The Impact of a Cognitive and Motivational Reading Intervention on the Reading Achievement and Motivation of Students At-Risk for Reading Difficulties
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 research assessed the impact of combining small-group cognitive reading intervention with a motivational program targeting students’ goals, emotions, and self-efficacy beliefs on the reading performance and motivation of third-grade students at risk for reading difficulties ( n = 25, M age = 8.99, SD = 0.38). Using a quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test efficacy trial design, effects of the intervention on phonological awareness, listening comprehension, accuracy, fluency, reading comprehension, and motivation were assessed. Results indicate that compared with students who received Cognitive-Only reading intervention, students who received the combined Cognitive plus Motivational reading intervention showed greater gains in reading comprehension and phonological awareness. Findings provide preliminary evidence that supplementing cognitive reading intervention with the proposed motivational program can improve the reading performance of students at risk for reading difficulties.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it