WHAT STUDENTS IN THE FIRST GRADES OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL KNOW ABOUT TABLES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The definition of table has not been introduced in Brazilian textbooks for the early years of elementary school. We see that charts and databases have been named tables but are not approached in the same way. This makes it impossible for students to differentiate between them, which may cause learning difficulties. Therefore, it is essential that we reflect on students' knowledge about table, which is an instrument that systematizes information so that they can visualize reality. Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze the knowledge students from the 1st to 5th grade of elementary school have about representations in tables. To this end, 325 students (6 to 10 years old from 19 classes from different public schools in Greater Recife) participated. Students were asked to answer six activities individually, four of interpretation of a single and a double entry table with qualitative and quantitative variables, and two activities involving the construction of a table from a database or set of figures that needed to be classified. The results show that students’ performance progress in all activities, and that they present better performance in table interpretation than in table construction. Since the 1st grade the students were able to construct tables with one variable, however, to construct a table with two variables showed to be very difficult even for the 5th graders. In all grades the students had difficulties to make decisions based on the data presented, what is the function of table representation. This may be due to the absence of teaching practices focused on the table as a learning object. Abstract: Portuguese A definição de tabela não foi introduzida nos livros didáticos brasileiros dos anos iniciais do Ensino Fundamental. Observamos que quadros e bancos de dados vêm sendo nomeados de tabelas e não são abordados da mesma maneira. Isso causa uma indiferenciação entre os mesmos e dificulta a aprendizagem. Então, é fundamental refletir sobre os conhecimentos dos alunos sobre tabelas, uma vez que essas têm a função de sistematizar informações para que se possa ter uma visão da realidade. Assim, o objetivo desse estudo foi analisar o conhecimento de alunos do 1º ao 5º ano do Ensino Fundamental sobre representações em tabelas. Para tal, participaram 325 alunos (6 a 10 anos de idade de 19 turmas de diferentes escolas públicas do Grande Recife). Foi solicitado aos alunos que individualmente respondessem seis atividades, quatro de interpretação de tabelas simples e de dupla entrada, com variáveis qualitativas e quantitativas e duas atividades envolvendo construção de tabelas, a partir de um banco de dados ou de um conjunto de figuras que precisavam ser classificadas. Os resultados mostram que o desempenho dos alunos evolui em todas as atividades, e que eles apresentam melhor desempenho na interpretação de tabelas do que na construção de tabelas. De o 1º ano os alunos conseguiram construir tabelas com uma variável, porém, construir uma tabela com duas variáveis mostrou-se muito difícil mesmo para os alunos do 5º ano. Em todas os anos os alunos tiveram dificuldade em tomar decisões a partir dos dados apresentados e compreender a função das representações em tabelas. Tais dificuldades podem ser em função da ausência de práticas de ensino focadas na tabela como objeto de aprendizagem.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".