The effect of an extensive reading program on the reading proficiency and vocabulary knowledge of adult ESL readers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Provincial and federal government surveys and commissions have consistently reported that English literacy training for adults with no or limited English is urgently needed and that access to training is limited. The effectiveness of existing literacy training programs and instructional strategies at the adult level has not been well researched. However, at the classroom level literacy training can be easily compromised by instructional strategies that limit the concept of full-literacy by focusing ESL literacy instruction on survival, functional and skill-building reading experiences. English and second language reading research suggests that student self-selection of reading materials and a high exposure to text are effective means of increasing vocabulary knowledge and reading proficiency. This study examined the effect of an Extensive Reading program on reading proficiency and vocabulary knowledge for 2 classes (N=33) of adult low intermediate ESL learners enrolled in a 15 week English language training program at a large Canadian community college. This quasi-experimental treatment group participated in a reading program supplemental to their regular classroom reading instruction. Subjects met weekly with the researcher and self-selected reading material from a collection of graded readers. Data on the frequency of the students' reading, their preferences in reading topics and materials and self-evaluations of their first and second language reading abilities were tallied for subjects in both groups. No statistical significant differences were found for the treatment in the analysis of assessments of reading and vocabulary. However, the experimental group posted higher gains in the group mean score on reading proficiency than the control group. Analysis of the Reading Behavior Survey suggests subjects in both groups were low frequency readers (less than 5 hours of reading time in English per week) who generally evaluated themselves fair to good readers in L2 but good to excellent readers in LI. The inconclusive results for the effect of the treatment on reading proficiency and vocabulary acquisition implies the need for future studies on the effectiveness of extensive reading programs on literacy training in ESL programs where literacy in English is a concern for students and educators.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".