The present study examined the development of mathematics skills of Kosovar primary school children in terms of their gender, living area, socio-economic status, and achievement level.A special emphasis was placed on longitudinal investigations of the development of mathematics skills in children with learning difficulties in mathematics over a 2-year and 4-month period.Participants were 553 fourth-graders, 85 of whom identified with mathematical learning difficulties were classified into two subgroups: children with low mathematics achievement and children with limited mathematics ability.Results have shown that there were no gender differences in mathematics achievement.Children's living areas as well as their socio-economic status were observed to have a substantial impact on math performance.The performance level of limited math ability children was lower as compared to low math achieving children on all of the measures assessing math outcomes and reading comprehension.Findings indicate that a majority of the limited math ability group members still met the cutoff criterion after more than 2 years of school attendance.
BACKGROUND: Chronically ill children are at increased risk of poor learning outcomes. Knowledge of the predictors of learning outcomes for this group of people is important to inform the development of education supports that stand the best chance of being effective. This study explored the child, family, and school risk and protective factors during the child's transition to elementary school (aged 6-7 years) that were associated with learning outcomes when children were aged 10-11 years for both children with and without a chronic illness. METHODS: Data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children were used. Predictor variables were entered into separate multivariate regression models for children with and without a chronic illness. RESULTS: The strongest predictors of learning outcomes were the child's approach to learning, a consistent parenting style, and family socioeconomic position and were common for both children with and without a chronic illness but strongest for children with a chronic illness. CONCLUSION: A child's approach to learning and a consistent parenting style during the period of the child's transition to elementary school are important and potentially modifiable factors that are predictive of academic performance in later childhood. These factors are particularly relevant for children with a chronic illness, their parents/caregivers, teachers both hospital and school based, and pediatricians and can be used to inform interventions.
Tony Barnett, Rebecca Giallo, Margaret Kelaher et al.
This study aims to determine the relationship between physical activity and learning outcomes of upper-grade elementary school students. Physical activity is defined as body movements that require energy expenditure and is categorized into light, moderate and heavy activities. This study used a quantitative approach with a correlational design. The research sample amounted to 205 students in grades IV to VI who were selected by purposive sampling technique from several elementary schools. The instrument used to measure physical activity was the PAQ-C (Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children) questionnaire while learning outcomes were obtained from students' report cards. Significant between physical activity and learning outcomes with a correlation value of -0.181 and a significance of 0.009. This means that the higher the students' physical activity level, the lower their learning outcomes. This result contradicts some theories that physical activity improves cognitive function and academic achievement. However, this finding can be explained through time management factors and the high intensity of physical activity, which can cause fatigue and reduce study time. This study provides important implications for schools and parents to help students optimally balance physical activity and study time.
This study promotes a novel teaching approach for integration of children's traditional games in elementary school program. It gives description of six traditional games and their educational prospects, implemented in six learning sessions in five elementary schools in Macedonia, involving 102 students. The comparison of learning achievements between these learning sessions and standard classes revealed increased students' learning performance on comparable topics. To understand the reason for improvement, we have surveyed students after each session and tested the gathered data set via the development of a structural equation model that examines the relationships between student's personality traits, motivation and experience with learning outcomes. The findings show that students' achievements were directly influenced by students' intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors, as well as perceived experience. Additionally, the integration of traditional games in the elementary school classroom was equally accepted among all students, since their personality traits did not directly influence their experience or learning outcomes. Still, the link between the students' personality dimensions and motivation revealed that introvert children might have slightly increased motivation and possibility to open up during game-play in such collaborative environments.
Vladimir Trajkovik, Toni Malinovski, Tatjana Vasileva-Stojanovska et al.
