Spatial configuration of hundreds charts influences children's knowledge of base‐ten concepts
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
Abstract The hundreds chart is a valuable tool for teachers in elementary mathematics classrooms. The present study investigated the effects of spatial configurations of virtual hundreds charts on children's knowledge of base‐ten concepts. Kindergarten and first‐grade students were assigned to three instructional conditions in which they worked with a researcher to solve arithmetic word problems. The charts used in the conditions differed by the spatial configuration of the numbers: (a) top down, with numbers increasing from top to bottom; (b) bottom up, with increases from bottom to top; and (c) explicit bottom‐up, with a bottom‐up chart and an explicit visual cue that prompted a comparison between the “up‐is‐more” structure to a cylinder filling with water. Participants were more likely to count by tens than by ones to solve problems when the numbers in the chart increased from top to bottom than when they increased from bottom to top. No effects of spatial configuration on place‐value knowledge was observed. One account of the findings is that participants were more accustomed to the movements in the top‐down chart because they matched the direction in which children learn to read. The role of spatial affordances of instructional materials in children's mathematics learning is discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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