MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402528495 · doi:10.1080/00220671.2024.2399135

Effect of a whole-group intervention on children’s participation in interactive book reading

2024· article· en· W4402528495 on OpenAlexafffund
Paméla McMahon‐Morin, Bouchra Nasri, Ingrid Verduyckt, Stefano Rezzonico, Marie-Pier Gingras

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Educational Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
KeywordsReading (process)Intervention (counseling)Group (periodic table)PsychologyMathematics educationDevelopmental psychologyLinguisticsPhilosophyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the effects of an SLP-delivered whole-class interactive book reading intervention and a professional development program on children’s self-initiated participation. Eleven kindergarten teachers and the children in their classes participated in this quasi-experimental study. They were filmed during book reading at pre- and post-intervention, and follow-up. Children’s types of spontaneous comments appeared to be more diverse after the intervention, and the types that increased or emerged were consistent with the language targets of the interactive book reading. Nonparametric statistical tests were conducted. Significant changes were found in the number of hands raised by children to make a spontaneous comment and in the number of spontaneous comments after the intervention and at follow-up. Results for child-initiated interaction sequences were mitigated. This study invites school-based SLPs to foster children’s self-initiated participation in their tier-1 intervention and to support teachers in using children’s spontaneous comments to further scaffold children’s learning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.436 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207