More than words: PhD students and critical reading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Many PhD students have strong reading comprehension, but some struggle with how to read critically. The purpose of this study is to understand what reading looks like for PhD students, what they are doing when they read scholarly texts and how they bring these texts to life in meaningful ways. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted a self-study using a phenomenological research approach. Five PhD students collected data on their academic reading for three weeks, including the references, purpose for reading, and what they did as part of the reading process. Second, students analyzed their reading processes according to Paul and Elder’s (2006) intellectual standards. Third, students participated in two semi-structured discussions about the standards in relation to doctoral reading. Findings Reading is inseparable from thinking, with Paul and Elder’s (2006) intellectual standards (e.g. clarity, relevance, logic and fairness) playing an essential role in the academic reading process. Alongside these cognitive aspects of reading, the affective domain also contributes to the reading process. Originality/value This study is important because being able to read scholarly work is crucial for completing doctoral programs, conducting research, and publishing. We suggest that just as we need to teach writing, we need to acknowledge that many doctoral students need guidance to read scholarly texts, they need to be educated on the intellectual standards, and supervisors must rest their assumptions about doctoral reading and explicitly teach these processes.
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 | 0.014 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".