Task-Oriented Kindergarten Behavior Pays Off in Later Childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: : Research has traditionally neglected child-learning skills as important when entering kindergarten. In this article, we consider a novel dimension of school readiness by examining prospective associations between early classroom engagement skills, reflecting self-regulation and the ability to remain on task, and later academic adjustment in emerging adolescence. METHODS: : Kindergarten teachers rated classroom engagement skills of 960 children from the Québec Longitudinal Study of Child Development. Outcomes measured at 10-years-old children include a direct assessment of achievement in mathematics and fourth-grade teacher ratings of academic achievement, teacher-child conflict, inattention, victimization, proactive and indirect aggression, and antisocial behavior in the classroom. RESULTS: : Multiple regression analyses revealed that kindergarten classroom engagement skills were associated with better fourth-grade math test scores and teacher-rated academic success. Early classroom engagement also predicted less teacher-child conflict, inattention, victimization by peers, proactive and indirect aggression, and antisocial behavior in fourth grade. CONCLUSION: : Easily measurable, context-based assessments of task orientation and focus represent robust components of children's readiness to learn at school entry.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".