The effects of explicitly teaching and promoting phonemic awareness to senior kindergarten students at a compensatory education school.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to examine various effects of explicitly teaching and promoting phonemic awareness. Forty-two senior kindergarten students participated in the study. The 21 students who made up the experimental group attended school Monday to Friday during the morning part of the day, and the control group, made up of 21 senior kindergarten students, attended school during the afternoon. Sixteen of the 42 participants were second language speakers of English. The mean age was 52.4 months. A pretest of phonemic awareness was administered to all participants. After the pretest, the experimental group were explicitly taught a variety of phonemic awareness lessons over an eight-week-period while the control group only received their regular language instruction. Both groups were posttested. A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed significant differences between group and pretest and posttest scores. One-way ANOVAs revealed no significant differences between the test scores of male and female participants, between a participant's birth quarter and their test scores, and the scores of those whose first language was English and those whose was not. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2005 .C36. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 44-03, page: 1101. Thesis (M.Ed.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2005.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".