Relational Language Improves Preschool Children’s Performance of Analogical Reasoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study explored how relational language influenced the analogical reasoning among preschool children in China. Children (aged 4.5 and 5.5) in Experiment 1 were asked to complete a cross-mapped task where the object match competed with the relational match. The ANOVA results showed that the performance of both 4.5-year-olds and 4.5-year-olds were significantly improved after they heard Relational Language, F (1, 68) =44.821，p<0.05, η2=0.40. In Experiment 2, different distractors were added to the cross-mapped task and the 5.5-year-olds were replaced by 3.5 year-olds. The results demonstrated that the facilitating effect of Relational Language still existed among the youngest children and the performance of 4.5-year-olds was better than the 3.5-year-olds, F(1, 68)=6.76, p<0.05, η2=0.09. Furthermore, both age groups performed the worst under the distractor condition, indicating that the distractors made analogical reasoning more difficult, especially for the youngest children. Taken together, the current findings suggested that the facilitating effects of relational language in relational reasoning could also be observed in a broader sample.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".