MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6997169509

Using Online Training Modules to Enhance Parents' Early Literacy Training Skills and Understanding

2022· article· en· W6997169509 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Session (web analytics)Test (biology)Quality (philosophy)Psychological interventionLiteracySample (material)Early literacy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parental involvement is considered a crucial factor in developing children’s early literacy and reading skills, especially for children not yet in school. The present study aims to determine whether an online literacy module can increase early literacy knowledge in parents who may not have the training to promote their child’s learning. Additionally, the study examines parent perspectives of online video training and the practicality of the video’s content. To test the hypothesis that parent knowledge will increase after exposure to the online video, 29 Canadian parents (27 mothers, two fathers) with children aged 3 to 5 were provided with supervised training via an online module regarding shared book reading strategies. Parents completed a pre-test survey, followed by exposure to the reading module, then they were re-surveyed in one session. Parents also recorded a shared reading session with their child and completed a final post-practice survey. Overall, parents’ knowledge regarding dialogic reading constructs increased from pre- to post- viewing of the module (smallest t(28) = 10.23, p < .001). Parents demonstrated the ability to accurately engage in the strategies taught through the online video module when reading with their child. When parents rated the quality of the various design and content features of the online video module, their mean scores approached ceiling levels (means exceeding 4.0 on a 5-point scale). Although the sample size for the present study was small, information gathered from this study contributes to the existing literature regarding effective parental interventions and in particular, the study suggests that the accessible online shared-reading module may be sufficient to enhance some dialogic reading strategies. The discussion considers further considerations to more fully understand how to support parents in their role in supporting the early literacy skills of their children.\nKeywords: shared book reading, early literacy development, online parent supports

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University)Same topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207