Tarefas de geometria dinâmica com objetos de aprendizagem para a exploração e a investigação de conceitos geométricos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tarefas de geometria dinâmica têm um papel fundamental no ensino e aprendizagem de matemática, pois podem ampliar as possibilidades de abordagem dos conceitos geométricos estudados na Educação Básica. Assim, o objetivo deste artigo foi o de apresentar e caracterizar tarefas de geometria dinâmica que envolvem o uso de Objetos de Aprendizagem (OA) para a exploração e a investigação de conceitos geométricos. As tarefas foram elaboradas considerando os princípios metodológicos teorizados por Powell e Alqahtani (2015) e Powell e Pazuch (2016) para um trabalho investigativo usando Softwares de Geometria Dinâmica (SGD). A primeira tarefa foi desenvolvida para abordar as propriedades geométricas dos quadriláteros, enquanto a segunda permite o trabalho com as transformações geométricas presentes na animação do OA, o qual foi elaborado com o software GeoGebra. Os resultados mostram que essas tarefas podem contribuir para a prática do professor que ensina geometria e deseja integrar tecnologias digitais a seu trabalho em sala de aula.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".