Children may be more susceptible than originally thought and could play a role in community transmission An early cause for hope in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was the observation that children are much less likely to experience severe illness than adults.1 This remains true, but has created a perception that children are less susceptible to infection and do not play a substantial role in transmission. In Australia, this perception has been reinforced by assurances from the Prime Minister that schools are safe and that physical distancing is unnecessary in this setting.2 However, emerging research suggests greater caution is needed. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in children is generally characterised by mild illness.1 Only a minority of children require hospitalisation and the case fatality rate is very low (≤ 1%),3, 4 although a small fraction of children can experience a severe post-infectious multisystem inflammatory syndrome.5 Although limited cases in children were reported at the beginning of the pandemic, this may have been because strong infection control measures in China halted the epidemic there before it could spread widely in this age group. The expansion phase coincided with the Lunar New Year holiday period, during which schools were closed, and schools remained closed thereafter. Additionally, cases in children were likely missed, as those with mild — or absent — symptoms were unlikely to receive testing.1 It is notable that in the early phase of the epidemic in China, infected children were largely identified by contact tracing.6, 7 More recent data paint a different picture. In a seroprevalence study of over 61 000 people from Spain, 3.4% of children and teenagers had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 as measured by a point-of-care test, compared with 4.4–6.0% of adults. In a subset of almost 52 000 people who underwent immunoassay testing, the gap narrowed to 3.8% compared with 4.5–5.0%.8 These findings could suggest that children are less susceptible to infection than adults, but may alternatively reflect shielding. Spain's schools closed in March. In Sweden, where schools largely remained open, no significant difference was observed in seroprevalence to mid-June between people aged 0–19 and 20–64 years (6.8% v 6.4%).9 Seroprevalence was lower in people aged ≥ 65 years (1.5%), whom the country attempted to shield. Household contact studies provide an alternative way to estimate the susceptibility of children. Some report lower attack rates in children compared with adults,10, 11 while others show no difference.12-15 In a study of 58 United States households (58 index cases plus 188 household contacts), children and partners of index cases were more likely to be infected than other household members including siblings, parents and extended family members.13 This suggests that children and adults may be similarly susceptible to infection, and that behavioural and environmental factors may underlie any difference in attack rate. The role that children play in transmission is less certain, but children do not appear to be less infectious than adults. In a study of symptomatic people with mild to moderate COVID-19, the amount of viral RNA detected in the nasopharyngeal swabs of children aged 5–17 years was similar to that of adults: median cycle threshold values (interquartile range, 11.1 (6.3–15.7) v 11.0 (6.9–17.5). However, young children (aged < 5 years) had lower cycle threshold values (median, 6.5; interquartile range, 4.8–12.0), indicating levels of RNA 10–100 times higher.16 The detection of viral RNA does not equate to the presence of infectious virus, and it is unclear whether the duration of viral shedding is similar in children and adults. Children appear more likely to be asymptomatic, and given that the duration of viral shedding may be shorter in asymptomatic cases,17, 18 it is possible that children may be infectious for a shorter period. However, the viral load of asymptomatic and symptomatic cases does not appear to differ,18, 19 and infectious virus is readily cultured from both.20 Importantly, the likelihood of successfully culturing virus is unrelated to age.20 Children therefore have the potential to play a role in community transmission, particularly given the large number of contacts children have in close contact settings such as childcare centres and schools. In a contact tracing study comprising 5706 index cases and 59 073 contacts in South Korea, non-household contacts of child index cases were as likely to be infected as contacts of young adult index cases (attack rate, 1.0% v 1.1%). Within the household, contacts of young paediatric index cases (< 10 years of age) were less likely to become infected than those of adults (attack rate, 5.3% v 11.7%), but the attack rate for the contacts of older children and teenagers (18.6%) was higher than that of any other group.21 In a subsequent study, the authors noted that almost all of the child index cases shared the same exposure as their adult contacts.22 Thus, while the children developed symptoms first, it is possible that some may not have been true index cases. However, preliminary data from Italy are also concerning. In the heavily affected province of Trento, contacts of children aged under 15 years were more likely to be infected than those of adults at a time when schools were closed (attack rate, 22.4% v 10.6–17.1%).23 This suggests that transmission can be expected in schools, which is borne out by reports of large clusters in these settings.24-26 The government of Israel mandated complete closure of the country's schools in mid-March. A cautious reopening was attempted less than 2 months later, and all schools reopened for face-to-face teaching on 17 May. Ten days later, the first major outbreak occurred in a high school.24 Two cases without an epidemiological link were detected in students on 26 and 27 May, and mass testing of the school community occurred over the following days. A total of 153 students (attack rate, 13.2%) and 25 staff members (attack rate, 16.6%) tested positive. By mid-June, a further 87 cases among close contacts had been detected, including siblings attending other schools, parents, and the family members of staff. Interestingly, the outbreak coincided with an extreme heatwave during which students were exempted from wearing face masks and air conditioning was used continuously.24 A similarly rapid spread occurred in a private school catering for students from pre-primary to high school age in Chile.25 The school year began on 4 March, after which parent–teacher meetings were held over the following days. The next