The effect of training in gross motor and fine motor skills on the improvement of reading in a selected group of grade one students.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of special motor training on a group of grade one pupils who were having difficulty in reading. Ten grade one students were selected from the Sir Richard McBride Elementary School in Vancouver. These pupils were classed as potentially poor readers on the basis of the Metropolitan Reading Readiness Test and the Winter Haven Perceptual Copy Forms Test. A matched group of ten pupils, which would act as a control group, was selected from the Annex to the McBride School. The two groups were matched according to age, sex, and the results of the reading readiness s test and the perceptual form test. The experimental group received sixteen weeks of special motor training which was carried on for one hour a day, five days a week. At the completion of the training period all subjects were given the Stanford Achievement Test and the Winter Haven Perceptual Form Test. The differences between the means of the raw scores of the two groups were statistically analyzed. The t-test was used and the t required for significance at the .05 level of confidence was 2.10. The t's obtained indicated a very significant improvement of the experimental group over the control group in reading ability. The following indicated the obtained t on each item of the reading test plus the perceptual form test. 1. Word Meaning 10.38 2. Paragraph Meaning 5.35 3. Spelling 5.83 4. Word Study Skills 4.04 5. Perceptual Form 11.11 There was no significant difference in vocabulary. Because of certain experimental conditions which could not be controlled, it could not definitely be indicated that the improvement was due entirely to the motor skills program. The apparent lack of direct relationship between levels of perceptual ability and reading achievement raises several questions. Further information is needed before the reason for apparent differences between improvement in perceptual and reading skills following a special motor training program can be understood.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".