MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514788110 · doi:10.5539/ies.v9n9p32

Interpretation Awareness of Creativity Mathematics Teacher High School

2016· article· en· W2514788110 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ajeng Gelora Mastuti, Toto Nusantara, Purwanto Purwanto, Abdurrahman As’ari, Subanji Subanji, Abadyo Abadyo, Susiswo Susiswo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsCreativityMathematics educationPsychologyConstruct (python library)Class (philosophy)Perspective (graphical)Interpretation (philosophy)Qualitative researchPedagogyMathematicsSocial psychologyComputer scienceSociologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="apa">The purpose of this study are: a) to investigate high school math teacher creativity equality, b) to investigate what factors can inhibit their creativity consciousness. The subjects of this study consisted of two high school math teacher who had a different experience academically. The results of the qualitative research show the relationship between creativity and high school math teacher is focused on procedures and not on the product, presents the conception refers to the creativity in the perspective of learners. The observation of classes conducted by researchers for two weeks in a row can be used as an indicator that in teaching mathematics, high school teacher who observed indirectly applying creativity in teaching math though their confidence is lacking. They give an opportunity to him to be a creative individual and attractive in front of their students and provide opportunities to students to construct their own concepts and develop logical arguments. Overall a high school math teacher is still not directly aware of his creativity, but they can improve the confidence of the students. Based on the result of reflection and interviews obtained factors that can inhibit the creativity of teachers, among others; lack of confidence of teachers to students, the limited time to realize the ability of students, teachers internal and external activities that take a lot of time learning. Factors that could hinder the creativity of teachers compiled by researchers through depth interviews with high school teachers.</p>

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207