MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010476031 · doi:10.1002/dys.1654

A computer‐based Pinyin intervention for disadvantaged children in China: Effects on Pinyin skills, phonological awareness, and character reading

2020· article· en· W3010476031 on OpenAlexaff
Yixun Li, Xi Chen, Hong Li, Xiaotian Sheng, Liu Chen, Ulla Richardson, Heikki Lyytinen

Bibliographic record

VenueDyslexia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Beijing MunicipalityMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPinyinPhonological awarenessPsychologyDisadvantagedFluencyChinese charactersReading (process)PsycholinguisticsLiteracyLinguisticsMathematics educationPedagogyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pinyin is an alphabetic script that denotes pronunciations of Chinese characters. Studies have shown that Pinyin instruction enhances both phonological awareness (e.g., Shu et al., Developmental Science, 2008, 11, 171-181) and character reading (e.g., Lin et al., Psychological Science, 2010, 21, 1117-1122) in Chinese children. In the present study, we provided a 3-week Pinyin intervention with a computer-based Pinyin GraphoGame to disadvantaged migrant children with poor Pinyin skills. A total of 252 first graders who were children of migrant workers in a large Chinese city were assessed to identify poor Pinyin readers. Fifty-six 7-year-old children with poor Pinyin skills were selected and randomly divided into a training group and a control group, with 28 children in each group. The training group played the Pinyin GraphoGame for 3 weeks, while the control group received school instruction only during the same period. Results showed that the children in the training group outperformed their peers in the control group on Pinyin reading accuracy and fluency, onset-rime and phonemic awareness, and character reading. These results suggest that the Pinyin GraphoGame may be a cost-effective method to enhance Pinyin and literacy outcomes for underprivileged children in China.

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)0.000
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDyslexiaSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207