MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410522734 · doi:10.1111/1467-9817.70006

Examining the role of home literacy environment in the growth of morphological awareness from kindergarten to Grade 2

2025· article· en· W4410522734 on OpenAlexaff
Ioannis Grigorakis, George Manolitsis, Tomohiro Inoue, George K. Georgiou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Reading · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLiteracyAnalogyVocabularyContext (archaeology)Developmental psychologyEarly literacyEmergent literacyPhonological awarenessVocabulary developmentMathematics educationPedagogyTeaching methodLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Early morphological awareness skills are well‐known predictors of later literacy skills, but little is known on how young children develop this early morphological knowledge without formal instruction. Home literacy environment is considered as a supporting context for several early literacy skills' growth, but no studies have examined effects on early morphological awareness growth. The purpose of this study was to examine the direct and indirect effects of different aspects of the home literacy environment (HLE; code‐related HLE, meaning‐related HLE and access to literacy resources) in the growth of morphological awareness (MA) skills. Methods One hundred and sixty Greek children (79 girls and 81 boys; M age = 67.22 months) were assessed in kindergarten on letter knowledge, phonological awareness and vocabulary. Their MA skills (Word Analogy and Compounding) were also assessed in kindergarten, Grade 1 and Grade 2. Their parents filled out an HLE questionnaire when their children were in kindergarten. Results Results of structural equation modelling showed that code‐related HLE had both a direct effect on the intercept of Word Analogy and an indirect effect on the growth of Word Analogy and the intercept of Compounding through letter knowledge. In turn, access to literacy resources predicted the intercept of Word Analogy and Compounding indirectly through the effects of vocabulary. Conclusions Taken together, the present findings suggest that HLE is important in the early stages of MA development, but its effects are mostly mediated by the emergent literacy skills.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in ReadingSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207