Spatial Training and Calculus Ability: Investigating Impacts on Student Performance and Cognitive Style
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
Undergraduate calculus is a foundational mathematics sequence that previews the sophistication students will need to succeed in higher-level courses. However, students often struggle with concepts in calculus because they are more abstract and visual than those in other foundational mathematics courses. Additionally, women continue to be underrepresented in the STEM fields. This study builds on previous work indicating a malleability in spatial ability by testing whether improvement occurs in students’ spatial and mathematics ability after implementing spatial training in calculus courses. The researchers also measured associations between spatial training and self-reported cognitive style. While spatial training did not significantly improve calculus and spatial skills, the researchers measured impacts on the psychological correlate of cognitive learning style. This is important as non-spatial cognitive preferences can result in students not recognizing the dynamic information encapsulated in graphical images, which is a large component of calculus. These results may have practical implications for teaching calculus at the undergraduate level and may, with further research, help to narrow the gender gap in the STEM fields.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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