Predicting child development knowledge and engagement of Moroccan parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of empirical evidence points to a child's earliest years as a critical period for developing the foundation for later learning. Yet neither parents nor public policy in the Middle East and North Africa actively support such development. We developed, tested, and administered a survey to a small number of parents of children aged six years and under in Casablanca, Morocco in 2013 to assess parents' child development knowledge and how they view their role as teachers of their young children. We used multiple regression models to predict parental knowledge and parental engagement in learning activities with their sons and separately with their daughters. Results indicate that nearly half of parents believe that brain development does not begin until after a child's first year of life. Consistent with these beliefs, parents report engaging in learning activities with their young children less frequently than Western parents; they also relate that they would be unlikely to enroll their young children in high quality child care programs, even if cost were not a factor. Parents who indicated feeling a high level of individual control over life events were less knowledgeable about child development. Those who believe that God controls life events were both more knowledgeable and reported more engagement in learning activities. Parents who reported turning to professional sources for information on child development were likelier to engage in learning activities. The general view that teaching and learning in the first years are unimportant may help to explain the poor academic performance of Moroccan children later in life relative to those of children from other nations with similar economic status. Education of the public regarding the importance of early-years development could help inform parents and policymakers. Services that might be offered to reinforce this message are discussed.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".