Using social knowledge while interacting at the classroom sand center: Facework and cohesion strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study is to inform teachers’ practice by identifying specific language strategies that young children use in their play and suggesting ways that teachers can build on our findings to support students’ language and literacy. Deductive analyses of video-recordings of 5-year old children playing at the sand center revealed that children used cohesive strategies, such as repetitions and conjunctions, to tie together the ideas from one speaker to the next, in order to maintain the flow of the play. Children also used facework strategies, such as complimenting peers, softening regulatory language with words such as “just,” and showing interest in others’ activities. These strategies helped children to build relationships with peers and enhance their positive self-esteem as members of the play group. Children used language primarily for imaginative purposes, in addition to communicating information, regulating others’ behavior, and expressing their individuality and emotional responses to activities at the sand center. Primary teachers may find these results useful for guiding assessment of children’s knowledge of and flexibility in using linguistic and semiotic resources to achieve social purposes and to create cohesive narratives in informal interactions.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".