Why children differ in classroom engagement: Insights from a prospective longitudinal cohort of elementary school students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates how individual‐level factors contribute to classroom engagement variations of boys and girls across the elementary school years. Classroom engagement was assessed four times between the ages of 7 and 12 years in a large, representative population‐based sample ( N = 877) using latent growth modeling. Predictors included the sex of the child, the family income, and the mother's educational attainment when the child was 5 months old, along with the child's early receptive vocabulary, numeracy, motor and attentional skills, motivation to learn, and internalizing and externalizing behaviors measured at age 6 years. On average, classroom engagement progressively improved over time. Child vocabulary skills, attention, intrinsic motivation, and externalizing behaviors predicted initial levels of classroom engagement. Child classroom engagement also showed slower progression over time when receptive vocabulary and attentional skills were high. This trend was slightly different when the analyses were conducted separately for boys and girls. Girls with higher attentional skills and fewer externalizing behaviors at age 6 showed slower improvement in classroom engagement throughout elementary school, while boys did not significantly improve in their classroom engagement. Overall, these results suggest that several individual‐level factors contribute to classroom engagement. Children with lower levels of receptive vocabulary, attentional skills, and motivation to learn, and those displaying externalizing behavior may benefit from additional help to boost their classroom engagement.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".