More than “Good Job!”: The Critical Role of Teacher Feedback in Classroom Discourse and Language Development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Conversations between an adult and a child are effective ways to promote language and vocabulary development in young children. Considerable attention has been paid to teachers asking open‐ended questions to promote conversations. However, the feedback that follows the question is also an important part of promoting back‐and‐forth dialogue, and less attention has been paid to this aspect of an exchange. Teachers' feedback uniquely encourages conversations beyond one back‐and‐forth turn, essential for promoting rich adult–child language interactions. This paper discusses the role of teacher feedback in extending conversations that encourage children to use language in meaningful ways. We review the research findings on teacher feedback and offer evidenced‐based, practical suggestions on providing feedback, meant to support teachers and children as they engage in conversations. Asking open‐ended questions is one part of meaningful conversations; feedback extends the conversation and supports children's language development.
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.
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 it