The influence of newborn early literacy intervention programs in three canadian provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low levels of literacy in early childhood can have lasting effects on children's educational and intellectual development. Many countries have implemented newborn literacy programs designed to teach parents pre-literacy promoting activities to share with their children. We conducted 2 quasi-experimental studies using 1) a pre-test/post-test design and 2) a non-equivalent control group design to examine the effect of newborn literacy programs on parents' self-reported literacy intentions/behaviors, values toward literacy, and parent-child interactions. Parents were recruited from 3 provinces, 2 with newborn literacy programs (intervention) and 1 without (control). Parents in the intervention group completed prenatal and postnatal (after participation in program) questionnaires. Parents in the control group completed 1 questionnaire. Questionnaires were designed to capture parents' literacy intentions (prenatal), behaviors (postnatal), values, and parent-child interactions (postnatal). A total of 98 parents were included in study one and 174 were included in study two. Parents' self-reported prenatal intentions and values were higher than their postnatal behaviors and values. Parents in the intervention group exhibited higher literacy behaviors and values and greater enjoyment reading to their children than parents in the control group, though they also reported reading to their children less frequently. Parents in the intervention group had significantly higher Positive Interactive scores than controls. Overall, we found participation in newborn literacy programs positively impacted parenting behaviors and attitudes. Lower postnatal within-group scores (intentions and values versus behaviors and values) may have been the result of participants' high expectations. Given our findings, we recommend that these programs continue.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".