MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Preservice Teachers Interpret and Respond to Student Geometric Errors

2010· article· en· W1999248160 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

VenueSchool Science and Mathematics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationTask (project management)PsychologyStudent teacherReflection (computer programming)Teaching methodTeacher educationPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recognizing and responding to students' thinking is essential in teaching mathematics, especially when students provide incorrect solutions. This study examined, through a teaching scenario task, elementary preservice teachers' interpretations of and responses to a student's work on a task involving reflective symmetry. Findings revealed that a majority of preservice teachers identified the student's errors from conceptual aspects of reflection rather than from procedural aspects. However, when they responded to the student's errors, preservice teachers tried to cope with them by invoking procedural knowledge. This study also revealed the three types of responses and two different forms of address by preservice teachers to student errors; these categories might provide insight into the difficulties arising in communication between students and teachers.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.353 · 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