Effort, Ability, or Difficulties? Parents’ and Teachers’ Explanations of the Malleability of Children’s Competences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study set out to examine parents’ and teachers’ explanations of the malleability of children’s competences. Parents and teachers were asked in which aspect of schoolwork the child could improve his/her competence most and to explain why. The participants were parents and teachers of third- and sixth-grade boys and girls (n=97). The parents and teachers were found to refer to the amount of effort, motivation, and ability in their explanations of the malleability of children’s competences. The explanations concerning ability divided into those in which the child was seen as possessing ability and those in which the child was seen as lacking ability or having difficulties that prevented her/him from succeeding. The teachers perceived sixth-graders as needing more effort and motivation than third-graders did, and girls as somewhat more competent and motivated than boys. The teachers also seemed to explain children’s potential for improvement in more complex ways than the parents did.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".