Dialogic Reading in multilingual contexts: Chinese-Canadian parents’ practices and perspectives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines how parent–child interactions evolve following dialogic reading (DR) instruction for parents and parents’ perspectives on DR. Chinese-Canadian parents (N = 29) and their three- to six-year-old child participated. Data was gathered via a questionnaire, observations of parent–child dyads while reading a Chinese and a societal language book, reading logs, and focus groups. A mixed model showed that dyads engaged in significantly more dialogic talk following the DR instruction than at pretest, irrespective of the book’s language. Via the reading logs and focus groups, parents reported positive experiences with DR and a willingness to continue using it, but expressed concerns regarding their knowledge or skills, the divergence of DR from home practices, practical constraints, and child resistance. The findings indicate DR’s potential to enrich parent–child interactions but also highlight challenges in sustaining DR that can inform practice with families raising their child with more than one language.
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it