Examining the relation between adult scaffolding of make-believe play and children’s executive functions: an observational study conducted in a natural educational setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to bridge a gap between Vygotsky’s seminal framework on the importance of make-believe play and adult scaffolding in children’s cognitive development (e.g. executive function [EFs]) and research in cognitive neuroscience. Kindergarten children (N = 160) and teachers (N = 12) took part in the study. EFs skills and make-believe play (Child and Teacher dimensions; e.g. adult’ level of scaffolding) were assessed through observation with the Executive Functions Observation Tool and the Mature Play Observation Tool. Results from stepwise polynomial regressions and mediation analysis showed a significant mediating effect of the context on the curvilinear relationship between teacher scaffolding of play and the child’s level of EFs. These results show the importance of observing each child and the context in which they learn and play to understand their EFs. Observation of EFs manifestations could allow for better planning of intentional interventions to support the child’s skills in accordance with their developmental needs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".