ArticlePloS one2024
University students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies (MARS) in online reading and MARS' role in their English reading comprehension.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Investigation about metacognitive awareness of reading strategies (MARS) has mainly focused on paper-based reading rather than online reading. Gender, reading media preferences, and English proficiency levels (EPL) account for students' differences in MARS. However, existing studies are still debating the predictive power of these variables on MARS. MARS was assumed to influence English reading comprehension even though research that firmly supports this assumption seems rare. Therefore, we examined Indonesian university students' MARS in online reading activities using data from 1412 university students in Indonesia. They were categorized into gender, reading media preferences, and EPL. The One-Way MANOVA results showed students' differences in MARS based on their gender, (F = 20.456, p < 0.05), reading media preferences, (F = 2.82, p < 0.05), and students' EPL, (F = 5.988, p < 0.05). The multiple regression analysis showed that global, support, and problem-solving strategies were simultaneously associated with English reading comprehension scores. This study emphasizes the effect of the variables on students' MARS differences and discloses the association between MARS and English reading comprehension.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.