MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587740369 · doi:10.1080/03004430.2017.1287177

How effectively does the full-day, play-based kindergarten programme in Ontario promote self-regulation, literacy, and numeracy?

2017· article· en· W2587740369 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexandra Youmans, John R. Kirby, John G. Freeman

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Child Development and Care · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNumeracyPsychologyLiteracyCurriculumMathematics educationMultilevel modelDevelopmental psychologyEarly childhoodPedagogyMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the effectiveness of the Full-Day Early Learning Kindergarten (FDELK) programme, which integrates play-based learning and team teaching, in promoting 32,027 kindergarteners’ self-regulation (SR), literacy, and numeracy outcomes. Outcome measures derived from teacher reports of students’ school readiness in the Early Development Instrument were analysed in separate hierarchical regression analyses that controlled for individual and school-level characteristics. Results revealed essentially no benefit for students participating in the FDELK programme when compared to peers in Half-Day Kindergarten (HDK) or Alternate-Day Kindergarten programmes. Being older, female, and in higher socio-economic status schools with a history of higher achievement predicted more positive SR, literacy, and numeracy outcomes. Findings suggest the FDELK programme requires improvement. Play-based learning programmes, such as the FDELK, might be enhanced by incorporating evidence-based guidelines and goals for play, reducing class sizes to more effectively scaffold learning, and revising curriculum expectations to include a greater focus on SR, literacy, and numeracy skills.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly Child Development and CareSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207