Theory and Evidence for Pre-printing Development: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational therapists often address pre-printing skills in young children, but the evidence supporting such practice has not been thoroughly investigated. The purpose of this scoping review was to summarize and evaluate pre-printing literature and outline a theoretical framework to inform best practice. Utilizing PRISMA guidelines and scoping review methodology, two independent reviewers selected articles for abstract and full-text review and rated the level of evidence of each article. Most of the 98 articles that were included were low levels of evidence, often based on “expert” opinion. Two theoretical approaches emerged based on printing skill prerequisites and development. Occupational therapy research appears to follow a neurodevelopmental approach, which describes a prescriptive developmental sequence with direct instruction, leading to mastery of pre-printing shapes, strokes and skills. An emergent literacy approach is prominent in education literature. This approach also incorporates developmental considerations, but is less prescriptive and more focused on a literacy-rich, curricular approach to pre-printing instruction. An emergent literacy approach encourages children to experiment with printing, matching task demands with the child’s natural printing development, without prescriptive mastery of certain skills. We propose an integrated theoretical framework, to capture both educator and therapist expertise, to facilitate a more collaborative approach when guiding pre-printing development both for typically developing children and children with developmental challenges. Evidence from this scoping review will be used to develop a pre-printing program based on an integrated theoretical framework. This combined approach may prevent confusion and conflicting information about printing readiness, and thus allow occupational therapists, early childhood educators, kindergarten teachers, and parents to provide consistent guidance and learning opportunities for young children to learn pre-printing 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 | 0.093 | 0.284 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.061 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".