Effects of task difficulty on sibling teaching in middle childhood
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
Abstract Teaching styles were investigated in 28 middle‐class sibling dyads (older sibling M age = 8.2 yrs; younger sibling M age =5.11 yrs) using two sets of block design tasks (five easy; five hard). Older siblings employed a greater number of strategies (i.e. physical demonstrations, scaffolding, corrective feedback) in the hard than in the easy tasks, thus demonstrating the ability to adjust teaching strategies according to task difficulty. Teachers also employed more frequent strategies when learners were younger indicating that they may be sensitive to developmental differences. In the hard tasks, learners responded positively to teacher guidance, but were also more likely to reject the teacher's help, perhaps demonstrating responsibility for their own learning. Findings are discussed in light of current social‐cognitive approaches highlighting the important roles of both teacher and learner during episodes of sibling teaching in middle childhood. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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