MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146000593 · doi:10.1080/0013188032000086127

Would we teach without technology? A professor’s experience of teaching mathematics education incorporating the internet

2003· article· en· W2146000593 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

VenueEducational Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetMathematics educationEquity (law)PedagogyReflection (computer programming)Online discussionTeaching methodTeacher educationPsychologySociologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intent of this study is to provide information that can be useful in implementing rational changes to mathematics teacher education. In this paper, I present an approach to teach a graduate mathematics education course incorporating technology, more specifically, discussion forums, i.e. asynchronized threaded discussions via the internet. In this study, both survey of the teachers’ background and transcripts of online discussions are used. However, the main focus is on the analysis of online discourse. The data analysis is concentrated on three areas: the math phobia issue, the equity issue and teachers" beliefs about the instructional use of technology. Three examples are described of the impact that the use of a discussion forum had on the teaching and learning experiences. Reflection on the experience and the implications for teacher educators are presented.

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)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.382 · 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