Effective numeracy educational interventions for students from disadvantaged social background: a comparison of two teaching methods
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
The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of explicit instruction, compared to constructivist instruction, in teaching subtraction in schools with a high concentration of students from a disadvantaged social background: eighty-seven second graders (mean age in months = 90.95, SD = 5.30). Two groups received explicit versus constructivist instruction during 5 weeks. Pre- and posttest analyses were conducted to compare the effects of the instruction type on subtraction skills taught through the partitioning subtraction method. Results showed that although all students progressed between both evaluations, those who received explicit instruction performed better. The findings from this study suggest that explicit instruction teaching is a promising approach in supporting the learning of mathematical knowledge for low-achieving students from disadvantaged social background. A larger scale study comparing the outcomes of children from different socioeconomic backgrounds would be needed to extend the applicability of the positive effects of this study.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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