Examination of the Quality of Interactions as Observed in Childcare Centers and Reported by Early Childhood Educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to describe the quality of interactions between early childhood educators (ECEs) and children, as observed in childcare centers and as reported by early childhood educators ( N = 15) working with 5 year-old children. To assess ECEs’ practices related to the quality of these interactions as observed in childcare centers (theories-in-use), the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) was used. This tool is structured around three domains: emotional support, group organization, and instructional support. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ECEs to collect data on their reported practices related to the quality of these interactions (espoused theories). The observational data showed that the quality of emotional support and group organization was average-to-high, and these domains were also most often referred to in the participants’ comments. On the contrary, the quality of instructional support was rated average-to-low. Correspondingly, this domain was not often referred to in the participants’ comments. These results are discussed in light of the tensions and gaps brought out between the ECEs’ theories-in-use and espoused theories and lead to recommendations for professional development aimed at improving the quality of ECE–child interactions in childcare centers and, in particular, the instructional support provided therein.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".