Using Learning Centers to Improve the Language and Academic Skills of Preschool Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A mixed-methods research design was employed to investigate the impact of use of learning centers to supportlanguage and academic skills of children aged 61–72 months. The sample of quantitative data of the study consistedof 70 children (35 in the experimental group and 35 in the control group). In the quantitative dimension of the study,data were collected using the “Kaufman Survey of Early Academic and Language Skills,” “Progress in Maths 6 Test,”and the “Control List for the Evaluation of the Print Awareness of Pre-School Children” scales. In the qualitativedimension of the study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the teachers of the experimental groupthrough the “Teacher Interview Form” developed by the researchers. During the implementation period, learningcenters were established and organized in such a way that the 35 children in the experimental group could use themfor about 75–90 minutes every day for eight weeks. The results obtained from the study reveal that arrangementsmade in the learning centers provide important contributions to the development of children’s language, literacy andmathematics 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".