Growth and predictors of change in English language learners' reading comprehension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study modelled reading comprehension trajectories in Grades 4 to 6 English language learners (ELLs = 400), with different home language backgrounds, and in English monolinguals (EL1s = 153), and examined an augmented Simple View of Reading model. The contribution of Grade 1 (early) and Grade 4 (late) cognitive, language and word‐level reading to Grade 6 reading comprehension was examined. The reading comprehension trajectory was non‐linear in ELLs but linear in EL1s. Syntax predicted consistently rate of growth in reading comprehension. ELLs consistently underperformed EL1s on reading comprehension. Word‐level reading and all components of language (vocabulary, syntax and listening comprehension) remained stable predictors of Grade 6 reading comprehension. Grade 1 phonological awareness, naming speed and working memory predicted reading comprehension in Grade 6, as did Grade 4 phonological short‐term memory. Results support an augmented Simple View of Reading that includes cognitive, word‐level and language components, and underscore the importance of considering developmental changes in the constructs.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".