MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342371741 · doi:10.1080/09500782.2016.1141933

‘Then what happened?’ Studying emergent literacy in the narrative play of preschool children

2016· article· en· W2342371741 on OpenAlexaffabout
Denise Hudspith Heppner

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeLiteracyPsychologyEarly childhoodMeaning (existential)RepertoireEmergent literacyPedagogyLanguage developmentNarrative inquiryEarly childhood educationMeaning-makingDevelopmental psychologyLinguisticsLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The focus of this research was on examining a play-based, child-centered instructional technique known as story telling/story acting (ST/SA) within a Canadian preschool setting. The goal was to examine the changes that occurred in the narrative features of preschool children's stories, and to investigate whether ST/SA fostered emerging literacy skills of the children who participated. Results indicated growth in the narrative features of language and story structure of the children's stories. Evidence that emergent literacy skills were being fostered by participation in the ST/SA process was found in the areas of oral language development, narrative form, conventions of print, concept of alphabetic code, word study, and the making of meaning. The research findings indicate that the ST/SA activity would be a useful addition to early childhood educators' repertoire of effective instructional practices which have shown to produce growth in oral language skills and further the development of emergent literacy in young children.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage and EducationSame topicDigital Storytelling and EducationFrench-language works237,207