MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910919025 · doi:10.23965/ajec.43.4.04

Evaluating the Impact of Teacher-designed, Wellbeing and Sustainability Play-based Learning Experiences on Young Children's Knowledge Connections: A Randomised Trial

2018· article· en· W2910919025 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Morris, Susan Edwards, Amy Cutter‐Mackenzie, Leonie Rutherford, Janet Williams-Smith, Helen Skouteris

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal of Early Childhood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityIntervention (counseling)Childhood obesityPsychologyEarly childhood educationDevelopmental psychologyRandomized controlled trialMedical educationMedicineObesityPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

THIS PAPER REPORTS FINDINGS from a randomised investigation into the effect of teacher-designed, play-based learning experiences on preschool-aged children's knowledge connections between healthy eating and active play as wellbeing concepts, and sustainability. The investigation used a ‘ funds of knowledge’ theoretical framework to situate young children's interests in digital media and popular culture, as a site for learning these knowledge connections. The findings suggest that the intervention group children created more wellbeing and sustainability knowledge connections than the waitlist control group children. Additionally, the intervention group children demonstrated an increase in vegetable serves and a decrease in unhealthy food servings post intervention (measured by parent report). The paper suggests that more attention should be paid to early childhood teachers’ capacity for actively building children's knowledge about wellbeing and sustainability concepts through play-based learning, as opposed to top-down approaches towards obesity education and prevention alone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Journal of Early ChildhoodSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207