Morphological Awareness in French Immersion Learners: Within- and Cross-Language Effects on Reading Comprehension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This longitudinal study examined the within- and cross-language contributions of English and French morphological awareness to gains in reading comprehension between Grades 2 and 3 among English-French bilinguals. Canadian children (N = 115; 54% females, Mage in Grade 2 = 7 years, 10 months, SD = 3.6 months, 73% English-L1 children) enrolled in French immersion programs were tested on morphological awareness, word reading, and vocabulary in Grade 2, and reading comprehension in Grades 2 and 3 in English and French. Bayesian structural equation modeling was used for data analysis. The within-language findings showed a direct contribution of Grade 2 morphological awareness to gains in reading comprehension in Grade 3 in both English and French. The cross-language findings indicated a language transfer effect from Grade 2 French morphological awareness to Grade 3 English reading comprehension. Grade 2 English morphological awareness did not contribute directly to gains in Grade 3 French reading comprehension. Our research elucidates the interplay between L1 and L2 word-level skills and text comprehension among English-French bilingual children. It has implications for theoretical models of bilingual reading and for instruction of children learning to read in an L2 through immersion education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".