Parent Involvement in Education as Predictors of Social–Emotional Strengths in Kindergartners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although more is known about how general parenting practices predict social–emotional strengths in children, less research has looked at parent involvement in education and children’s social–emotional strengths. This study examined the extent to which parent involvement, specifically home-based involvement, parent–teacher trust, and home–school communication, predicted children’s social–emotional strengths in kindergarten. The study featured both parent (n = 120) and teacher ratings (n = 156) of children’s social–emotional strengths. We examined the association between parent involvement and social emotional strengths while controlling for child age and gender, socioeconomic status, and general parenting (positive verbal discipline and harsh/inconsistent discipline). Parents’ reports of home-based involvement were a moderate to strong positive predictor of their child’s social–emotional strengths over the kindergarten year. For teacher ratings of social–emotional strengths, parents’ trust of the teacher was associated with higher social–emotional strengths. The findings may inform essential components in parenting or school-based interventions for social–emotional development, as well as differences in what parents and teachers perceive as related to social–emotional development in young children.Impact StatementParents play an important role in children’s social–emotional development. The current study demonstrate parents perceive home-based involvement activities are associated with child social–emotional strengths, while teachers perceive a trusting relationship between home and school as most important. Results highlight ways to support schools and families working together to support social–emotional strengths.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".