TWO-DIMENSIONAL AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELS USED FOR TEACHING HUMAN EVOLUTION IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS. LEARNING PROFICIENCY ASSESSMENT. A CASE STUDY
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".