The Association Between Morphological Awareness and Literacy in English Language Learners From Different Language Backgrounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The main goal of this study was to examine whether the morphological structure of a child's first language determined the strength of association between morphological awareness and reading and spelling skills in English, their second language. Methods: The sample consisted of 888 Grade six students who had English as their first language and 244 English Language Learners (ELLs) who came from seven home language backgrounds: Chinese, Filipino, Germanic, Korean, Persian, Romance, and Slavic. Participants were given a series of standardized tests for word reading, reading comprehension, and spelling, and experimental measures of morphological, phonological, and syntactic awareness, as well as reading fluency and reading comprehension. Results: The results revealed that children in the ELL groups differed from the English monolingual group mostly on the oral language tasks, but their reading skills were high and equivalent to those of the monolingual group. Moreover, it was confirmed that morphological awareness is important for all aspects of reading and spelling, and its influence is independent of that of phonological awareness and syntactic awareness. Conclusion: The associations between morphological awareness and reading and spelling in a second language seem to be influenced by the morphological structure of the home language, such that the association was stronger for children whose home languages were morphologically transparent.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".