<p>On the development of early algebraic thinking</p>
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
This article deals with the question of the development of algebraic thinking in young students. In contrast to mental approaches to cognition, we argue that thinking is made up of material and ideational components such as (inner and outer) speech, forms of sensuous imagination, gestures, tactility, and actual actions with signs and cultural artifacts. Drawing on data from a longitudinal classroom-based research program where 8-year old students were followed as they moved from Grade 2 to Grade 3 to Grade 4, our developmental research question is investigated in terms of the manner in which new relationships between embodiment, perception, and symbol-use emerge and evolve as students engage in patterning activities. Sobre el desarrollo de pensamiento algebraico temprano Este artículo aborda la cuestión del desarrollo del pensamiento algebraico en estudiantes jóvenes. En contraste con los enfoques mentales de la cognición, sostenemos que el pensamiento está compuesto por componentes materiales y del mundo de las ideas tales como el discurso (interior y exterior), formas de imaginación sensitiva, gestos, tacto y acciones reales con signos y artefactos culturales. Con base en datos obtenidos de un programa de investigación longitudinal basado en el aula en el que se siguió el paso de estudiantes de 8 años de segundo grado a tercero y a cuarto, nuestra pregunta de investigación acerca del desarrollo es investigada en términos de la forma en que surgen y evolucionan nuevas relaciones entre el cuerpo, la percepción y el inicio del uso de símbolos a medida que los estudiantes participan en actividades sobre patrones.Handle: http://hdl.handle.net/10481/20052Nº de citas en WOS (2017): 3 (Citas de 2º orden, 3)Nº de citas en SCOPUS (2017): 6 (Citas de 2º orden, 21)
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
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