First‐grade latino students' english‐reading growth in all‐english classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two main questions were addressed in this study: (1) How does first‐grade Latino English‐language learners’ growth in English instructional reading level and selected word‐level reading subprocesses (ability to read words in isolation, phonemic awareness, and phonics) compare to their monolingual native‐English‐speaking peers’ growth?; and (2) Does first‐grade Latino English‐language learners’ English reading growth (instructional reading level and selected word‐level reading subprocesses) vary according to their oral English language abilities? Participants were 47 students in two first‐grade classrooms—28 were Latino English‐language learners, and 19 were monolingual native‐English speakers. At each of two points in time—mid‐year and end‐of‐year—three reading measures were administered to all participants and an additional four oral‐English measures were administered to the Latino participants. To address the first research question, repeated measures analyses of variance were performed, first using Instructional Reading Level as the dependent variable, then with follow‐up analyses to examine growth in word‐level sub‐processes of reading. The second research question was addressed using repeated measures analyses of covariance. Main findings were that language status (Latino English learners versus monolingual native‐English speakers) was not related to Instructional Reading growth or growth in word‐level subprocesses of reading, and Overall English Oral Ability was not related to Instructional Reading Level growth, but was related to word‐level reading sub‐processes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".