A metacognitive tool to support reading comprehension of historical narratives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learners frequently have difficulty understanding incoherent historical narrative texts; therefore, this thesis project introduces a bottom-up approach to design metacognitive tools to assist learners reading comprehension. Metacognitive tools are defined as computer-based learning environments designed to assist learners to achieve an instructional goal through prompting, supporting, and modeling metacognitive and self-regulatory learning processes (Azevedo, 2005a, 2005b). The study follows a 2*2 design with experimental condition (reading with the benefit of the metacognitive tool vs. without the benefit of the tool) and process data (silent reading vs. think aloud). Pretest measures include reading comprehension skill and free recall measures. Posttest measures include amount of material recalled and accuracy of answers to open-ended questions. Learners who used the metacognitive tool outperformed the control group in their recall of information mentioned in the text because they monitored their comprehension and generated explanatory inferences more frequently. Keywords: metacognitive tools, reading comprehension, historical narratives
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".