week, two cases were detected in staff. By 6 April, 52 members of the school community had tested positive and one death had occurred. Serological testing was conducted 8–10 weeks after the start of the outbreak, in which 1009 students (38%) and 235 staff (74%) participated. Overall, 9.9% of students and 16.6% of staff were seropositive. Students from preschool to middle school age were most affected. The index case was a staff member who worked with all of the preschool and primary school staff, likely explaining the higher seroprevalence among staff and younger children. Notably, 18% of staff and 40% of students were asymptomatic, indicating the potential for silent spread among children.25 In Sweden, a school outbreak led to 18 of 76 staff testing positive and the death of one teacher.27 Children are not routinely tested in Sweden,27 severely limiting the ability to determine their role in outbreaks there. However, 70 cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome have been reported, suggesting that substantial transmission to children has occured.28 This figure is about ten times that of neighbouring Finland and Norway combined,29-31 which unlike Sweden, closed schools. The United States closed schools in all 50 states in March. A population-based time series analysis found school closure was temporally associated with a marked decrease in COVID-19 incidence and mortality, and the effect was greatest in states which acted earlier when cases were low.32 While adjustments were made for other non-pharmaceutical interventions, some residual confounding is likely and these findings should be interpreted carefully. However, data from France strongly support the role of schools in community transmission. In a retrospective analysis of a high school cluster, incident cases dropped dramatically and abruptly after the start of the school holidays, and again after wider lockdown measures were introduced in the region.26 A study of COVID-19 in educational settings in New South Wales appears to suggest a small role for schools at first glance, with limited transmission reported between January and April, although a large outbreak occurred in a childcare centre.33 A strength of this particular study is its prospective nature. However, there are also substantial limitations. Schools switched to distance learning for most students in March, after which school attendance fell to 5%. Additionally, only 44% of close contacts were tested (the majority after developing symptoms), so cases in children may have been missed. Further, the majority of cases in the state were acquired overseas at the time of the study, and there was minimal community transmission. A school cluster comprising 21 cases, including at least 11 students, four teachers and two social contacts of school community members has since emerged in Sydney.34, 35 Detecting paediatric cases may be particularly difficult because of the high prevalence of asymptomatic infection in children. In a prospective seroprevalence study of the children of health care workers in the United Kingdom, 50% of infections were asymptomatic.36 In a study of paediatric cases largely identified via contact tracing in South Korea, 66% of symptomatic children had symptoms which had been mild enough to go unrecognised, and only 9% were diagnosed at the time of symptom onset.17 These findings suggest a need to re-evaluate school safety. The situation in Victoria should give pause for thought. As community transmission grew, clusters arose in educational settings catering for children of all ages.37, 38 Notably, an epidemiological link was found between a school cluster and a major outbreak in Melbourne's public housing towers,39 prompting dramatic measures to curtail transmission. School clusters may be complicated, however, by the role of the school as a community hub, as occurred in New Zealand, where the country's third largest cluster was associated with a cultural event which took place at a school.40 Some school-related transmission can therefore be confounded by the clustering of associated community members. Investigation of children has frequently been poor, with insufficient testing performed. Additionally, most studies of COVID-19 and children have been conducted during lockdown periods — which are not normal conditions — or at a time of low community transmission. Adult travellers seeded epidemics and the virus initially circulated among their contacts, delaying children's exposure. In some countries, cases were rapidly isolated and quarantined away from home, further limiting spread to children. Testing was initially limited, excluding those not fitting clinical criteria. This is of particular relevance given the high prevalence of asymptomatic infection among children, and also increases the likelihood that index cases in children will be missed. Paediatric cases may only be detected after transmission from a child to a second person (often an adult). The child may then be tested as a contact, and either mistakenly thought to be a secondary case, or missed entirely if the child's viral load has declined by this point. In some countries, children are not routinely tested unless seriously ill.27, 41 Finally, limited transmission by children in some studies33 is not cause for reassurance. About 80% of secondary COVID-19 cases are generated by about 10% of individuals.42 It is therefore unsurprising to find examples where children have not transmitted the virus; many adults do not transmit the virus either. Schools are clearly neither inherently safe nor unsafe. The risk associated with these settings depends on the level of community transmission and must be continuously evaluated. Schools must not remain open for face-to-face teaching in the setting of substantial community transmission. In regions where community transmission is low, risk reduction strategies should be implemented in schools as a matter of urgency. Comprehensive guidelines have been developed (Box),43 but at a minimum, interventions should include the wearing of face masks by staff and students, increasing ventilation and indoor air quality, and the regular disinfection of shared surfaces. While some interventions — particularly school closures — may be burdensome, this must be weighed against other potential harms. A substantial proportion of adults living with school-aged children have risk factors for severe COVID-19, as do many teachers.44 A recent epidemiological investigation into three childcare clusters in the US found that infected children transmitted the virus to one-quarter of their household contacts, resulting in the hospitalisation of one parent.45 Measures have been enacted to