Tap, swipe, and build: Parental spatial input during i<scp>P</scp>ad<sup>®</sup> and toy play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the increase in the use of interactive technological devices, little is known about the impact that play context has on the production of spatial language by parents. To investigate whether there is differential parental spatial input afforded by play contexts with their preschoolers, 34 children (20 girls, 14 boys) and their primary caregivers engaged in 30‐min 3‐dimensional (3D) spatial play using blocks and puzzles and virtual 2‐dimensional (2D) spatial play using an iPad ® in 2 separate home visits. There were no significant differences in the average amount of spatial talk and the number of spatial categories used by parents in both 3D and 2D play contexts. However, the amount of parental spatial talk decreased significantly with older preschoolers using the iPad ® . In the 3D play contexts, parents produced more words related to spatial dimensions, location and directions, and continuous amount than in the 2D play contexts. However, in the 2D play contexts, they produced more words associated with orientations and transformations as well as deictics than in the 3D play contexts. Our findings suggest that technology can be effectively introduced into play contexts to elicit enriched parental spatial input by supporting parents and caregivers with best practices. Highlights The present study examines the differences in parental spatial talk when using traditional versus technology‐based learning tools with their preschoolers. Two 30‐min home observations of parent–child dyads playing blocks and puzzles versus spatial apps on an iPad ® . No significant differences in the amount of parental spatial talk and the number of spatial categories in both play contexts were found. Our findings suggest that technology can be effectively introduced into play contexts to elicit enriched parental spatial input.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".