“You Have to Do It Like the Duckies Hatch Their Egg”: Parent and Sibling Teaching of Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in Early Childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated parents’ and siblings’ knowledge use during naturalistic teaching episodes in the home. Thirty-seven middle-class families were observed for six 90-minute sessions (siblings aged 4 and 6 years). Parent and sibling teaching sequences were coded for knowledge type (conceptual, procedural), conceptual subcategories (social conventional behavior; game discussions; academic concepts; problem solving) and procedural knowledge subcategories (game procedures; general skill procedures). Research Findings: Findings indicated no significant mean difference between mothers’ and fathers’ and older and younger siblings’ conceptual and procedural teaching. However, parents taught proportionally more conceptual knowledge than siblings, indicating that siblings taught proportionally more procedural knowledge compared to parents. In terms of conceptual subcategories, parents taught more social conventional behaviors, whereas siblings taught more academic concepts. Siblings also taught more general skill procedures compared to parents. Practice or Policy: Overall, our findings indicate that the home environment is a rich context for the naturalistic teaching of conceptual and procedural knowledge by both parents and siblings, thus advancing our understanding of the role of family dynamics on children’s learning and 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".