First Language, Reading Skills in the Language of Instruction, and First-Semester Grades in a Canadian University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study of first-year students in a Canadian university examined linguistic diversity and assessed associations with academic performance and reading abilities in English, the language of instruction. Among 68 students, 19 spoke English as a second language (secondary anglophones). Compared with 49 primary anglophones, these students' first-semester grades were modestly lower. More sizable discrepancies between the two student groups were noted on academic reading skills in English (vocabulary and reading comprehension). With vocabulary as a covariate, the groups no longer differed significantly on university grades. Primary and secondary anglophone groups reported similar high school grades, years of parental education, and overall use of study strategies. Cognitive, metacognitive, and socioemotional variables embedded in secondary anglophone status may attenuate adverse effects of lower reading skills in English on grades. Educators should consider ways in which early university programs can boost reading in primary and, especially, secondary anglophone students.
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".