The Contribution of Technology to the Implementation of Mathematics Education Reform: Case Studies of Grade 1–3 Teaching
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
Previous research suggests that access to technology contributes to the implementation of mathematics education reform. This case study of three primary (grade 1–3) teachers investigated how access to computers and math teaching software influenced nine dimensions of reform. Teachers were selected on the basis of their commitment to math reform and their technological literacy. Interviews and observations over five months found that technology had its greatest impact by helping teachers expand the scope of their programs and by promoting positive attitudes toward math. Teachers adapted computer tasks to fit their off-line activities, heightening or depleting the contribution of technology to reform. The computer promoted equity of access to all forms and strands of mathematics but this did not necessarily ensure that all students had access to higher math. None of the teachers realized the potential of the computer to increase student-student construction of mathematical ideas, in part because of hardware problems but more because of their decision to assign students to individual computer tasks.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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