PREDICTORS OF EARLY READING DEVELOPMENT IN A FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As globalization becomes more widespread and countries become more multicultural, there is an increased need to understand how to effectively promote the learning of foreign languages. An important part of that process relates to understanding how reading develops when a child is learning a new language. Researchers' focus on assessing students' foreign language oral language proficiency has not provided as much insight as expected into that development. This paper reports on a study of grade one students whose first language was English and who were being schooled in French as a second language. The context provided an ideal case in which to investigate how well variables in addition to oral language proficiency such as phonological awareness, word reading, memory, rapid automatized naming (RAN), and vocabulary predict reading development in a first and second language. Methods involved testing 47 Canadian students at the beginning and end of the school year. Findings revealed that word reading was the sole variable that predicted reading development within and across time and for the first and second language. Phonological awareness and RAN were the next most important variables, followed by memory and vocabulary. Oral language proficiency did not play a significant role. The results of this study suggest that those involved in assessing young children's first and second language reading should focus on word reading, phonological awareness, RAN and memory. As well, findings suggest that oral language proficiency in a foreign or second language may not be an accurate predictor of reading development. Keywords: predictors of early reading, elementary education, first language, second-language learning, bilingual education
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".