Is more child-initiated always better? Exploring relations between child-initiated instruction and preschoolers' school readiness.

IF 2.8 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Julie Vaisarova, Arthur J Reynolds
{"title":"Is more child-initiated always better? Exploring relations between child-initiated instruction and preschoolers' school readiness.","authors":"Julie Vaisarova,&nbsp;Arthur J Reynolds","doi":"10.1007/s11092-021-09376-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although research suggests that the use of child-initiated vs. teacher-directed instructional practices in early childhood education has implications for learning and development, the precise nature of these effects remains unclear. Using data from the Midwest Child-Parent Center (CPC) Expansion Project, the present study examined the possibility that a blend of child- and teacher-directed practices best promotes school readiness among preschoolers experiencing high levels of sociodemographic risk and explored whether the optimal blend varies based on child characteristics. Sixty-two CPC preschool teachers reported their instructional practices throughout the year, using a newly developed questionnaire - the Classroom Activity Report (CAR). The average reported proportion of child-initiated instruction was examined in relation to students' end-of-year performance on a routine school readiness assessment (N = 1,289). Although there was no main effect of child-initiated instruction on school readiness, there was a significant interaction between instruction and student age. Four-year-olds' school readiness generally improved as the proportion of child-initiated time increased, while three-year-olds showed a U-shaped pattern. The present findings add to the evidence that child-initiated instruction might support preschoolers' school readiness, although they also suggest this relation may not always be linear. They also point to the importance of examining instructional strategies in relation to student characteristics, in order to tailor strategies to the student population. The CAR has potential as a brief, practical measurement tool that can support program monitoring and professional development.</p>","PeriodicalId":46725,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability","volume":"34 2","pages":"195-226"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9380854/pdf/nihms-1772339.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-021-09376-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although research suggests that the use of child-initiated vs. teacher-directed instructional practices in early childhood education has implications for learning and development, the precise nature of these effects remains unclear. Using data from the Midwest Child-Parent Center (CPC) Expansion Project, the present study examined the possibility that a blend of child- and teacher-directed practices best promotes school readiness among preschoolers experiencing high levels of sociodemographic risk and explored whether the optimal blend varies based on child characteristics. Sixty-two CPC preschool teachers reported their instructional practices throughout the year, using a newly developed questionnaire - the Classroom Activity Report (CAR). The average reported proportion of child-initiated instruction was examined in relation to students' end-of-year performance on a routine school readiness assessment (N = 1,289). Although there was no main effect of child-initiated instruction on school readiness, there was a significant interaction between instruction and student age. Four-year-olds' school readiness generally improved as the proportion of child-initiated time increased, while three-year-olds showed a U-shaped pattern. The present findings add to the evidence that child-initiated instruction might support preschoolers' school readiness, although they also suggest this relation may not always be linear. They also point to the importance of examining instructional strategies in relation to student characteristics, in order to tailor strategies to the student population. The CAR has potential as a brief, practical measurement tool that can support program monitoring and professional development.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

孩子越主动就越好吗?探讨儿童主动教学与学龄前儿童入学准备的关系。
尽管研究表明,在幼儿教育中使用儿童主导与教师指导的教学实践对学习和发展有影响,但这些影响的确切性质尚不清楚。本研究利用中西部儿童家长中心(CPC)扩展项目的数据,检验了儿童和教师指导的实践相结合最能促进经历高社会人口风险的学龄前儿童入学准备的可能性,并探讨了最佳结合是否因儿童特征而异。62名CPC学前教师使用最新开发的问卷——课堂活动报告(CAR),报告了他们全年的教学实践。在例行的学校准备情况评估中,根据学生的年终表现,检查了儿童开始教学的平均报告比例(N=1289)。尽管儿童启蒙教学对入学准备没有主要影响,但教学与学生年龄之间存在显著的互动。随着儿童入学时间比例的增加,四岁儿童的入学准备程度普遍提高,而三岁儿童则表现出U型模式。目前的研究结果进一步证明,儿童开始的教学可能支持学龄前儿童的入学准备,尽管他们也表明这种关系可能并不总是线性的。他们还指出了根据学生特点研究教学策略的重要性,以便根据学生群体调整策略。CAR有潜力成为一种简短、实用的测量工具,可以支持项目监控和专业发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability
Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.60%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The main objective of this international journal is to advance knowledge and dissemination of research on and about assessment, evaluation and accountability of all kinds and on various levels as well as in all fields of education.  The journal provides readers with an understanding of the rich contextual nature of evaluation, assessment and accountability in education. The journal is theory-oriented and methodology-based and seeks to connect research, policy making and practice.  The journal publishes outstanding empirical works, peer-reviewed by eminent scholars around the world.Aims and Scope in more detail: The main objective of this international journal is to advance knowledge and dissemination of research on and about evaluation, assessment and accountability: - of all kinds (e.g. person, programme, organisation), - on various levels (state, regional, local), - in all fields of education (primary, secondary, higher education/tertiary, as well as non-school sector) and across all different life phases (e.g. adult education/andragogy/Human Resource Management/professional development).The journal provides readers with an understanding of the rich contextual nature of evaluation, assessment and accountability in education. The journal is theory-oriented and methodology-based and seeks to connect research, policy making and practice. Therefore, the journal explores and discusses: -       theories of evaluation, assessment and accountability, -       function, role, aims and purpose of evaluation, assessment and accountability, -       impact of evaluation, assessment and accountability, -       methodology, design and methods of evaluation, assessment and accountability, -       principles, standards and quality of evaluation, assessment and accountability, -       issues of planning, coordinating, conducting, reporting of evaluation, assessment and accountability.The journal also covers the quality of different instruments or procedures or approaches which are used for evaluation, assessment and accountability.The journal only includes research findings from evaluation, assessment and accountability, if the design or approach of it is meta-reflected in the article.The journal publishes outstanding empirical works, peer-reviewed by eminent scholars around the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信