The Effects of Verbal Support Strategies on Small-Group Peer Interactions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated whether child care providers could learn to facilitate peer interactions by using verbal support strategies (e.g., prompts, invitations, or suggestions to interact) during naturalistic play activities. METHOD: Seventeen caregivers were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups, stratified by center so that staff from one center could attend the training program together. The experimental group received inservice training on how to facilitate peer interaction; the control group received training on adult-child communication strategies. Caregivers in the experimental group were taught to facilitate children's interactions with their peers by using indirect referrals (e.g., alerting children to situational information, offering praise) and direct referrals (e.g., telling a child what to say to a peer, inviting children to play together). RESULTS: At posttest, the caregivers in the experimental group used more verbal supports for peer interaction than the caregivers in the control group. Specifically, they used more utterances to promote communication between peers and to invite children to interact together. In turn, the children in the experimental group initiated interactions with peers more often and engaged in extended peer sequences more often than the children in the control group. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The results support the viability of this training model in early childhood education settings and suggest that future research of its effects with children who have disabilities is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it