MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803104719 · doi:10.5206/eei.v27i2.7755

Effect of an Arabic Program of Direct Instruction for Phonological Awareness on Phonological Awareness Abilities

2017· article· en· W2803104719 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hala Elhoweris, Negmeldin Alsheikh, Abdurrahman Al Mekhlafi, Najwa Alhosani, Mohammed Alzyoudi

Bibliographic record

VenueExceptionality Education International · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhonological awarenessArabicReading (process)PsychologyIntervention (counseling)Learning to readPhonemic awarenessDevelopmental psychologyMathematics educationPedagogyLiteracyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reading in Arabic is a vital skill for academic success and progress in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) elementary schools and beyond. However, there is substantial evidence to suggest that a significant number of UAE children in lower elementary grades experience difficulties in reading school-related materials. Research in reading has clearly documented that the lack of phonological awareness skills is a major contributor to reading difficulties. The aims of the present study were to (a) identify phonological awareness deficits among UAE’s struggling first-grade readers, (b) provide intervention in the area of phonological awareness deficits through direct training, (c) determine whether phonological awareness direct training significantly increases phonological awareness abilities, and (d) determine the effect of gender on the reading intervention. The results of this study indicate that a direct training intervention program in the UAE positively impacted struggling first-grade readers’ phonological awareness abilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.388 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExceptionality Education InternationalSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207