What Was and Is Algebraic Thinking Skills at Different Education Levels?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to determine the algebraic thinking levels, misconceptions and understanding levels of algebraic expressions of 6th, 7th and 8th grade students. In this research, developmental research methods, which is one of the descriptive studies, were used. This study was carried out with secondary school students (6th, 7th and 8th grades) studying in a public school located in a province of the Eastern Anatolia Region in Turkey. The sample of the study consists of 82 students studying at secondary school in the second semester of the academic year 2020-2021. Algebraic thinking levels determination form (ATLDF), consisting of 8 questions and 4 levels, and interview were used as data collection tools. The test was administered to 33 students from 6th grades, 21 students from 7th grades and 28 students from 8th grades, and then interviews were conducted. From the tests and interviews, it was seen that the students had 30 misconceptions about algebraic expressions, that their algebraic thinking levels were quite low, that there were only 3 students who could reach Level-4 and all of these students were female students. From the results, it was concluded that the algebraic thinking level of the students who have problems in the transition from arithmetic to algebra is low; and therefore, it was suggested that the connection between arithmetic and algebra should be established firmly, and studies should be done in this direction.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".