A systematic literature review and proposal examining the effectiveness of parent-mediated intervention in emergent literacy and its implications for socially disadvantaged Aboriginal preschool children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developing secure literacy skills in early childhood has positive impacts on future outcomes and successes in a child’s life (Wilson et al. 2016; City of Edinburgh Literacy Strategy 2012). Children from areas of socio-economic disadvantage (SD), particularly those belonging to ethnic minority groups, are at an increased risk of falling behind in literacy development and of acquiring speech, language, and communication impairments or delays (Wilson et al. 2016). Parents and carers are the first people in children’s lives who can aid in fostering these language and literacy skills (Sloat et al. 2014; Sheridan et al. 2011). However, multiple factors in SD ethnic minority families may hinder a parent’s ability to provide the support that their child needs to succeed in literacy development (Caesar and Nelson 2014). Structured parent-mediated intervention programmes that take these factors into account may reduce the risk of speech, language, and communication needs and future literacy difficulties. This systematic literature review and proposed study aims to evaluate the impacts of parent-mediated intervention programmes on SD ethnic minority preschool children’s outcomes in literacy and how these findings may benefit these at-risk populations. In Canada, over 50% of Aboriginal peoples live below the poverty line, with 70% of the Aboriginal population under the age of 5 at risk of poor literacy development (Gualti 2013). There is a notable lack of research on Canadian Aboriginal populations, which are at high risk of speech, language and communication impairments and poor literacy skills (Ball 2008a). This proposed study will investigate the effects of a modified parent-mediated literacy intervention on preschool-aged Aboriginal children in Canada, using the Moe the Mouse® programme as the platform of delivery.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".