Effective classroom contexts to develop literacy and attention skills for typical at-risk first grade students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inattention and reading problems are commonly recognized as co-occurring difficulties that are associated with academic underachievement. However, studies in both domains of research tend to focus on discrete interventions, with fewer observational studies of naturally existing teaching practices associated with growth in children's reading and behavioural development. The present study used a nested design (n=18 classrooms; 285 first grade students) and hierarchical linear modeling to assess different aspects of literacy teaching as predictors of change in students' reading and attention in a sample of first grade students in Quebec. Observations of literacy teaching were obtained using the Classroom AIMS Instrument (Roehrig, Pressley, Dolezal, Mohan, & Bohn, 2003), which assesses teaching quality in the areas of Classroom Atmosphere, Literacy Instruction, Classroom Management and Student Engagement. Significant variation existed between classrooms (accounting for 8-15% of the variation) across reading measures as well as teacher's attention ratings. For reading comprehension, students' initial reading ability interacted with classroom factors in predicting students' reading comprehension outcomes. For students who started the year with high reading skills, classroom management predicted higher rates of growth in reading comprehension. In contrast, for students who started the year with weaker reading skills, student engagement predicted higher rates of growth in reading comprehension. However the AIMS factors did not predict change in students' word reading and attention across the grade one year. For students at risk of attention difficulties, the overall quality of the teaching environment was an important predictor of growth in their listening comprehension skills. Students with mild attention difficulties who experienced high-quality teaching made significant gains in listening comprehension compared to students who were in less effectively taught classrooms. These results have implications for further studies exploring the contribution of literacy teaching practices to students at risk of attention problems.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".