Individual differences in second language reading outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined whether individual variance in letter-name knowledge and phonological processing assessed in English (L1) in kindergarten French immersion students predicts their French (L2) decoding and reading comprehension scores at the end of grade 1; whether L2 oral language factors also contribute significantly to predictions of variability in L2 reading outcomes beyond knowledge of the alphabet and phonological processing; and whether the Simple View of Reading — SVR — (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) applies cross-linguistically as well as intra-linguistically. We administered a comprehensive battery of predictor tests that have been correlated with L1 decoding and comprehension skills in English to English-speaking students in early total French immersion at the beginning and end of kindergarten. Tests of word and pseudo-word decoding and reading comprehension in French were given at the end of grade 1. The best kindergarten predictors of L2 decoding were knowledge of the alphabetic principle in English, phonological awareness in English, and knowledge of French at kindergarten entry. The same variables were significant predictors of French reading comprehension, with the added contribution of scores related to oral language skills in L1. The results provide support for the SVR intra-linguistically, but not cross-linguistically.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".