Counting books are a potential source of input for children's learning of early mathematics concepts. However, little is known about the factors that affect the counting books parents choose for their children. Parents (N = 696) of preschoolers (ages 2;6–4;11) were surveyed about their preferences for two specific counting book features, tactility and narrative quality. These two features were studied both covertly, by experimentally manipulating the types of books parents saw and asking parents why they would choose particular books, and explicitly, by asking parents to rate the importance of various factors when choosing counting books for their children. The a priori hypotheses were that parents would prefer tactile over non-tactile counting books for boys and narrative over non-narrative counting books for girls and that education level would be positively associated with counting book reading. Results did not support these hypotheses. Instead, parents’ preferences for the features depended on their education level. Higher education levels were generally associated with decreased preference for tactility and increased preference for narrative quality. Results raise the question of whether the books parents choose for their children may be one way parent education shapes children's early learning environments. © 2018 Elsevier Inc.

Variability in children's early math skills may stem from differences in experienced math learning opportunities at home. Previous studies have quantified math-learning opportunities at home through engagement with math-related activities or exposure to number talk during parent-child conversations, but little is known about how specific activities relate to talk about math. The current study aims to explore how math activities and number talk occur at home and understand how these associations may vary across different types of families. Number talk was quantified for 97 parent-child dyads during in-lab and in-home play sessions. Results show that time spent in math-related activities during home observations was related to parent reports of math activities as well as parent number talk at home and in the lab. Interestingly, during non-math-related activities, we found that parents with higher education levels and parents of boys used more number talk than parents with lower education levels and parents of girls. During math-related activities, however, no such educational or gender differences were seen in number talk. These results highlight the importance of considering the contextual influences and constraints that affect children's opportunities for learning math, especially when designing interventions to increase math learning in families' homes. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Online summer courses offer opportunities to catch-up or stay on-track with course credits for students who cannot otherwise attend face-to-face summer courses. While online courses may have certain advantages, participation patterns and student success in summer terms are not yet well understood. This quantitative study analyzed four years of institutional data cumulating in 72,441 course enrollments of 23,610 students in 433 courses during summer terms at a large public research university. Multi-level logistic regression models indicated that characteristics including gender, in-state residency, admission test scores, previous online course enrollment, and course size, among others, can influence student enrollment by course modality. Multi-way fixed effects linear regression models indicated that student grades were slightly lower in online courses compared to face-to-face courses. However, at-risk college student populations (low-income students, first-generation students, low-performing students) were not found to suffer additional course performance penalties of online course participation.

The ability to regulate one's own learning is essential for success in online courses. Recent efforts have used clickstream data to create timely, fine-grained, and comprehensive measures of self-regulated learning (SRL) in online courses in an attempt to shed light on the process of SRL and to improve the identification of students who lack SRL skills and are at risk of low achievement. However, key questions remain: to what extent do these clickstream measures correspond to traditional self-reported measures about specific SRL constructs? Do these clickstream measures provide more information than existing self-reported measures in predicting course performance? This study used the clickstream data collected from a learning management system to measure two aspects of SRL: time management and effort regulation. We found that the clickstream measures were significantly associated with students' self-reported time management and effort regulation after the course. In addition, these clickstream measures significantly improved predictions of students' performance in the current and subsequent courses over predictions based on self-reported measures alone. These results provide evidence for the validity of the clickstream measures and guide the use of clickstream data to understand the process of SRL and identify students who might not be well served by taking classes online.

In an era of high-stakes testing and performance demands that regulate future educational opportunities and affect how schools are managed and funded, failure can easily become stigmatized in the practices of schooling. In turn, it can lead students to avoid activities in which they can be evaluated as failing. As researchers, if we wish to help students recognize the value of failure in the process of learning and to capitalize on failures as significant learning opportunities, we must find ways in which failure at school can be reframed as something productive, rather than punitive. In this study, we investigated how student experience in a FUSE Studio-an alternative infrastructure for learning in schools organized around principles of student choice and interest (Stevens et al., 2016)- support a different, more productive 'use' of failure. Our study is an investigation of how failure was framed in the FUSE Studio by students and teachers and whether these participants recognized learning from failure as a productive part of their FUSE Studio experience. Our analysis, which was based on a year-long video ethnography conducted in a typical FUSE Studio, revealed two distinct ways in which failure was framed. In addition, an analysis of participant interviews highlighted that the students and a facilitator viewed failure as a significant and productive part of their FUSE Studio experience. In sum, the study contributes to the existing literature on the value of failure for learning, by highlighting a way that failure can be framed as being productive for both students and teachers.

