Systemic Shifts in Instructional Technology: Findings of a Comparative Case Study of Two University Mathematics Departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the findings of an international case study in which researchers examined two mathematics departments (Canada/UK) in which the sustained use of technology was strategically established in a mathematics degree program. This case study forms part of a larger research initiative which involved an extensive literature review (Marshall, Jarvis, Lavicza and Buteau, 2012) and a national survey of Canadian Mathematicians (Buteau, Jarvis and Lavicza, 2014). Findings from the case study indicate that sustained implementation at the departmental level requires a unique combination of key factors such as: a dedicated core group led by a committed advocate in a position of influence/power; a strong and shared incentive for change; strategic hiring processes; an administration which supports creative pedagogical reform and wellconsidered risk-taking; and, a continuous and determined revisiting of the original vision and purpose. Significant challenges to implementation and sustained program development, with specific examples, are also discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".