MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564823251

Junior Middle School Students’ Perceptions of Mathematics Classroom Learning Environments and Their Approaches to Learning Mathematics in China

2016· article· en· W2564823251 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Meng Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Environments and Student Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPerceptionContext (archaeology)Learning environmentTest (biology)Descriptive statisticsPsychologyPedagogyMathematicsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated Chinese junior middle school students’ perceptions of mathematics classroom learning environments and approaches to learning mathematics, among 1,640 students from 62 junior middle school classrooms in eight provinces in China. A Chinese-language version of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) and Approach to Learning Mathematics (ALM) were used in this study and were proved reliable and valid in the Chinese context. Factor analysis, CFA, descriptive statistics, Independent-Samples T Test, and Bivariate Correlation were used to analyze data from the questionnaire survey. The results of this study indicate that Chinese students failed to perceive their classroom learning environment as relatively positive, and tended to use deep learning approach and surface motive in mathematics learning. In addition, significant urban-rural differences were identified in both perceptions of classroom learning environment, and approaches to learning. The findings reveal that deep approaches were positively associated with Chinese students’ perceptions of mathematics classroom learning environments (Personal Relevance, Uncertainty, Shared Control, and Student Negotiation).

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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicEducational Environments and Student OutcomesFrench-language works237,207