The Effects of a Parent-child Reading Project on the Development of French Prereading Skills in Innu-speaking Kindergartners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study assesses the effects of a parent-child reading project on the development of a variety of French prereading skills in Innu-speaking Kindergartners over the course of a school year. Phonological memory, expressive and receptive lexical knowledge, morphosyntactic knowledge, and basic arithmetic concepts were tested in two subgroups of a single cohort, one composed of participants in a parent-child reading project (experimental group) and the other composed of non-participants (control group). The results show that both groups made gains against French mother tongue age-level norms over the course of the year. The experimental group, whose members started the year with higher skill levels in a number of areas, improved more and on a greater variety of tasks than the control group. While the actual role the reading project played in the children’s gains cannot be determined because of intertwining of factors, bringing books into homes and informing parents about the importance of reading likely had a positive effect on project participants. Résumé Cette étude examine l’impact d’un projet de lecture parent-enfant sur le développement des habiletés préalables à l’apprentissage de la lecture chez les enfants innus inscrits à la maternelle. Nous avons comparé les résultats obtenus par deux groupes d’enfants—un dont les membres participaient au projet de lecture (groupe expérimental) et un dont les membres ne participaient pas (groupe de contrôle)—à une variété de tâches en utilisant un protocole expérimental pré-test, intervention, post-test. Alors que les deux groupes ont fait de bons progrès au cours de l’année scolaire, rattrapant une partie de leur retard initial par rapport aux normes francophones, le groupe expérimental a fait des gains plus importants. Le rôle exact joué par la lecture dyadique dans ces gains n’a pas pu être mesuré avec précision à cause d’un croisement de facteurs, mais certaines indications nous laissent croire que l’introduction de livres dans les foyers des participants a eu des retombées très positives.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".