Struggling readers in Saskatoon French immersion schools: a mixed methods study examining strategies for support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to find out the most effective methods and strategies to teach reading in Saskatoon French immersion schools and to learn how to implement them myself. In order to do this, I used a descriptive survey and followed the survey through action research. I surveyed my Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools colleagues about what their preferred strategies were for successfully teaching reading. From the responses, I pulled two of the most popular strategies and learned more about them. The two strategies were phonological awareness instruction and direct decoding instruction. I then implemented these strategies in a class of 25 grade one French immersion students, while doing action research. I used each strategy to teach reading for the duration of three weeks, and did pre-tests and post-tests for each. During the implementation, I kept field notes and a researcher journal in order to document my journey and my findings. My findings show that phonological awareness instruction is a very effective strategy for supporting students who are struggling read, and direct decoding instruction is also effective. They as well show that students who are struggling to read can be supported in the classroom in a Tier 1 setting.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".