MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392909002 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/dc4x5

Interactive environments for training children's curiosity through the practice of metacognitive skills : a pilot study

2024· preprint· en· W4392909002 on OpenAlexaff
Rania Abdelghani, Edith Law, Chloé Desvaux, Pierre-Yves Oudeyer, Hélène Sauzeon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological and Educational Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAssociation Nationale de la Recherche et de la TechnologieAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsCuriosityMetacognitionPsychologyTraining (meteorology)Medical educationMathematics educationPedagogyApplied psychologySocial psychologyCognitionMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Curiosity-driven learning has shown significant positive effects on students' learning experiences and outcomes. But despite this importance, reports show that children lack this skill, especially in formal educational settings.To address this challenge, we propose an 8-session workshop that aims to enhance children's curiosity through training a set of specific metacognitive skills we hypothesize are involved in its process. Our workshop contains animated videos presenting declarative knowledge about curiosity and the said metacognitive skills as well as practice sessions to apply these skills during a reading-comprehension task, using a web platform designed for this study (e.g. expressing uncertainty, formulating questions, etc). We conduct a pilot study with 15 primary school students, aged between 8 and 10. Our first results show a positive impact on children's metacognitive efficiency and their ability to express their curiosity through question-asking behaviors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychological and Educational Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207