protect schools in Australia, such as excluding students with respiratory symptoms, restricting interschool mixing, and prohibiting high risk activities such as overnight camps.46 These are to be commended but are insufficient as they do not fully address source control. Notably absent is a requirement for face masks in regions with ongoing community transmission. The World Health Organization recommends that face masks be worn by children aged 12 years and older, and that masks should be considered for those aged 6–11 years.47 The Society for Virology recommends masks for all schoolchildren, including during lessons.48 Such measures have already been enacted in many Asian countries. In Singapore, students from pre-primary to high school age are required to wear masks.49 An important, remaining question is whether children's risk of infection and transmission is age stratified. Nasal angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 expression increases with age,50, 51 suggesting that younger children could be less susceptible to infection than older children. This is supported by some studies8, 13 but questioned by others which show similar attack rates.12, 15, 36 Whether young and older children transmit the virus similarly is unknown and requires urgent clarification. Until better understood, precautions in kindergartens, primary schools and secondary schools should be similar. There is clear evidence that children and schools are at risk, with wider implications for the community. Additionally, serious outcomes in children will become increasingly common — at least in absolute terms — if the virus is allowed to spread. We can no longer afford to overlook the role children play in transmission if we hope to contain the virus. I am supported by funding from an Australian competitive grant (National Health and Medical Research Council grant 1150337). Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
In the digital age, the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become an irreversible trend, with its potential in the field of education being particularly noteworthy. However, there are currently few AI education programs for children in Taiwan, and there is a lack of systematic teaching resources and methods, which poses a major challenge to the promotion of AI education. To address this challenge, this study designed a tailor-made AI curriculum for children in Taiwan, aimed at enhancing their foundational knowledge in the AI field and skills in using generative AI. This study was conducted in Taiwan, involving 30 elementary school students from grades 3 and 4, employing a single-group pre-test and post-test research design. Data were collected and analyzed through pre-and post-tests on AI knowledge quizzes and AI knowledge self-assessment, as well as the expert consensual assessment technique and the pupils’ attitude toward technology survey questionnaire. Research shows that students who participated in the AI course significantly improved their test scores on AI knowledge before and after the course. The students AI knowledge increased by 62.75%, demonstrating the course’s effectiveness and showing a positive attitude towards AI technology. Additionally, the student’s project outcomes demonstrated a high level of creativity. The students exhibited an enhanced interest and positive attitude towards learning AI, expressing a willingness to participate in more AI educational courses. This work provides valuable experience and guidance for the future integration of AI technology in children’s education, offering practical guidelines for teachers and researchers on how to effectively teach AI knowledge, as well as serving as a robust reference for educational policy makers in formulating strategies to promote AI education.
Importance: Ensuring appropriate school engagement for deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) children in the US is important for improving their long-term outcomes as they grow into adults. Objective: To examine the associations between hearing loss (HL), its sequelae (speech and/or language disorders, behavioral and/or conduct problems, and neuropsychiatric and/or learning disorders), and various school engagement measures among school-aged children in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study combined data from the nationally representative 2016-2021 National Survey of Children's Health. A total of 155 178 randomly selected children (weighted, approximately 49 340 700 children) aged 6 to 17 years with a parent or caregiver who responded to an address-based survey by mail or online were included. All analyses were weighted to account for the probability of selection and nonresponse and to reflect population-based estimates representative of all noninstitutionalized school-aged US children and adolescents residing in housing units. Main Outcomes and Measures: Diverse school engagement measures, including extracurricular participation in sports, clubs, paid work, volunteer work, and organized lessons, as well as educational performance variables, including missed school days, not caring about doing well in school, not doing required homework, grade repetition, and parent or guardian contacted by school. Results: Of the estimated 49 340 700 children aged 6 to 17 years (41.1% aged 6-10 years; 51.1% male; 54.7% without underrepresented minority status), an estimated 1.4% (95% CI, 1.2%-1.5%) were reported by their parent or guardian to have deafness or hearing problems. Having DHH status was associated with significantly worse outcomes on 8 of 10 school engagement measures (eg, participation in sports: adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.60-0.93]; missed school days: AOR, 2.98 [95% CI, 2.21-4.00]), even after adjustment for age, sex, underrepresented minority status, highest educational level of parent or guardian, federal poverty level of the household, and primary language in the household. Moreover, although subgroup analyses of DHH children with and without HL sequelae revealed significant differences (speech and/or language disorder: AOR, 5.83 [95% CI, 4.31-7.89]; behavioral and/or conduct problem: AOR, 2.75 [95% CI, 2.10-3.60]; neuropsychiatric and/or learning disorder: AOR, 3.06 [95% CI, 2.39-3.91]), HL sequelae only partially mediated the associations between these disparities. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, DHH status itself may have been the primary factor directly associated with school engagement disparities. These findings suggest the need for greater emphasis on educational accommodations and support for hearing status itself, independent of the presence or absence of HL sequelae.
