Does Conceptual Transparency in Manipulatives Afford Place-Value Understanding in Children at Risk for Mathematics Learning Disabilities?
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
We investigated the effect of conceptual transparency in the physical structure of manipulatives on place-value understanding in typically developing children and those at risk for mathematics learning disabilities. Second graders were randomly assigned to one of three manipulatives conditions: (a) attachable beads that did not make the denominations or ones in the denominations transparent, (b) pipe cleaners that made only the denominations transparent, and (c) string beads that made both the denominations and the ones in the denominations transparent. Participants used the manipulatives to represent double- and triple-digit numerals. Statistical analyses indicated that the transparency of the denominations, but not the transparency of the ones in the denominations, is responsible for children's number representation and place-value understanding. Descriptive analyses of their responses revealed that the at-risk children were at a greater disadvantage than their typically developing peers with the attachable beads, failing to use place-value concepts to interpret their representations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it