Design-based mathematics workshops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a workshop model for engaging children and parents in mathematics activities in public libraries or other informal education settings. Design/methodology/approach – This paper explores a workshop model for helping the school-aged children learn mathematics outside the school. The model includes five workshop sessions and designs the parent’s role in the mathematics activities. Each workshop session has both a mathematics task activity and a user interface design activity. The model was implemented in a major Canadian city and a major Chinese city over a period of one month. This paper presents the workshop attendees’ experiences and their feedback on the workshop design. It also presents several suggestions on the design of such workshops. Findings – The parents acknowledged that they learned about how mathematics is currently taught in schools and appreciated the opportunities to interact with their children in the workshops. The children participated in the workshops actively and enjoyed the design sessions the most. The potential of using design activities to help children learn mathematics concepts is recognized. Research limitations/implications – The findings suggest that future workshops should provide a structure to the parents’ engagement in design activities, offer one design project that spans several design sessions and set aside time for families to mingle and share experiences with each other. A big limitation of this paper is the small sample size – 12 families participated in the workshops on each site. Although the paper offered rich data about the participants’ experiences, a larger sample would have made the findings more generalizable and conclusive. Practical implications – Computer technologies such as iPad and tablets are increasingly common as public library resources; yet the integration of these technologies into library programs is falling behind. This paper offers one example of how such integration can bring benefits to the patrons, encouraging more considerations to be put on this aspect in library practice. Originality/value – Although many programs are offered in public libraries that facilitate children to learn mathematics concepts, very less research has been reported on the design of these programs. In addition, the existing programs have not considered the inclusion of parent–child design activities for mathematics learning engagement. This paper reports an empirical study that addresses these research gaps. The encouraging results call for more investigations on this workshop model.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.011 |
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".