MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607427393 · doi:10.5539/jedp.v7n1p283

Family Literacy Programs in Qatar: Teachers’ and Parents’ Perceptions and Practices

2017· article· en· W2607427393 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fatima Al-Maadadi, Fathi Ihmeideh, Maryam Al-Falasi, Chris Coughlin, Tamader Al-Thani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Developmental Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracyPerceptionPsychologyFamily literacyDevelopmental psychologyEarly literacyMedical educationPedagogyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of the role of the family in the development of children’s early literacy has been widely recognized. Therefore, schools have frequently attempted to establish programs that help families promote their children’s literacy learning. This study explored early childhood teachers’ and parents’ perceptions about family literacy programs in which they got involved. It also examined practices used by teachers and parents to promote children’s literacy learning as well as to support the role of the family in the development of literacy. The sample included all teachers and parents who participated in the family literacy programs in two independent preschool settings in Qatar. A total of 16 teachers and 156 parents completed the self-reported questionnaires. Moreover, interviews with 10 teachers and 20 parents were conducted. Results indicated that teachers’ and parents’ perceptions and practices of family involvement programs were ranged from high to fairly moderate. A strong positive correlation was found between parents’ perceptions of family literacy programs and their practices, while teachers’ perceptions were not correlated with their practices. In light of the study findings, implications for expanding family literacy programs are described.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Developmental PsychologySame topicParental Involvement in EducationFrench-language works237,207