Stakeholder Perspectives of Pbl and Their Involvement in the Implementation of Play Pedagogy in Selected Schools Offering ECE in Southern and Central Zambia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While several studies have been done on parental involvement in early childhood education, gaps still exists relating to the conceptualisation of play and play-based learning in different contexts. The various perceptions of play and play- based learning have a strong influence on their involvement in play-based learning activities involving children in Early Childhood Education. Using a qualitative approach, framed within the interpretive research paradigm, this study revealed a disjuncture between the positive perception held by the stakeholders on play and PBL to the reality of play-based learning in the ECE schools. The researchers asked three questions: 1. What are the perceptions of parents, community, and school administrators (teachers and administrators) regarding play and play-based learning? 2. How do these stakeholders get involved in PBL? 3. And what factors influence their involvement? The researchers collected data through key informant interviews (KII), focus group discussions and classroom observations. The study established that the involvement in PBL varied among stakeholders. For parents and community members their involvement was often based on solicitation by the school administrators and external development agencies - as opposed to volunteering postulated by Epstein’s theory of parental involvement employed in the study. Among the factors that influenced their participation was a general lack of a clear understanding of PBL and their role and functions in PBL and ECE in general. Thus, the study recommends capacity building in PBL for parents, community members and school administrators.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".