Improving young children's peer collaboration in early educational settings: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Peer collaboration is a foundational skill that emerges in early childhood. Children spend significant time in early educational settings, making it an important setting where young children can learn how to collaborate with peers. However, research on how to support children's collaboration effectively is limited and findings in this area have been inconsistent. This systematic review synthesises the effectiveness of interventions designed to enhance peer collaboration among children aged zero to six in early educational settings. The searches were conducted in Education Resource Information Centre (ERIC), PsycINFO, Education Resource, and Child Development and Adolescent Studies. A total of 18 studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Included interventions targeted five components of peer collobaration: (1) communication skills; (2) ability to share goals; (3) collaborative products; (4) knowledge exchange; and (5) collaborative prosocial skills. The structure and implementation of the interventions were examined. Diverse strategies such as grouping children based on criteria, evaluations of collaborative products, role assignments, and adult observation and guidance were used to enhance young children's peer collaboration. The interventions primarily focused on children's direct engagement in tasks, with limited attention given to educators. The systematic review found mixed results regarding the impact of interventions on children's peer collaboration. Our findings provide researchers, policy makers and educators with empirical guidance on how to support this skill in young children. Context and implications Rationale for this study Early educational settings are in a unique position to support children's peer collaboration. This study synthesised research on how to support the development of peer collaboration in these settings. Why the new findings matter This study identified heterogeneity in how peer collaboration is supported and measured. Findings about the effectiveness of interventions were mixed. Implications for policy makers The heterogeneity in measures found in this study highlights the need to develop and utilise consistent measures of peer collaboration. It is important for interventions to identify the specific type of peer collaboration skills that they target and tailor interventions accordingly. Future studies should continuously aim to ensure the quality of research and the replicability and clarity of intervention procedures across contexts for integration of evidence. Finally, more research is needed to understand how to support process‐oriented collaboration outcomes in children.
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 | 0.014 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".