THE EFFECT OF BALANCED STRATEGY INSTRUCTION ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER LITERACY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Language Learner (ELL) achievement on standardized testing in a second language (L2; English) has been shown to be compromised due to L2 literacy deficits demonstrated by many of these students (Cheng, Fox, & Zheng, 2007; Solorzano, 2008; Zheng, Cheng, & Klinger, 2007). ELL achievement results on the Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSSD) literacy requirement, the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT), have remained consistently a minimum of 10% below that of students whose first language (L1) is English (Education Quality and Accountability Office, 2015a). The focus of this quasi-experimental study was to improve ELL L2 literacy, specifically achievement of reading skills, using a targeted intervention which consisted of a series of balanced strategy literacy sessions. This explicitly instructed balanced strategy literacy program was delivered in an after school format to secondary school ELL students who were randomly assigned to treatment (use of L1 and L2) and sub-treatment groups (use of L2 only). Balanced strategy instruction utilized the construction-integration model of reading comprehension (Kintsch, 1988) as a direct application of social-cognitive constructivist theory to engage students in the building of L2 literacy skills through choral reading, guided reading, independent reading, peer discussions and high interest vocabulary development. Research results indicated that the treatment method used did not have a significant effect on ELL achievement of reading skills in L2, as measured by the 2014 OSSLT in comparison to pre-intervention achievement on the 2010 OSSLT. Research results also indicated higher achievement levels on the 2014 OSSLT for ELL students who had greater exposure to L2 development (e.g., prior courses, daily practice). Following the study, the ELL students’ development of L2 literacy skills continued within the context of secondary school credit courses towards successful completion of the OSSD. These findings suggest that more research is needed to determine the effective implementation of balanced strategy literacy programming as a support to ELL demonstration of graduation diploma requirements.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".