MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255818651

Closing the summer learning gap for vulnerable junior kindergarten students

2011· dissertation· en· W2255818651 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ashley Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University) · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracyCurriculumPillarTest (biology)PsychologyReading (process)Mathematics educationLearning disabilityLearning to readPedagogyDevelopmental psychologyPolitical scienceEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under current academic calendars across North America, summer vacation creates a 
\nsignificant gap in the learning cycle. I t has been argued that this gap actually decreases student 
\nachievement levels over the course of the summer. In a synthesis of 39 studies Cooper, Nye, 
\nCharlton, Lindsay, & Greathouse (1996) indicated that summer learning loss equaled at least one 
\nmonth of instruction as measured by grade level equivalents on standardized test scores whereby 
\nchildren's test scores were at least one month lower when they returned to school in the fall than 
\nscores were when students left in the summer. Specifically, Cooper et aI., (1996) found that the 
\nsummer learning loss phenomena may be particularly troublesome for less advantaged children 
\nincluding those with speech and language delays, children at-risk for reading disabilities, 
\nchildren from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and children learning English as a second 
\nlanguage. In general, research illustrated clearly that the summer learning gap can be particularly 
\nproblematic for vulnerable children and furthermore, that literacy skills may be the area of 
\nachievement that is most affected. 
\nA foundational pillar to this research project is including primary caregivers as authentic 
\npartners in a summer literacy program designed to support their children's literacy needs. This 
\npillar led the research team to use the Learning Begins at Home: A Research-Based Family 
\nLiteracy Program Curriculum designed by Antoinette Doyle, Kathleen Hipfner-Boucher, and 
\nJanette Pelletier from the Ontario Institute for the Studies of Education. The LBH program is 
\ndesigned to be flexibly adapted to suit the needs of each individual participating family. As 
\nindicated by Timmons (2008) literacy interventions are most powerful when they include 
\nauthentic family involvement. Based on this research, a requirement for participating in the summer literacy program was involvement of a child and one of their primary caregivers. The 
\nparticipating caregiver was integrally involved in the program, participating in workshop 
\nactivities prior to and following hands-on literacy work with their child. By including primary 
\ncaregivers as authentic partners, the research team encouraged a paradigmatic shift in the family 
\nwhereby literacy activities become routine within their household. 
\n5 
\nParticipants in this study were 14 children from junior kindergarten classrooms within the 
\nNiagara Catholic District School Board. As children were referred to the program, they were 
\nassessed by a trained emergent literacy specialist (from Speech Services Niagara) to identify 
\nwhether they met the eligibility requirements for participation in the summer program. To be 
\neligible to participate, children demonstrated significant literacy needs (i.e. below 25%ile on the 
\nTest of Preschool Early Literacy described below). Children with low incidence disabilities (i.e. 
\nprofound sensory impairments, severe intellectual impairments, developmental disabilities, etc) 
\nwere excluded as participants. The research team used a standard pre- and posttest design 
\nwhereby all participating children were assessed with the Test of Preschool Early Literacy 
\n(Lonigan et aI., 2007), and a standard measure of letter names and sounds. Pretests were 
\nadministered two weeks prior to the commencement of the program and the first set of posttests 
\nwas administered immediately following the program. A second set of posttests was 
\nadministered in December 2009 to measure the sustainability of the program. 
\nAs a result of the program, all children scored statistically significantly higher on their 
\nliteracy scores at the post-program assessment point immediately following the program and also 
\nat the Dec-post-program assessment point. These results in general indicated that the summer 
\nfamily literacy program made an immediate impact on the emergent literacy skills of participating children. All participating children demonstrated significant increases in print and 
\nphonological awareness as well as their letter sound understanding.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University)Same topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207