Overcoming the streetlight effect: Qualitative examination of community experts’ perceptions of foundations of learning and development (FOLD) skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developmental science has a long history of studying skills that children need to thrive. However, there has been a primary focus on academic skills, with little attention to the breadth and diversity of other skills that young children need to thrive. Furthermore, little is known about the extent to which community experts involved in early childhood care and education (ECCE) value different early developmental skills. This qualitative study examined how community experts (parents, preschool educators, clinicians, and ECCE leaders) defined and conceptualized six foundations of learning and development (FOLD) skills of child development (curiosity, creativity, critical thinking, self-regulation and executive function, perspective taking, and internal representations of self). We conducted 60 virtual in-depth interviews with a socioeconomically, racially, and geographically diverse sample of parents (n = 26), educators (n = 17), clinicians (n = 11), and ECCE leaders (n = 6) living in rural and urban areas across the United States. Participants universally acknowledged the importance of FOLD skills as central to development and well-being in the early childhood period, while also recognizing their interrelatedness with one another. Most participants highlighted self-regulation and executive function as a core skill. Findings affirm the value of these FOLD skills and highlight the importance of including them as target outcomes of ECCE interventions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".