The Mediating Role of Students’ Metacognitive Awareness between Teachers’ Reading Strategies and Students’ Reading Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focused on the impact of teachers’ reading strategies on students’ reading performance, with a specific emphasis on the role of TOEFL reading instructors in training institutions. The primary objective was to investigate how the reading strategies employed by TOEFL teachers influence students’ reading performance, and to determine the mediating effect of students’ metacognitive awareness. The participants were teachers and students from TOEFL training institutions in Henan, China. A cross-sectional research design was adopted, and data were collected through questionnaires. The findings indicated that students’ metacognitive awareness plays a significant mediating role between teachers’ reading strategies and students’ reading performance. However, this mediating effect was found to be negative, suggesting that teachers’ reading strategies did not enhance students’ metacognitive awareness. On the contrary, these strategies may have inadvertently hindered its development, thereby exerting an indirect negative impact on students’ reading performance. These results carry important implications not only for improving TOEFL preparation but also for advancing the broader practice of English reading instruction.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".