MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416460330 · doi:10.5430/jct.v14n4p354

Exploring the Emerging Domain of Research on Media for Teaching Learning Process: A Case on Improving Reading Comprehension Skills

2025· article· W4416460330 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Herman Herman, Haposan Siallagan, Endang Fatmawati, Sherly Sherly, Magdalena Ngongo, Hotnida Teresia Lubis, Isry Laila Syathroh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading comprehensionReading (process)Class (philosophy)ComprehensionSample (material)Control (management)Data collectionSignificant difference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the effectiveness of Graphic Organizers as a strategy for teaching reading comprehension. This study aimed to determine whether there was a significant improvement in the analytical reading comprehension scores of eleventh-grade students at SMA Negeri 1 Pematangsiantar before and after implementing the Graphic Organizers strategy. Additionally, this study sought to establish whether there was a notable difference in analytical reading comprehension scores between students taught using Graphic Organizers and those who did not. This research employed a quasi-experimental design with a sample of 60 students. The sample was divided into two groups of 30 students each: class XI IPA 3 served as the control group, whereas class XI IPA 4 was the experimental group. Data collection involved administering a reading comprehension test twice to both groups: once as a pre-test and once as a post-test. The results showed that the experimental group's post-test mean score was 78, 16, while the control group's post-test mean score was 68, 83. The researcher found that the T-test values exceeded the T-table value (2, 48 > 1. 672) at a 5% significance level. These findings indicated a significant effect of using Graphic Organizers in teaching reading comprehension. This study concludes that employing Graphic Organizers to teach analytical exposition text reading has a substantial impact on students' reading comprehension scores.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Curriculum and TeachingSame topicTechnology-Enhanced Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207