Teaching Human Development to Early Childhood Education Students: A Cultural-Contextual Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of a cultural-contextual approach to development is to recognize the fact that considerable differences exist among human individuals, especially in terms of their diverse sociocultural backgrounds. This paper examines how a group of early childhood education students responded to the presentation of a cultural-contextual approach during a human development course. A variety of data were gathered on the reactions of 81 students enrolled in the course during their first year of a four-year undergraduate degree program in early childhood education. The data reflected a number of course-related issues, and the investigation looked for signs that the cultural approach was salient for the students. There appeared to be evidence for only a small degree of success in conveying the approach in terms of students actually mentioning such issues. In analyzing the findings we propose that to reach a larger number of students, it may be necessary to address in a deliberate way the explicit and implicit messages concerning what is important to know about human development. The underlying assumptions of the wider course of study may need to be addressed as well, both at the program level and within the individual courses themselves. Implications for teaching are presented.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".