MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183574397

Engaging Young Readers with Text through Shared Reading Experiences

2012· article· en· W2183574397 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Barbara Honchell, Melissa Schulz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of inquiry and action in education · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Shared readingPunctuationMeaning (existential)LiteracyReading aloudPsychologyPedagogyMathematics educationComputer scienceLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores Shared Reading as an instructional approach that mimics home reading experiences in a group setting for young children. The article includes information about how to use enlarged text as the teacher provides experiences with books that first focus on the meaning and enjoyment of the story and then shifts to how print works and conventions that enhance the meaning of the story. The importance of being able to see the print in enlarged text that allows the teacher to extend the read aloud experience to include viewing print in big books and charts establishing the beginnings of visual attention to letters, words, and punctuation is examined. Shared reading is a form of “reading along” (McGill-Franzen, 2006) with children that helps them move from the emergent stage of reading to conventional reading of text. Based on our own classroom experiences, we see shared reading experiences as an effective classroom tool. Much has been written about the use of shared reading in first and second grade (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996; Taberski, 2000) yet it remains an untapped form of reading experience for pre-K and kindergarten children where read aloud is much more common. Shared reading can be used to assist in literacy growth for children ages three through six, as teachers provide reading opportunities that foster the early stages of literacy development. “Shared Reading is a collaborative literacy learning activity based on the research of Don Holdaway” (Parkes, 2000, p.1). Shared reading in school emulates and builds from the child’s experiences with bedtime or lap stories at home (Holdaway, 1979). The children in a group “share” the reading of the story with the teacher through the use of enlarged text (Parkes, 2000). According to New Zealander, Margaret Mooney (1990), children learn about reading by seeing and hearing reading in their everyday lives in much the same way they learn to talk. Shared reading enables teachers to model a form of reading which some, but not all, children experience through bedtime stories with parents or caregivers. Shared reading is a step between reading aloud and children doing their own reading (Parkes, 2000).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of inquiry and action in educationSame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207