Improving young children's peer collaboration in early educational settings: A systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Peer collaboration is a foundational skill that emerges in early childhood. Children spend significant time in early educational settings, making it an important setting where young children can learn how to collaborate with peers. However, research on how to support children's collaboration effectively is limited and findings in this area have been inconsistent. This systematic review synthesises the effectiveness of interventions designed to enhance peer collaboration among children aged zero to six in early educational settings. The searches were conducted in Education Resource Information Centre (ERIC), PsycINFO, Education Resource, and Child Development and Adolescent Studies. A total of 18 studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Included interventions targeted five components of peer collobaration: (1) communication skills; (2) ability to share goals; (3) collaborative products; (4) knowledge exchange; and (5) collaborative prosocial skills. The structure and implementation of the interventions were examined. Diverse strategies such as grouping children based on criteria, evaluations of collaborative products, role assignments, and adult observation and guidance were used to enhance young children's peer collaboration. The interventions primarily focused on children's direct engagement in tasks, with limited attention given to educators. The systematic review found mixed results regarding the impact of interventions on children's peer collaboration. Our findings provide researchers, policy makers and educators with empirical guidance on how to support this skill in young children. Context and implications Rationale for this study Early educational settings are in a unique position to support children's peer collaboration. This study synthesised research on how to support the development of peer collaboration in these settings. Why the new findings matter This study identified heterogeneity in how peer collaboration is supported and measured. Findings about the effectiveness of interventions were mixed. Implications for policy makers The heterogeneity in measures found in this study highlights the need to develop and utilise consistent measures of peer collaboration. It is important for interventions to identify the specific type of peer collaboration skills that they target and tailor interventions accordingly. Future studies should continuously aim to ensure the quality of research and the replicability and clarity of intervention procedures across contexts for integration of evidence. Finally, more research is needed to understand how to support process‐oriented collaboration outcomes in children.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,054 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».