Metacognitive Reading and Study Strategies and Academic Achievement of University Students With and Without a History of Reading Difficulties
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
University students who report a history of reading difficulties have been demonstrated to have poorer word reading and reading comprehension skills than their peers; yet, without a diagnosed learning disability, these students do not have access to the same support services, potentially placing them at academic risk. This study provides a comprehensive investigation of first-year academic achievement for students with a history of reading difficulties (n = 244) compared to students with no such history (n = 603). We also examine reported use of metacognitive reading and study strategies and their relations with GPA. Results indicate that students with a history of reading difficulties earn lower GPA and successfully complete fewer credits compared to students with no history of reading difficulty. These patterns varied somewhat by faculty of study. Students with a history of reading difficulties also reported lower scores across multiple metacognitive reading and study strategy scales, yet these scores were not associated with their academic performance. Together, these results demonstrate the importance of identifying students with a history of reading difficulties and that commonly used study strategy inventories have limited value in predicting their academic success.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it