A Comparison of Manipulative Use on Mathematics Efficiency in Elementary Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder
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
Manipulatives are a commonly used intervention that provide visual instruction known to promote mathematical learning; however, the impact on students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is less understood. Improving mathematical procedural understanding is important for students with ASD given these skills can help increase access to more advanced mathematics and future opportunities (e.g., postsecondary education). This study expanded upon previous research and compared the ability of students with ASD to solve mathematical problems when using concrete and app-based manipulatives. A single-case alternating treatment design was used to explore differences in steps completed independently per minute (i.e., efficiency) and accuracy when using both types of manipulatives. Two participants were more efficient when using the app-based manipulative while one was more efficient with the concrete manipulative. Similar to previous research, all participants indicated they preferred the app-based condition. Limitations and future research are included.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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