Children and Adults Working Together in the Zone of Proximal Development: A Concept for User-Centered Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the theory of a zone of proximal development from the perspective of usability research and user-centered approaches to the design of information retrieval systems. Using concrete examples (dialogue, tools and techniques) from the inter-generational design teams of Large et al, this study will show how structuring usability research around Vygotsky’s theory of a zone of proximal development can offer a robust conceptual framework for eliciting responses from children on information retrieval issues and for defining the role that children can play in the design process.Cet article présente la théorie de la zone prochaine de développement à partir de la perspective de la convivialité de la recherche et des approches orientées utilisateurs pour la conception de systèmes de recherche d’information. Utilisant des exemples concrets (dialogue, outils et techniques) tirés des équipes de conception intergénérationnelles de Large et al., cette étude démontrera comment la structuration de la convivialité de la recherche autour de la théorie de la zone prochaine de développement de Vygotsky peut offrir une cadre …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".