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
To promote the implementation of manipulatives into mathematics instruction, this research project examined the instructional practices of four grade 9 Applied Mathematics teachers related to their use of manipulatives in teaching mathematics and how it affects students learning. Two instruments were used to collect data: The Teacher Questionnaire and Observation field Notes. The methods were used to collect data on how effectively teachers incorporated manipulatives into their instructional practices, after participating in training and practising their pilot lesson plans over the course of more than twenty weeks, as well as the effect of the use of manipulatives on their students learning. Results showed that the teachers were able to incorporate manipulatives in their daily lesson plans relative to what they practiced while delivering the model lessons. Teachers reported the use of more virtual manipulatives than physical manipulatives after the project. The use of manipulatives in the observed mathematics classrooms had some direct effects on the students learning, in particular, on the struggling students, however, its major effect was on creating an environment that facilitated students learning through different methods of engagement. The learning of mathematics took place through knowledge negotiation among the students.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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