Phonological Awareness Training for Struggling Readers in Grade 1 French Immersion
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This longitudinal study analysed the effectiveness of phonological awareness (PA) instruction on the reading development of struggling Grade 1 readers enrolled in an early French immersion (FI) program in Southern Ontario. To date, there have been no published studies of PA interventions for FI students who are considered to be at risk for later reading problems. The findings indicate that a phonologically-based intervention can effectively address PA deficits and facilitate reading acquisition for FI students from diverse linguistic backgrounds who are struggling to learn to read in French.Approximately 100 children with varied language backgrounds participated in the study during each school year. A new cohort was added each year for a period of three consecutive years. At-risk readers from each of the three cohorts were identified on the basis of their performance on English word reading and/or English PA measures that were administered. Pre-test measures were administered in November, and immediate post-test measures were administered in April. Delayed post-testing was conducted in February of the following two school years to assess the durability of treatment effects.Small groups of 3-4 struggling readers from intact classes were randomly assigned to experimental and control conditions in each of the three consecutive years. For 18 weeks, the treatment group was provided with English PA training in combination with letter-sound correspondence instruction, and the control group received English instruction designed to increase vocabulary development. At the conclusion of the intervention phase of the study, immediate post-testing indicated that the treatment group was closing the achievement gap in comparison to the typically developing readers on both English and French measures of PA and measures of French word reading. At this time point, there was still a significant difference between the control group's performance on these same measures and that of the typically developing readers. Delayed post-testing results indicated that the treatment group significantly outperformed the control group on French measures of elision, word reading, and word reading fluency.
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) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 ».