of various educational achievements. The current study emphasizes the role of self-efficacy in the context of reading, highlighting that students’ beliefs about their reading abilities can significantly shape their motivation and performance in reading. Consequently, unsuccessful outcomes in reading may not necessarily result from a lack of skills or knowledge but rather from a deficiency in the self-efficacy beliefs needed to apply those skills effectively (Carroll & Fox, 2017). Considering the narrow scope of research on reading self-efficacy, this quasi-experimental study aimed to extend previous work by exploring how reading self-efficacy changes among female fifth-grade students through a nine-week Habits of Mind (HoM) program. This program specifically targeted the four primary sources of information that affect reading self-efficacy: progress, observational comparison, social feedback, and physiological states. Participants comprised 66 female fifth-grade students from a public elementary school, split into an experimental group of 33 who participated in the HoM program and a control group of 33 students adhering to the standard curriculum. The findings indicate that participants in the HoM program reported significantly higher reading self-efficacy levels in four sources of reading self-efficacy compared to those in the control group. Results also indicated that the improvements in reading self-efficacy and its four foundational factors, attained through implementing the HoM program, were either sustained or experienced further growth over time. We recommend that this approach might help students develop a lifelong passion for reading, along with the confidence they need to overcome reading challenges.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".