The Development of Golden Triangle Program Using Head Start Approach as an Early Childhood Education Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is based on the issues faced by parents and teachers during the pandemic that force the parents to accompany their children in learning from home. The common difficulty parents should encounter in accompanying their children learning from home during the Covid-19 pandemic is the lack of understanding possessed by them on their children lessons. It is probably due to the fact that previously, their children education was completely handed over only to school so that they did not involve nor comprehend the role they have in the practice of education at home. The current research is one of the attempts to reconstruct the connection among parent-teacher-child triangle. This “golden triangle” program development adopts, to some extent, the approach and principles of Head start model. It is expected that the development of this “golden triangle” program can emphasize the role of family as the first as well as main education institution for children, in addition to design the education program that encourages parents to take part in their children education. The study that had been conducted for three months using the collaborative action research method from Kemiss & McTaggar was thematically analyzed. It is found that there are three major themes; children education responsibility, “golden triangle” program implementation in early child education, and supporting factor. The task to educate early children is often handed over merely to the early childhood education institution that responsible not only on the academic side of the early children, but also their social capacity and development stimulus. The “golden triangle” program is implemented by encouraging the parents’ active participation and conducting the parent school where not only children who learn but also their parents. This program can only be implemented when there is a strong commitment and effective communication among parents, teachers, and children.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".