Development of morphological spelling strategies in second language learners with and without reading disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects of language status and reading disability (RD) on children's spelling development of 2 inflectional morphemes: plural nouns and past tense verbs. The sample consisted of 46 English-as-a-second language (ESL) and 24 English-as-first language (EL1) students (35 non-RD, 35 RD) who were matched on a case-by-case basis on first language (L1) and non-verbal ability. The study (a) compared the development of morphological skills in spelling plural and past tense markers in ESL and EL1 students, (b) examined how correct spelling of stems relates to the spelling of the inflectional morphemes. Results indicated a similar pattern of development of the spelling of the target morphemes in ESLs and EL1s. Regardless of their L1, RD students lagged behind their non-RD counterparts. Children who spelled the stems correctly were more likely to spell accurately the inflectional morphemes. Implications are discussed within the context of ESL/EL1 and reading disabilities literature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".