Comparing instructor‐led, video‐model, and no‐instruction control tutorials for creating single‐subject graphs in Microsoft Excel: A systematic replication and extension
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
Visual inspection of single-subject data is the primary method for behavior analysts to interpret the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable; however, there is no consensus on the most suitable method for teaching graph construction for single-subject designs. We systematically replicated and extended Tyner and Fienup (2015) using a repeated-measures between-subjects design to compare the effects of instructor-led, video-model, and no-instruction control tutorials on the graphing performance of 81 master's students with some reported Microsoft Excel experience. Our mixed-design analysis revealed a statistically significant main effect of pretest, tutorial, and posttest submissions for each tutorial group and a nonsignificant main effect of tutorial group. Tutorial group significantly interacted with submissions, suggesting that both instructor-led and video-model tutorials may be superior to providing graduate students with a written list of graphing conventions (i.e., control condition). Finally, training influenced performance on an untrained graph type (multielement) for all tutorial groups.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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