4.4 Article

Home and preschool learning environments and their relations to the development of early numeracy skills

期刊

EARLY CHILDHOOD RESEARCH QUARTERLY
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 231-244

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.08.003

关键词

Preschool quality; Home learning environment; Numeracy skills; Longitudinal study; International childcare perspectives; Cognitive development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the influence of the quality of home and preschool learning environments on the development of early numeracy skills in Germany, drawing on a sample of 532 children in 97 preschools. Latent growth curve models were used to investigate early numeracy skills and their development from the first (average age: 3 years) to the third year (average age: 5 years) of preschool. Several child and family background factors (e.g., gender, maternal education, socioeconomic status), measures of the home learning environment (e.g., literacy- and numeracy-related activities), and measures of preschool structural and process quality (e.g., ECERS-E, ECERS-R) were tested as predictors of numeracy skills and their development. The analyses identified child and family background factors that predicted numeracy skills in the first year of preschool and their development over the three points of measurement particularly gender, parental native language status (German/other), socioeconomic status, and mother's educational level. The quality of the home learning environment was strongly associated with numeracy skills in the first year of preschool, and this advantage was maintained at later ages. In contrast, the process quality of the preschool was not related to numeracy skills at the first measurement, but was significantly related to development over the period observed. The results underline the differential impact of the two learning environments on the development of numeracy skills. Interaction effects are explored and discussed. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据