A Systematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Primary School Readiness for Transition Through Play-Based Pedagogies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review is based on studies that explored school readiness and transition through play-based pedagogies in Early Childhood and Primary Education. Relevant literature involved global literature whose search was conducted by independent researchers following the keyword string, which included among others, stakeholders’ roles in school readiness, transition, and play-based pedagogies. The literature search was done from May to August 2022 following the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA). Twenty peer-reviewed studies were identified, appraised, and included in the review. Findings from international literature showed that teachers’ implementation of play-based pedagogy revealed a significant and positive relationship to all domains of children’s holistic development. Learner assessment for school readiness and transitioning from pre-primary to primary through play-based pedagogies included academic, social, and personal learning during periods of play. The types of play-based assessments for school readiness identified included: (1) withdrawal assessment, (2) observational assessment, (3) embedded assessment, (4) teacher questioning/interview, (5) Photographs/videos and (6) documentation walls. While literature showed a positive connection between parental involvement and a child’s readiness for school including successful transition from preprimary to primary school, there was limited evidence pointing specifically to the influence of parental involvement in play-based pedagogies for school transitioning.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".