Growth Trajectories of Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension in English Language Learners: An examination of cognitive-linguistic and sociocultural factors
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In this longitudinal project, 49 monolingual English-speaking students (EL1s) and 55 English Language Learners (ELLs) living in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) were followed for two years (i.e., grades 4-6/5-7) across three testing points (Time 1 – Time 3). The overarching goal was to (1) examine the reading comprehension and vocabulary growth patterns of mid elementary EL1s and ELLs with varying levels of exposure to English; and (2) investigate the contribution of cognitive, linguistic, and sociocultural factors underlying the development of these literacy skills. In Study 1, EL1 and ELL growth trajectories were compared using multi-level modeling (MLM). An augmented model of the Simple View of Reading (SVR) that included not only decoding and vocabulary, but also cognitive processes (e.g., nonverbal reasoning, phonological processing, and morphological awareness) and sociocultural variables (e.g., maternal education) was examined. Results revealed significant growth in ELL reading comprehension but limited growth in EL1 reading comprehension. At Time 3, EL1 and ELL students had comparable performance in reading comprehension and the same cognitive-linguistic factors emerged as significant contributors. Nonverbal reasoning ability and complex vocabulary knowledge significantly contributed to EL1 and ELL reading comprehension. Next, the contribution of length of exposure to English (LOE) to ELL reading comprehension was explored. LOE was indirectly related to reading comprehension through vocabulary. In Study 2, a composite vocabulary measure, which included receptive/expressive vocabulary breadth and vocabulary depth, was used as the outcome variable. Both EL1 and ELL students showed gradual linear improvements in vocabulary; however, ELLs consistently underperformed EL1s. Examination of underlying processes revealed that in both groups, morphological awareness is a unique contributor to vocabulary. For EL1s, nonverbal ability, phonological awareness, and maternal education were also significant contributors. Basic word reading and morphological awareness were the only predictors of ELL vocabulary. A direct link between vocabulary and LOE was confirmed at all time points for ELLs. Results revealed marginal evidence of transfer between L1 and L2 vocabulary. In Study 3 the relationship between reading comprehension and vocabulary breadth and depth was explored. Both vocabulary breadth and depth played significant roles in explaining individual differences in EL1 and ELL reading comprehension.
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) | 0,000 | 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 ».