MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391561366 · doi:10.18260/1-2--41213

Work-in-Progress: Problems in learning related to mathematical and graphical representations of signals

2024· article· en· W4391561366 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Domain (mathematical analysis)SIGNAL (programming language)Variable (mathematics)Electrical networkHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineeringEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conceptual learning of concepts that are expressed intensively in mathematical equations and processes is an ongoing challenge for engineering students. There is ample evidence in literature that electrical engineering students struggle in subjects like signals and systems because it heavily involves switching between mathematical and graphical representations of signals as well as many different domains. The purpose of this study is to identify the mistakes made by undergraduate electrical engineering students when they try to make sense of graphical and mathematical representations of different kinds of information in different contexts, for example, drawing a complex signal in time domain, drawing a frequency domain graph, drawing current-voltage characteristics of a device, and transfer characteristics of a system. The data for this study is collected from various exam responses of undergraduate electrical engineering students in two courses namely signals and systems and Electronics 1. Most of the students in Electronics 1 had already taken signals and systems course and some were co-taking signals and systems. This set up has helped to understand the learning challenges that persist even when students continue to apply similar mathematical concepts in other contexts. The responses are analyzed to identify the common mistakes. These common mistakes are further analyzed to understand students' weaknesses in solving questions related to these concepts. The results show that students struggle with understanding signals when the independent variable is not time, when the signal is complex and contains j, when the signal is a combination of more than one signals, and when the signals are abstract. The author concludes that the learning of such concepts requires continuous switching between abstract concepts and multiple domains and most of the concepts cannot be learned through sensory learning which causes students with all sorts of learning styles struggle with getting comfortable with these concepts. The mistakes identified in this work-in-progress paper is the first step to guide the protocol design for a future qualitative study to understand the reasonings students employ to make sense of these mathematical equations and representations, compare the thought processes when a question is solved correctly and when not, and investigate how students' thought processes evolve as they keep taking courses throughout their program that require similar reasonings for better learning.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207