TWO-DIMENSIONAL AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELS USED FOR TEACHING HUMAN EVOLUTION IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS. LEARNING PROFICIENCY ASSESSMENT. A CASE STUDY
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
The evolution of the human species is a topic of extreme importance reported in the “Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais do Ensino Médio – PCNEM” (National Curriculum Standards of Secondary Education), although it is not often taught as part of basic education. This work presents the results of an experimental work performed with 31 students of a religious high school of State of Rio de Janeiro. Learning proficiency was assessed by using two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) illustration techniques of hominids skulls and a Pongidae for teaching Human Evolution. The teaching-learning process using these methodologies was more effective with the application of three-dimensional (3D) illustration techniques. The group of students that used 3D illustrations were able to observe similarities and differences between the presented taxonomic models, and formulate hypotheses about their palaeobiology more consistently than the students that used 2D models. Results of this work indicate that the use of three-dimensional techniques (3D) provides an excellent support to teaching-learning process in basic education, captivating and stimulating new interests of students during the educational process.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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