MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555033655 · doi:10.5539/jel.v6n1p41

Pre-Service Elementary School Teachers Becoming Mathematics Teachers: Their Participation in an Online Professional Community

2016· article· en· W2555033655 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Annie Savard, Terry Wan Jung Lin, Natasha Lamb

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematics educationElementary mathematicsProfessional developmentQualitative researchPedagogyPerspective (graphical)Community of practiceTeacher educationPsychologyTeaching methodSociologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This pilot study sought to examine the mathematical knowledge for teaching that pre-service teachers used when participating in an online community, and to gain insight into their epistemological stance. The participants of this study were among the pre-service teachers in a large urban university, chosen as they were completing their mathematics methods course in their teacher-education program and before entering a field experience in the same academic year. A qualitative analysis of the online discussions of our participants was done using Ball and her colleagues’ (2008) framework for mathematical knowledge for teaching and that of communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). These theories provided insight into the development of pre-service teachers as they moved from “student” to “teacher”. Our findings show that pre-service teachers struggle to shed their student-perspective as they transition from theory to practice. This was readily evident in how they used their mathematical knowledge for teaching in their online exchange. Our work contributes to understanding the complexity of becoming a mathematics teacher in elementary school.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
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 integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207