MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effects of teachers' beliefs on elementary students' beliefs, motivation, and achievement in mathematics

2010· book-chapter· en· W18277388 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

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyComprehensionPersuasionCognitionObject (grammar)CurriculumRepresentation (politics)Mathematics educationVariety (cybernetics)Social psychologyPedagogyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to Pajares (1992), teachers' beliefs can be deeply personal, unaffected by persuasion, and either implicitly or explicitly expressed in daily routines. Their beliefs can be formed by chance, an intense experience or a succession of events, and may include beliefs about different facets of teaching and learning. Teachers hold beliefs about students, learning, teachers and teaching, the nature of knowledge and knowing, the roles of schools in society, and the curriculum, to name a few (Levitt, 2001). Whatever their origin or object, research has shown that beliefs influence a wide variety of cognitive processes including memory, comprehension, deduction and induction, problem representation, and problem solution (Pintrich, 1990). Importantly, the study of teachers' beliefs provides a valuable means of analyzing and understanding the complex relationship between beliefs and student outcomes (Hofer and Pintrich, 2002; Pajares, 1992; Schraw and Olafson, 2002).

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.239 · 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