“Because if you don’t put the top on, it will spill”: A longitudinal study of sibling teaching in early childhood.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Naturalistic dyadic sequences of teaching and learning involving older and younger siblings were investigated in 39 middle-class dyads over a 2-year period in early childhood. Siblings were observed during ongoing interactions in the home setting for 6 90-min sessions at both Time 1 (older sibling M age = 4.4 years; younger sibling M age = 2.4 years) and Time 2 (older sibling M age = 6.3 years; younger sibling M age = 4.4 years). Sequences of sibling-directed teaching (T1 n = 353; T2 n = 1,039) were identified from the observation transcripts and coded for teacher/learner roles, initiation of teaching, teaching strategies, and learner response. Older siblings were more likely to engage in teaching at both time points, but the proportion of younger sibling teaching increased significantly from T1 to T2, partially because older siblings requested teaching more often from their younger siblings at T2. Siblings' use of teaching strategies varied across time points, while both older and younger sibling learners generally accepted or complied with the teaching. A final set of analyses examined birth-order effects while controlling for age by comparing older sibling teachers at age 4 (T1) to younger sibling teachers at age 4 (T2). At T1 first-born older siblings (age 4) engaged in a wider range and more sophisticated teaching strategies than second-born younger siblings (age 4) at T2. Findings highlight the bidirectional nature of teacher-learner interactions and are discussed in light of recent theory and research indicating that the sibling relationship is a rich context for children's learning and development. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.001 | 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".