A Conceptual and Procedural Research on the Hierarchical Structure of Mathematics Emerging in the Minds of University Students: An Example of Limit-Continuity-Integral-Derivative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this present study, it was aimed to investigate whether the hierarchical structure of mathematics emerged in university students’ minds or not, considering the concepts of limit, continuity derivative and integral from the perspective of students in the department of secondary school mathematics teacher training and the department of mathematics in the faculty of science and letters. The study, designed with the case study methodology, was carried out with 100 participants. Data were collected with the research group via a survey form including totally five questions; one of which is conceptual the other four are operational and analysed with the descriptive analysis. From the results of the research, it was found out that the participants could not learn the concepts of limit-continuity-derivative-integral conceptually and could not constitute the hierarchical structures among these concepts in their minds. Nevertheless, it was determined that the participants learned the procedural knowledge of each concept independent from the other. From these results, it can be recommended that placing activities emphasizing on the relationships among the concepts in teaching the concepts should be applied more.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".