MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152281873 · doi:10.1080/00207390601002765

Introductory statistics, college student attitudes and knowledge – a qualitative analysis of the impact of technology-based instruction

2006· article· en· W2152281873 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationStatistical inferenceGRASPStatistics educationStatistical analysisDescriptive statisticsStatistical thinkingComputer scienceEducational technologyStatisticsPsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents findings from a qualitative study that compared the learning experiences of a group of students from a technology-based college-level introductory statistics course with the learning experiences of a group of students with non-technology-based instruction. Findings from the study indicate differences with regards to classroom experiences, student enjoyment of statistics, and student understanding of the many roles that technology plays in statistics. However, no significant differences were found between technology-based and non-technology-based instruction on students’ grasp of fundamental statistical concepts. In particular, these findings agree with the findings of several other studies, which indicate that incorporation of statistical software in the introductory statistics classroom might not always be very effective in building student intuitions about important statistical ideas related to statistical inference.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.455 · 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