Reading experience drives L2 reading speed development: a longitudinal study of EAL reading habits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The present longitudinal study tested the hypotheses that (i) learners become faster readers after intensive English language instruction, and that (ii) learners who read more English texts tend to make larger gains in reading speed. Methods Study participants were 142 L1 Cantonese or Mandarin English learners enrolled in an eight-month university bridging program. Participants completed a reading habits log each week, reporting information about their reading activity, including the type of texts they read, the amount of time they spent reading each text, and the number of pages they read. Results It was found that English language learners spent less time reading per page of text by program end, as shown by a significant linear weekly increase in reading speed. Critically, there was also a significant effect of reading experience: learners who read more pages of text than their peers during the bridging program tended to make the largest net gains in reading speed. Discussion The results support the idea that reading experience is a factor that contributes to reading speed development in English language learners.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".