Instructional supports can reveal the word‐problem solving challenges of children with language difficulties
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 Solving word problems is challenging for many children, but particularly for those with language difficulties. The objective was to examine the nature of the challenges experienced by children with language difficulties as they solved word problems in the context of a developmental‐trajectory instructional sequence. We recruited 45 third graders with ( n = 17) and without ( n = 28) language difficulties from public and private schools and one speech‐language therapy clinic. They solved word problems with additive change and compare structures and language that was either consistent or inconsistent with the structure. The instruction was based on successive simplifications to the problems whenever the child was unable to apply a structurally appropriate strategy: removing irrelevant literal information from the problem, simplifying the text syntactically, and removing irrelevant numerical information. The performance of children with language difficulties was lower than that of the typically developing children and the simplifications did not support performance to the same extent. The presence of irrelevant numerical information was challenging, especially for children with language difficulties. Removing irrelevant information from the problem was followed by stronger performance on change problems and those with consistent language, revealing that the instructional supports were not sufficient for compare and inconsistent problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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