The Effects of In-Service Education to Promote Emergent Literacy in Child Care Centers: A Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of a 2-day in-service education program for (a) promoting the use of two emergent literacy strategies by early childhood educators and (b) increasing children's responses to these strategies. METHOD: Sixteen early childhood educators were randomly assigned to an experimental and a control group. The experimental in-service program sought to increase educators' use of abstract utterances and print references. Educators were videotaped with small groups of preschoolers during storybook reading and a post-story craft activity. Pretest and posttest videotapes were coded to yield rates of abstract language, verbal print references, and children's responses. RESULTS: In comparison to the control group, educators in the experimental program used more abstract utterances that elicited talk about emotions and children's past experiences during storybook reading. They also used significantly more print references during a post-story craft activity. In addition, children in the experimental group responded more often with appropriate responses to abstract utterances and print references in comparison to children in the control group. CONCLUSION: A 2-day in-service education program resulted in short-term behavioral changes in educators' use of abstract language and print references. Suggestions for improving instruction include providing opportunities for classroom practice with feedback, modeling the use of strategies in classroom routines, and long-term mentoring of educators to promote retention of gains.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".