Implementation and Evaluation of a Chinese Language Family Literacy Program: Impact on Young Children's Literacy Development in Chinese and English
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research on family literacy in North America has generally been conducted in English, even if the program targets English for speakers of other languages. However, the differences in English proficiency among parent participants may vary enormously in ways that are not easily predictable. In addition to the differences in parent participants’ English proficiency and their concept and experience of instruction, parents from diverse cultural backgrounds also have differences in parental beliefs, parental roles in supporting educational achievement and communicating with the school. All these differences make the provision of family literacy programs which target minority families as one group a challenging endeavor, both in program design and implementation. This study investigated the potential learning outcomes when a family literacy program with language supports were provided to Chinese immigrant families. An eight-week (two hours per week) literacy program was implemented in three Chinese community centers in Ontario, Canada. The overall objectives of the study were to provide a Chinese family literacy program in the Chinese community using Chinese as the language of instruction, and to evaluate the impact of this culturally related family literacy program in terms of children’s gains in both English and Chinese. This study has shown that a family literacy intervention, adapted for use with Chinese preschoolers and their parents, can have a significant and positive impact on children’s literacy development in both English and Chinese. This study found that children’s expressive vocabulary (both in English and in Chinese) improved as a result of the intervention. Children’s knowledge of the alphabet and their ability to produce letter-sounds improved significantly more if their parents participated in the intervention. Further, it was shown that specific home literacy environments in Chinese and in English are related to children’s literacy development in both languages. In Chinese, the number of Chinese reading materials in the home had the greatest impact on children’s Chinese receptive and expressive vocabularies. In English, the age at which the child was first read to in English had the greatest impact on children’s English expressive vocabularies, their letter-sound production knowledge, and their early reading ability. The study has shown that the provision of culturally and linguistically appropriate family literacy support goes a long way in helping diverse families to foster optimal literacy experiences for their young children at home.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".