A Comparison of the Language Skills of ELLs and Monolinguals Who Are Poor Decoders, Poor Comprehenders, or Normal Readers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall objective of this article is to examine how oral language abilities relate to reading profiles in English language learners (ELLs) and English as a first language (EL1) learners, and the extent of similarities and differences between ELLs and EL1s in three reading subgroups: normal readers, poor decoders, and poor comprehenders. The study included 100 ELLs and 50 EL1s in Grade 5. The effect of language group (ELL/EL1) and reading group on cognitive and linguistic skills was examined. Except for vocabulary, there was no language group effect on any measure. However, within ELL and EL1 alike, significant differences were found between reading groups: Normal readers outperformed the two other groups on all the oral language measures. Distinct cognitive and linguistic profiles were associated with poor decoders and poor comprehenders, regardless of language group. The ELL and EL1 poor decoders outperformed the poor comprehenders on listening comprehension and inferencing. The poor decoders displayed phonological-based weaknesses, whereas the poor comprehenders displayed a more generalized language processing weakness that is nonphonological in nature. Regardless of language status, students with poor decoding or comprehension problems display difficulties with various aspects of language.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".