Effects of year of post‐secondary study on reading skills for L1 and L2 speakers of English
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Previous studies show that students improve communication skills throughout post‐secondary study proportionately to first‐year ability, yet important questions remain. How does post‐secondary affect the development of reading comprehension and related skills? How does this development vary between L1 and L2 speakers, and how much change occurs each year? Methods We administered a cross‐sectional battery of tests of reading proficiency to undergraduate university students in all years of study. The tests included measures of reading comprehension and multiple component skills: vocabulary, spelling, print exposure, reading habits and motivation. Results Results show that year of study confers a direct effect on component skills of reading. Skill trajectories of L1 and L2 students vary widely – across all skills tested, L1 students in Year 4+ show an average advantage of 12.60 percentile points compared with those in Year 1, whereas the average advantage of L2 students in Year 4+ over Year 1 peers is 29.20 percentile points. No difference between L1 and L2 readers, or between years of study, was observed in reading comprehension. Conclusions Post‐secondary education confers sizable benefits to all examined component skills of English reading, especially in L2 students. While L2 students in Year 1 are disadvantaged in most skills, L2 students in Year 4+ close the performance gap with L1 speakers on all skills. This suggests an ‘anti‐Matthew’ effect, with most benefits seen in the initially underperforming population. These findings quantify the effectiveness of university itself and also its differential impact on students with different language backgrounds. The apparent dissociation between a change in component skills of reading and stability in reading comprehension scores remains puzzling: we outline avenues for further investigation of this issue.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".