Siblings’ Understanding of Teaching in Early and Middle Childhood:‘Watch Me and You’ll Know How to Do It’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined siblings’ knowledge about the teaching concept during naturalistic teaching contexts, wherein children’s communicative interactions were used as a gateway to their social understanding (Turnbull, Carpendale, & Racine, 2009). Participants included 39 sibling dyads (older age group, Mage = 6;4; younger age group, Mage = 4;5) observed for six 90-min sessions at home. Teaching episodes were identified and coded for: a) initiation of teaching (i.e., assumes role or learner requests teaching), b) knowledge states (i.e., knowledge, lack of knowledge, questioning knowledge), c) transfer of knowledge (i.e., learning), and d) teaching strategies (e.g., direct instruction). Children who assumed the teaching role referenced knowledge and questioning knowledge, whereas learners requested teaching by referencing a lack of knowledge. Firstborn learners were more likely to reference knowledge versus second-born learners who referenced a lack of knowledge. Transfer of knowledge occurred when teachers referenced knowledge. When learners referenced knowledge states, teachers were more likely to use direct instruction, demonstration, and negative feedback. Results underscore the developmental significance of sibling teaching and demonstrate a novel approach to studying children’s social understanding in the teaching context (Turnbull et al., 2009).
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".