Collaboration in cognitive tutor use in latin America
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technology has the promise to transform educational prac-tices worldwide. In particular, cognitive tutoring systems are an example of educational technology that has been ex-tremely effective at improving mathematics learning over traditional classroom instruction. However, studies on the effectiveness of tutor software have been conducted mainly in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe, and little is known about how these systems might be used in other contexts with differing classroom practices and values. To understand this question, we studied the usage of mathematics tutoring software for middle school at sites in three Latin American countries: Brazil, Mexico, and Costa Rica. While cognitive tutors were designed for individual use, we found that students in these classrooms worked collaboratively, engaging in interdependently paced work and conducting work away from their own computer. In this paper we present design recommendations for how cognitive tutors might be incorporated into different classroom practices, and better adapted for student needs in these environments.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it