A Seasonal Comparison of the Effectiveness of Parent Engagement on Student Literacy Achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parent engagement is often promoted as a remedy for reducing achievement gaps between students from high socio-economic and low socio-economic backgrounds. However, researchers have found mixed results when examining parent engagement and student outcomes. Drawing on a study investigating the effectiveness of summer literacy camps offered by schools in Ontario, I compare the influence of parent engagement on two outcomes: (1) spring snapshot of cumulative learning, and (2) summer literacy growth/loss. In considering summer learning in regression analysis, I aim to investigate the effect of parent engagement without the influence of schools during the academic year. Out of 14 parent engagement measures, I find only three (parents’ aspirations, home resources, discussions of school with children) are positive predictors of spring literacy outcomes and that none predict summer literacy growth/loss. Family socio-economic status remains a powerful predictor of achievement for both outcomes. I interpret my findings within three proposed mechanisms of parent engagement: cultivation ethic, realist reaction, and expressive logic. Keywords: parent engagement, literacy achievement, socio-economic status, inequality, summer learning, summer literacy camp(s)
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".