A conversational intervention procedure as a tool for improving and evaluating narrative skills : A study of 5-to-8 years old French children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By age five children have acquired basic narrative skills and are able to report events temporally framed within a narrative structure. However, at least when they have to produce autonomous narratives on the basis of images, until 8-9 years many children have difficulties in telling coherent and causally-motivated stories, particularly when the internal states of the characters and a mentalistic understanding of the world are involved. The aim of this study is to contribute further results concerning the role of a dialogical intervention procedure soliciting children's attention on the reasons of the events of a on children's production of complex mind-oriented narratives. To this effect, 140 French-speaking children aged 5 to 8 years (35 children at each age level) followed an experimental procedure devised in earlier studies. They were first exposed to five pictures (the story whose main point is a misunderstanding between two characters) presented sequentially. After the pictures had been removed, all children were requested to tell the experimenter the (first narrative). Then, 25 children at each age level were asked questions soliciting the reasons of the key events in the (the conversation group) while the other 10 (the control group) played a memory game with the pictures and other similar cards. Then, all children were asked to narrate once again the (second narrative). One week later children were asked to tell the a third time (to test the stability of the eventual changes obtained immediately afterwards) and to tell a new analogous to the stone (to test the generalization power of the conversational intervention). Narrative skills were analyzed for causal and evaluative relations (explanations, internal states, false beliefs and overall coherence). Results show that from age six on, the conversation group improved, significantly more then the control group, the overall coherence and mind-oriented causal plot of the in their second narrative. A relation between improvements and success in ToM tasks is observed. Results also show stability and generalization of the changes confirming the importance of the conversational intervention in improving the coherence of children's narratives and its usefulness as an assessment tool.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".