A Developmental Examination of Narrative Writing in EL and EL1 School Children Who Are Typical Readers, Poor Decoders, or Poor Comprehenders
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This longitudinal study examined story-writing development of students from Grade 4 to Grade 6, comparing the developmental trajectories of English as a first language (EL1s; n = 43) and English learners (ELs; n = 108) in general, and in groups of EL1s and ELs with typically developing and poor reader profiles. In relation to their EL1 or EL reference group, students were classified in Grade 4 as typical readers ( n = 72), poor decoders ( n = 53), or poor comprehenders ( n = 26), with EL1s and ELs proportionally represented in each group. The effects of language, grade level, and reading group on story-writing measures were examined. Both EL1s and ELs developed story-writing skills in a similar manner, showing significant growth between Grades 4 and 6. Typically developing ELs attained age-appropriate story-writing levels. Poor decoders and poor comprehenders showed similar profiles of strengths and weaknesses, regardless of whether English was their first or second language. Both poor reader groups had significant difficulties in story-writing, struggling with the mechanics of writing, sentence structure, and story organization. Findings are discussed in terms of the interconnected relationship between reading and writing profiles, and the importance of a comprehensive understanding of sources of learning difficulties in ELs and EL1s.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it