Social Identities and Opportunities to Learn: Student Perspectives on Group Work in an Urban Mathematics Classroom
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
In this article, the authors investigate group work in a heterogeneous urban high school mathematics classroom. Two questions are explored: How do students describe cooperative group work in their mathematics class? How do students describe the way their socially constructed identities influence the nature of their group interactions in mathematics classrooms? The authors present a case study of the ways in which race, gender, and other social identities might influence the nature of group work in reform-oriented high school mathematics classrooms. The analysis, based on 14 interviews with high school students, focused on students’ perceptions of group work and their theories about when cooperative groups work well and when they do not. Students named interactional style, mathematical understanding, and friendships and relationships as the most influential factors. Using an analytic lens informed, in part, by critical race theory, the authors highlight the racialized and gendered nature of these factors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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