MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Promoting Strategic Learning by Eighth-Grade Students Struggling in Mathematics: A Report of Three Case Studies

2005· article· en· W2038098166 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah L. Butler, Beverly Beckingham, Helen Novak Lauscher

Bibliographic record

VenueLearning Disabilities Research and Practice · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationLearning disabilityContext (archaeology)PsychologyIntervention (counseling)Instructional designTeaching methodPedagogyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This article presents three in-depth case studies focused on supporting students with learning challenges to learn math strategically. Participants were three eighth-grade students enrolled in a learning assistance classroom who were of at least average intelligence but who were performing significantly below grade level in mathematics. These case studies document the processes by which these students were supported to self-regulate their learning in mathematics more effectively. We begin by outlining important instructional foci in mathematics education for intermediate or secondary students with learning disabilities, along with what research indicates are effective instructional processes. In that context, we introduce the theoretical principles underlying the instructional model used here—Strategic Content Learning (SCL). Based on analyses of case study data, we describe how SCL instruction was structured to promote strategic learning. Throughout the discussion, intervention processes are described in sufficient detail to be of use to practitioners.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLearning Disabilities Research and PracticeSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207