Constructing Progress Maps of Digital Technology for Diagnosing Mathematical Proficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to construct and validate progress maps of digital technology for diagnosing the multidimensional mathematical proficiency (MP) in Number and Algebra for Grade 7 students utilizing the Construct Modeling Approach. Researchers employed four building blocks as follows. Firstly, researchers developed the progress maps as an assessment framework of multidimensional MP. This is followed by creating the test for diagnosing MP. Next, researchers assigned scoring criteria and created the transition points of students’ MP levels. Finally, researchers validated the quality of the progress maps through empirical evidence. A total sample 1,500 Grade 7 students was used to support the validity and reliability evidence of the progress maps through the Wright Map using Multidimensional Random Coefficients Multinomial Logit Model. Results revealed that there were two dimensions of progress maps, namely mathematical procedures (MAP) and structure of learning outcome (SLO), and the researchers investigated three strands of validity evidence, namely test content, response processes, and internal structure. The reliability values in the MAP and SLO were 0.84 and 0.80 respectively. Finally, the Grade 7 students were mainly found to be at level-2 in the MAP dimension (44.95%) and the SLO dimension (61.57%). The experts’ evaluation results showed that the digital technology that was developed at the “most appropriate” quality levels in terms of usefulness, suitability, and accuracy, and at the “very appropriate” for the feasibility aspect, and hence is successfully contributing to the clarification of learning goals, to support for student-centered instruction, and that it is helpful in improving in teacher professional development.
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 | 0.009 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".