Closing the summer learning gap for vulnerable junior kindergarten students
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Under current academic calendars across North America, summer vacation creates a \nsignificant gap in the learning cycle. I t has been argued that this gap actually decreases student \nachievement levels over the course of the summer. In a synthesis of 39 studies Cooper, Nye, \nCharlton, Lindsay, & Greathouse (1996) indicated that summer learning loss equaled at least one \nmonth of instruction as measured by grade level equivalents on standardized test scores whereby \nchildren's test scores were at least one month lower when they returned to school in the fall than \nscores were when students left in the summer. Specifically, Cooper et aI., (1996) found that the \nsummer learning loss phenomena may be particularly troublesome for less advantaged children \nincluding those with speech and language delays, children at-risk for reading disabilities, \nchildren from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and children learning English as a second \nlanguage. In general, research illustrated clearly that the summer learning gap can be particularly \nproblematic for vulnerable children and furthermore, that literacy skills may be the area of \nachievement that is most affected. \nA foundational pillar to this research project is including primary caregivers as authentic \npartners in a summer literacy program designed to support their children's literacy needs. This \npillar led the research team to use the Learning Begins at Home: A Research-Based Family \nLiteracy Program Curriculum designed by Antoinette Doyle, Kathleen Hipfner-Boucher, and \nJanette Pelletier from the Ontario Institute for the Studies of Education. The LBH program is \ndesigned to be flexibly adapted to suit the needs of each individual participating family. As \nindicated by Timmons (2008) literacy interventions are most powerful when they include \nauthentic family involvement. Based on this research, a requirement for participating in the summer literacy program was involvement of a child and one of their primary caregivers. The \nparticipating caregiver was integrally involved in the program, participating in workshop \nactivities prior to and following hands-on literacy work with their child. By including primary \ncaregivers as authentic partners, the research team encouraged a paradigmatic shift in the family \nwhereby literacy activities become routine within their household. \n5 \nParticipants in this study were 14 children from junior kindergarten classrooms within the \nNiagara Catholic District School Board. As children were referred to the program, they were \nassessed by a trained emergent literacy specialist (from Speech Services Niagara) to identify \nwhether they met the eligibility requirements for participation in the summer program. To be \neligible to participate, children demonstrated significant literacy needs (i.e. below 25%ile on the \nTest of Preschool Early Literacy described below). Children with low incidence disabilities (i.e. \nprofound sensory impairments, severe intellectual impairments, developmental disabilities, etc) \nwere excluded as participants. The research team used a standard pre- and posttest design \nwhereby all participating children were assessed with the Test of Preschool Early Literacy \n(Lonigan et aI., 2007), and a standard measure of letter names and sounds. Pretests were \nadministered two weeks prior to the commencement of the program and the first set of posttests \nwas administered immediately following the program. A second set of posttests was \nadministered in December 2009 to measure the sustainability of the program. \nAs a result of the program, all children scored statistically significantly higher on their \nliteracy scores at the post-program assessment point immediately following the program and also \nat the Dec-post-program assessment point. These results in general indicated that the summer \nfamily literacy program made an immediate impact on the emergent literacy skills of participating children. All participating children demonstrated significant increases in print and \nphonological awareness as well as their letter sound understanding.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».