PROMOTING MODELING AND COVARIATIONAL REASONING AMONG SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THE CONTEXT OF BIG DATA
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
In this study, we follow students’ modeling and covariational reasoning in the context of learning about big data. A three-week unit was designed to allow 12th grade students in a mathematics course to explore big and mid-size data using concepts such as trend and scatter to describe the relationships between variables in multivariate settings. Students’ emergent ideas were followed along a varied learning trajectory that included computer-supported collaborative and inquiry-based approaches, using visualization tools and statistical software to explore data and fit a suitable trend, and student presentations of investigations. Findings show progress in some components of students’ reasoning and modeling of covariation, and indicate which features of the unit design might contribute to it. First published November 2017 at Statistics Education Research Journal Archives
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 | 0.015 | 0.076 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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