What do the near-perfect (or even perfect) scores in board examination represent except an ability to ace an examination with a predictable pattern? Have these toppers learnt that is of value in the world outside the boundaries of school (i.e. real life)? And what about the (academically) average or below average children? What skills do they leave the school with after spending more than 14 years in this institution? These are pertinent questions that need an answer if we want to talk about improving learning outcomes.
Importance: Children born preterm are at an elevated risk of academic underachievement. However, the extent to which performance across domain-specific subskills in reading and mathematics is associated with preterm birth remains unclear. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of academic outcomes of school-aged children born preterm, compared with children born at term, appraising evidence for higher- and lower-order subskills in reading and mathematics. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature electronic databases from January 1, 1980, to July 30, 2018, were searched for population, exposure, and outcome terms such as child (population), preterm birth (exposure), and education* (outcome). Study Selection: Peer-reviewed English-language publications that included preterm-born children and a comparison group of term-born children aged 5 to 18 years and born during or after 1980 and that reported outcomes on standardized assessments from cohort or cross-sectional studies were screened. Of the 9833 articles screened, 33 unique studies met the inclusion criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were analyzed from August 1 to September 29, 2018. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Two reviewers independently screened the databases and extracted sample characteristics and outcomes scores. Pooled mean differences (MDs) were analyzed using random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: Performance on standardized assessment of higher-order subskills of reading comprehension and applied mathematics problems; lower-order reading subskills of decoding, pseudoword decoding, and word identification; and lower-order mathematics subskills of knowledge, calculation, and fluency. Results: Outcomes data were extracted for 4006 preterm and 3317 term-born children, totaling 7323 participants from 33 unique studies. Relative to children born at term, children born preterm scored significantly lower in reading comprehension (mean difference [MD], -7.96; 95% CI, -12.15 to -3.76; I2 = 81%) and applied mathematical problems (MD, -11.41; 95% CI, -17.57 to -5.26; I2 = 91%) assessments. Across the assessments of lower-order skills, children born preterm scored significantly lower than their term-born peers in calculation (MD, -10.57; 95% CI, -15.62 to -5.52; I2 = 92%), decoding (MD, -10.18; 95% CI, -16.83 to -3.53; I2 = 71%), mathematical knowledge (MD, -9.88; 95% CI, -11.68 to -8.08; I2 = 62%), word identification (MD, -7.44; 95% CI, -9.08 to -5.80; I2 = 69%), and mathematical fluency (MD, -6.89; 95% CI, -13.54 to -0.23; I2 = 72%). The associations remained unchanged after sensitivity analyses for reducing heterogeneity. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings provide evidence that preterm birth is associated with academic underperformance in aggregate measures of reading and mathematics, as well as a variety of related subskills.
Melinda McBryde, Grace C. Fitzallen, Helen G. Liley et al.
weeks' gestation account for ≈70% of prematurely born infants. There is growing concern about this population at risk of mild neurodevelopmental problems, learning disabilities and lower academic performance. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement, this paper analyzes recent published evidence from 16selected studies involving late preterm children and control group assessments at preschool and/or school age, mainly focusing on cognitive functioning, language learning and academic achievement. The review identifies the assessment tools used in these studies (standardized tests, parental questionnaires and laboratory tasks) and the areas being evaluated from preschool (age 3 years) to primary school levels. Results reveal the presence of mild difficulties, pointing to suboptimal outcomes in areas such as executive function, short term verbal memory, literacy skills, attention and processing speed. Some difficulties are transient, but others persist, possibly compromising academic achievement, as suggested by the few studies reporting on higher risk for poor school performance. Given the increasing number of late preterm children in our society the review highlights the need to implement screening strategies to facilitate early risk detection and minimize the negative effects of this morbidity in childhood.