The spacing effect is one of the most robust and replicable phenomena in psychological science, and holds promise for improving children's learning outcomes in educational settings. However, there is a striking limitation in the literature: very few studies have been conducted with young children (0–5-year-olds). Moreover, most studies examine children's learning on the group level, whereas early curricula typically focus on both group and individual outcomes. We predict that developmental and individual differences in visual attention, memory, prior knowledge, and metamemory will affect children's learning on massed and spaced schedules. Thus, we argue that the next critical step in research on the spacing effect is to develop a developmental and individual differences account. Indeed, this account will address limitations in theory and barriers in implementing the spacing effect in early educational settings. © 2020 Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

The current study investigated the relation between the ways in which caregivers and children interact in a learning environment and children's learning outcomes and engagement with the learning task. We assessed caregiver-child interaction in a structured play environment in which 3- and 4-year-olds and a caregiver were tasked with learning a causal system. Children whose caregivers were more directive during their interaction learned the causal system the best and better than children whose caregivers were more hands off and allowed children to engage in unstructured exploration. These two groups of children explored for the same amount of time, indicating similar levels of engagement with the task. Children whose caregivers were more guiding, but not directive, played significantly longer than either of the other groups, suggesting deeper engagement. We discuss these findings in relation to how children engage in causal learning and how caregivers might contribute to children's learning and engagement with the learning process. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Children use speakers' past accuracy to make inferences about novel word meanings those individuals provide in the future. An open question is whether children can retrospectively reevaluate information after learning that the source was inaccurate. We addressed this question in two experiments where a speaker first introduced labels for novel objects and then revealed that she is either accurate or inaccurate in naming familiar objects. Experiment 1 showed that 3.5- to 6.5-year-olds displayed enhanced performance on a word knowledge test when they had learned novel words from a speaker who then showed herself to be an accurate labeler as opposed to an inaccurate labeler. Experiment 2 replicated this procedure but had a different speaker provide inaccurate label information. This manipulation did not affect learning, suggesting that children discount speakers and are not simply influenced by the demands of processing inaccurate information. Together, these results indicate that 3.5- to 6.5-year-olds continue to monitor the speakers' accuracy after learning new words from them, update their beliefs as accuracy data become available, and selectively retain words learned from speakers who they deem to be epistemically competent. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

This paper introduces a quadratic growth learning trajectory, a series of transitions in students’ ways of thinking (WoT) and ways of understanding (WoU) quadratic growth in response to instructional supports emphasizing change in linked quantities. We studied middle grade (ages 12–13) students’ conceptions during a small-scale teaching experiment aimed at fostering an understanding of quadratic growth as phenomenon of constantly-changing rate of change. We elaborate the duality, necessity, repeated reasoning framework, and methods of creating learning trajectories. We report five WoT: Variation, Early Coordinated Change, Explicitly Quantified Coordinated Change, Dependency Relations of Change, and Correspondence. We also articulate instructional supports that engendered transitions across these WoT: teacher moves, norms, and task design features. Our integration of instructional supports and transitions in students’ WoT extend current research on quadratic function. A visual metaphor is leveraged to discuss the role of learning trajectories research in unifying research on teaching and learning. © 2020 Elsevier Inc.

When grit was first introduced, it gained popularity before basic psychometric questions were fully explored. One critical issue is how distinct grit is from the Big Five personality trait conscientiousness. Most studies have examined correlations between grit and conscientiousness, rather than conducting item-level factor analysis. This study examined the extent to which grit and conscientiousness are empirically distinct, and which predict students' grades. A diverse sample of adolescents completed measures of grit and conscientiousness. MIRT-based confirmatory factor analyses showed that grit and conscientiousness' factor structures strongly overlap. Structural equation modeling showed that conscientiousness and the perseverance of effort component of grit predicted students' grades more strongly than consistency of interest. These findings indicate that grit and conscientiousness are not unique constructs. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.