A kindergarten intervention study comparing rime and phoneme based programs and their effects on early literacy through computer literacy software : ABRACADABRA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the use of a new literacy software ABRACADABRA with pre-reading kindergarten students. The participants ( n=27) from one school were assigned randomly to one intervention group (rime or phoneme) and (n=17) school two served as a control. Ten hours of either a rime or phoneme ABRACADABRA intervention were employed to compare overall effectiveness of the software with regular classroom instruction. All participants were pre-tested at the onset of the study and post-tested following the intervention using eight highly sensitive measures to detect change in word reading strategies and phonemic skills specific to the two delivery methods. Measures were developed from previous studies and included blending and segmenting of matched CV (consonant-vowel), VC (vowel-consonant) words, high and low rime nonsense word reading, rime and coda articulation tasks. The results showed improvement in both interventions over the control on Letter-Sound knowledge and a combined reading task with a large advantage to the phoneme intervention in blending of VC words.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".