MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294958162 · doi:10.1007/s42330-022-00226-1

Teaching and Learning the Notion of Normal Distribution Using a Digital Resource

2022· article· en· W4294958162 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

VenueCanadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematics educationResource (disambiguation)Perspective (graphical)Process (computing)Session (web analytics)SoftwareTeaching methodPsychologyArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study investigates the support provided using technology for learning the notion of normal distribution in high school students through the implementation of a teaching experiment. A strategy was designed and implemented using Fathom software as the main teaching resource. Data analysis focused on the role of the use of technology in student learning and the simulation process, considering the initial session. The conceptual framework was based on the documentational approach to didactics, whose perspective is to study the teacher’s use and design of resources in his teaching practice. Likewise, the results of the teaching experiment, whose objective was to introduce high school students to the notion of normal distribution by taking advantage of the repeated sampling resource using the Fathom software, are presented. The results show that the collaborative aspect of the lesson study methodology allowed professors to reflect and become aware of how they usually use the resources in their regular practice and thus contribute to improving their teaching activity. Evidence is provided on how students initiate a change in their reasoning to identify the probability of data collection from the simulation of problems with the software.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.285 · 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