Practice versus graphical representation for maintainance of basic arithmetic competencies : first year primary
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Educators such as Edith Biggs in Britain and Vincent Glennon and the Cambridge Conference on School Mathematics in the United States have suggested that the amount of time children spend on direct practice of newly learned skills and understandings can be greatly reduced. The Americans propose an Integration of this practice with the presentation and learning of new topics. The British favour an activity approach, where new learnings are put to immediate use, and the need for acquisition and perfection of mathematical competencies becomes obvious to the children. A few American research studies have substantiated the merits of reduced practice, at the intermediate level. This study explores the place of practice for maintenance of the basic competencies of First Year Primary children in British Columbia at the end of the school year. The competencies chosen for study were 1) Numeration: reading, writing and understanding of base ten numerals ≤99, and 2) Computation: addition and subtraction operations with sums and minuend ≤10. The new material, chosen to be presented as an alternative to direct practice, was Graphical Representation, a unit developed from the Nuffield Project booklet, Pictorial Representation 1. Two schools in the Vancouver area were used, the first with a class of 54 children and the second with 34. Parallel pre-tests and post-tests in the basic competencies were administered. During a three week Intervening interval, the Investigator taught the children, who were divided into groups, by random selection, as follows: In the first school, three groups of 18 children were instructed respectively in Graphical Representation, in review and practice, using familiar materials, and in geometry, involving no use of numbers (control group). In the second school, two groups of 17 children were Instructed in Graphical Representation, and in review and practice, respectively. At the end of the experiment, there was no significant difference in the tested numeration competencies of the two experimental groups in their respective schools. The control group showed a slightly lower achievement. Time did not permit a retention test. In the first school, where computational efficiency was low, the results slightly favoured the review and practice group, over the other groups. In the second school, there was no significant difference between the two groups, regarding progress in computational skills. Within Its limitations, this study demonstrates the possibility of maintaining basic competencies, while introducing new topics, at the first year level.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».