The effect of an extensive reading program on the reading proficiency and vocabulary knowledge of adult ESL readers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Provincial and federal government surveys and commissions have consistently reported that English literacy training for adults with no or limited English is urgently needed and that access to training is limited. The effectiveness of existing literacy training programs and instructional strategies at the adult level has not been well researched. However, at the classroom level literacy training can be easily compromised by instructional strategies that limit the concept of full-literacy by focusing ESL literacy instruction on survival, functional and skill-building reading experiences. English and second language reading research suggests that student self-selection of reading materials and a high exposure to text are effective means of increasing vocabulary knowledge and reading proficiency. This study examined the effect of an Extensive Reading program on reading proficiency and vocabulary knowledge for 2 classes (N=33) of adult low intermediate ESL learners enrolled in a 15 week English language training program at a large Canadian community college. This quasi-experimental treatment group participated in a reading program supplemental to their regular classroom reading instruction. Subjects met weekly with the researcher and self-selected reading material from a collection of graded readers. Data on the frequency of the students' reading, their preferences in reading topics and materials and self-evaluations of their first and second language reading abilities were tallied for subjects in both groups. No statistical significant differences were found for the treatment in the analysis of assessments of reading and vocabulary. However, the experimental group posted higher gains in the group mean score on reading proficiency than the control group. Analysis of the Reading Behavior Survey suggests subjects in both groups were low frequency readers (less than 5 hours of reading time in English per week) who generally evaluated themselves fair to good readers in L2 but good to excellent readers in LI. The inconclusive results for the effect of the treatment on reading proficiency and vocabulary acquisition implies the need for future studies on the effectiveness of extensive reading programs on literacy training in ESL programs where literacy in English is a concern for students and educators.
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».