MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082942575 · doi:10.5430/jct.v9n3p161

Knowledge of Slope Concept in Mathematics Textbooks in Undergraduate Education

2020· article· en· W3082942575 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Leadership and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationContext (archaeology)TrigonometryProperty (philosophy)PrecalculusProcess (computing)Presentation (obstetrics)Algebraic numberCognitionGraphicsComputer scienceMathematicsCalculus (dental)PsychologyGeometryEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This questions the prevailing approach in the presentation of the concept of slope in teaching undergraduate in Turkey. For this purpose, five mathematics textbooks, were analyzed for problems related to slope, and similarities and differences were revealed. First, the subjects related to the slope in the textbooks were categorized and examined within the context in which they were handled. Therefore, this study is a qualitative study that adopts the interpretive paradigm. These categories are discussed in the form of connectivity, exploration, and purpose using the study for the context (Rezat, 2006). Stump (1999; 2001b) and Moore-Russo et al. (2011) studies were used for cognitive development. These are determined as geometric ratio, behavioral indicator, property determiner, algebraic ratio, parametric coefficient, functional property, linear constant, real life, physical property and trigonometry. Representations of the process skills were chosen as algebraic expressions, tables, and graphics. The concept is discussed in the form of calculus. In the use of technology (Akkoyunlu, 2002; Schware & Jaramillo, 1998), BCS, Scientific and Graphing Calculators, Internet are arranged. Definition, justification, and explanation for performance are arranged. When textbooks are compared, Turkey's textbooks contains more algebraic expressions, the use of the grounds and explanations and real-life connection, contains applications that use more formulas, the description is to use less highlighted is technology, other math they do not explicitly state their links with the subject areas. In general, it was seen that translated textbooks were mostly related to real life, equipped with explanations and justifications requiring cognitive competencies, and proceeded harmoniously between the subject area's main ideas and related ideas. These books use multi-step solved problems. Turkish textbooks need to be reviewed in terms of their functional areas in terms of context, cognitive need, representations, technology, and performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it