Quality of Early Childhood Education and Care: Examining Different Conceptualizations and Levels of Quality
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A large proportion of young children spend many hours in early childhood education and care (ECEC) and such care is costly. Given this context, it is important to examine the quality of care children receive, whether they experience quality differently, and the effects of quality on child development. Exposure to high quality ECEC is expected to promote child development. However, results linking ECEC quality to children’s outcomes are mixed. Perhaps researchers need to focus on different aspects of ECEC quality. Alternatively, limitations of the literature may explain this inconsistency, as assessments of ECEC quality often aggregate across individual children to the classroom level, and such research is conducted primarily in the U.S. My two dissertation papers address gaps regarding what impacts quality, children’s differential experiences of quality, and associations between quality and child outcomes. Both papers focus on classrooms serving preschool-aged children. The first paper is a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the role of educator early childhood specialization on a range of preschool-aged children’s outcomes. Findings from this paper indicate that this quality indicator is not strongly or consistently associated with the outcomes examined in the literature. Limitations of the literature are discussed as possible explanations for the few results. The second paper uses archival data to assess ECEC quality at the child, classroom, and centre levels, by examining whether and why children are differentially treated by ECEC educators. This paper consists of two studies. The first examines educator differential treatment (DT) of children using educator-reports of their perceived closeness and conflict with each child in their classroom. The second examines DT using child-educator observations of social interaction and instruction. Results indicate that individual children have very different experiences in ECEC settings across a range of affective, social, and instructional domains, regardless of how DT is assessed. Educators reported closer and less conflicted relationships with prosocial children and directed more positive support and engagement towards children demonstrating oppositional behaviour. In addition to child behaviour, aspects of classroom quality showed associations with DT, however, results were inconsistent. Implications for public policy, resource allocation, and future research, particularly in Canada, are discussed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,051 | 0,104 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,015 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».