MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081907632 · doi:10.1119/1.2785190

The effect of multiple internal representations on context-rich instruction

2007· article· en· W2081907632 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJohn Abbott College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct (python library)Independence (probability theory)ModalitiesMeasure (data warehouse)CognitionControl (management)Concept learningSection (typography)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss n-coding, a theoretical model of multiple internal mental representations. The n-coding construct is developed from a review of cognitive and imaging data that demonstrates the independence of information processed along different modalities such as verbal, visual, kinesthetic, logico-mathematic, and social modalities. A study testing the effectiveness of the n-coding construct in classrooms is presented. Four sections differing in the level of n-coding opportunities were compared. Besides a traditional-instruction section used as a control group, each of the remaining three sections were given context-rich problems, which differed by the level of n-coding opportunities designed into their laboratory environment. To measure the effectiveness of the construct, problem-solving skills were assessed as conceptual learning using the force concept inventory. We also developed several new measures that take students’ confidence in concepts into account. Our results show that the n-coding construct is useful in designing context-rich environments and can be used to increase learning gains in problem solving, conceptual knowledge, and concept confidence. Specifically, when using props in designing context-rich problems, we find n-coding to be a useful construct in guiding which additional dimensions need to be attended to.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PhysicsSame topicVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesFrench-language works237,207