MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518051106 · doi:10.5430/wje.v6n4p38

Student Teachers’ Beliefs, Feelings and Attitudes toward Mathematics Learning and Teaching at the University of Trinidad and Tobago

2016· article· en· W2518051106 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Myrna Ransome, Musa El Sharief Mohamed, Puran Bridgemohan

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingBachelorFallacyMathematics educationScale (ratio)Connected MathematicsPsychologyCore-Plus Mathematics ProjectSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The colonial fallacy that only a few persons are endowed with the capabilities to conceptualize mathematics, coupledwith the belief that society equates mathematical ability with intellectual superiority, have contributed to low levelsof mathematical self-concept and achievement among some students of mathematics. Some of these students arerequired to teach the subject as primary and secondary school teachers. This paper examines the influence of studentteachers’ beliefs, feelings and attitudes towards mathematics on their learning and teaching of mathematics. Thesample (N=165) comprises third and fourth year, male and female, full and part time students, who were enrolled inthe 4 year Bachelor of Education Programme at the Centre of Education Programmes, University of Trinidad andTobago. Data collection employed the use of the Fennema - Sherman 1976 Mathematics Attitudes Scale which wasadapted to formulate a 13 item survey instrument – Mathematics Attitude Survey (MAS). Regression analyses usingMANITAB statistical package indicate that beliefs, feelings and attitudes towards mathematics are determined bystudents’ feelings, expectations and perceived usefulness of mathematics. Gender did not emerge as a factor.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.318 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessFrench-language works237,207