Understanding the importance of parent learning in a school-based family literacy programme
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined how parents’ own learning affected their support for their children in a school-based Family Literacy Programme. Seventy-two children in junior kindergarten (4-year-olds) and senior kindergarten (5-year-olds) and their parents participated in the programme; complete data were available for 52 parents. Comparisons of pre- and post-programme parent surveys indicated that there was no significant difference in how parents viewed their role in affecting their child’s reading as a result of the programme. However, parents’ teaching behaviour and provision of literacy activity (library visits) with their children significantly increased as a result of the programme. Furthermore, parents’ reported level of enjoyment of literacy activities with their children increased significantly in the areas of reading, drawing and writing. Finally, parents’ goals for attending the programme were aligned with what they described learning from the programme. The results suggest that family literacy programmes help parents to gain literacy knowledge and skills that they then incorporate in daily interactions with their children, particularly when programme objectives match parents’ goals. The findings suggest that parents may benefit from longer programmes to provide them with additional learning strategies for engaging in literacy activities with their children.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it