Understanding the Language Bases of Poor Reading Comprehension in English and French
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This dissertation is comprised of three studies that investigate characteristics of reading comprehension difficulties among children who receive school instruction in a second language (L2) in Canadian French immersion programs. The first study examines the overlap and stability of poor reading comprehension in English and French for a group of 8-year-old children enrolled in early French immersion programs. The primary aim of this study was to determine the extent to which those identified as having poor reading comprehension in English also demonstrate poor reading comprehension in French. Poor comprehenders of English and French, of English-only, and of French-only were compared on English and French vocabulary measures, concurrently and retrospectively. Children who were poor comprehenders in English and French scored significantly lower on English vocabulary at ages 6 and 8 compared to poor comprehenders in French-only. Lower scores on French vocabulary at age 8 distinguished poor comprehenders in French-only from poor comprehenders in English-only. The second study supplements the above findings through a retrospective case study that examines the early development of English and French decoding and vocabulary skills for a poor and average comprehender in French immersion. The findings suggest that relative to average comprehenders (who demonstrate average decoding and vocabulary combined with average reading comprehension) poor comprehenders show early and persistent difficulties with English and French vocabulary despite average decoding ability in both languages. Finally, the third study explores similarities and differences in components of English and French language comprehension among 10- to 11-year-old English-French bilingual children in French immersion and English monolingual children in mainstream programs. Three groups of comprehenders matched on age, nonverbal reasoning, English word reading accuracy and fluency were identified in each program: poor, average, and good. The three groups differed in English vocabulary, morphological awareness, and inference in both bilingual and monolingual groups, with poor comprehenders performing significantly lower than good comprehenders on these tasks. English inference also distinguished between poor and average comprehenders. Similar results were found in French for the bilingual group. French vocabulary and morphological awareness distinguished between poor and good comprehenders, and French semantics and inference distinguished between poor and good comprehenders and poor and average comprehenders. Together, these studies suggest that poor comprehenders experience similar and persistent difficulties with components of language in both L1 and L2.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».