LA RELATION ENTRE LE STYLE D'INTERVENTION DE L'ENSEIGNANTE EN LECTURE ET LE PROGRÈS DES ÉLÈVES À RISQUE EN PREMIÈRE ANNÉE DU PRIMAIRE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUME. Cette etude vise a identifier les styles d'intervention efficaces en lecture en premiere annee. Des observations mensuelles ont ete effectuees dans 18 classes lors d'activites de lecture en debut de premiere annee. Les progres des eleves (n=143) ont ete evalues en conscience phonologique et en ecriture provisoire. Les resultats revelent que les enseignantes utilisant les styles Explication, Modelage et Etayage favorisent le progres en conscience phonologique des eleves plus que celles empruntant les styles Information et Questionnement ferme. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERVENTION STYLES IN THE TEACHING OF READING AND THE PROGRESS OF FIRST YEAR PRIMARY STUDENTS AT RISK ABSTRACT. This study aims at identifying effective intervention styles for reading in first grade. Early in the first year, monthly observations were completed in 18 classes during reading activities. Students' progress (n = 143) in phonological awareness and invented spelling was evaluated. Results show that teachers using Explanation, Modeling and Support enhance progress in students' phonological awareness more 50 than those using Information and Closed Questioning styles.
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 | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".