MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W281730538

The Role of Motivation in Secondary Mathematics Instruction: Implications for RTI

2011· article· en· W281730538 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Woodward

Bibliographic record

VenueSound Ideas (University of Puget Sound) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Practices and Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Response to Intervention--what do we know about it, why does it work, and how can teachers use it to ensure high-quality K-12 math instruction? Find out in this definitive research volume, edited by National Math Panel veteran Russell Gersten with contributions by all of the country's leading researchers on RTI and math. Current and future RTI coordinator's curriculum developers, math specialists, and department heads will get the best, most up-to-date research and guidance on key facets of RTI in math: conducting valid and reliable universal screening in mathematics; using evidence-based practices to provide a strong general education curriculum for effective Tier 1 instruction; implementing explicit, research-based teaching practices for students who need Tier 2 and 3 instruction; monitoring students' progress with high-quality tools and measures; motivating and engaging struggling students receiving Tier 2 and 3 instruction; teaching students to use an array of visual representations to help them solve math problems; tailoring RTI for every grade level, from kindergarten through high school; and using RTI to target specific mathematical proficiencies and concepts, such as number sense, word problems, algebra, and ratios and proportions. Filled with vignettes, accessible summaries of research studies, and best-practice guidelines for making the most of RTI, this comprehensive volume is ideal for use as a textbook or as a key resource to guide both practitioners and decision makers. Readers will have the knowledge base they need to strengthen mathematics instruction with proven RTI practices--and help ensure better math outcomes for students at every grade level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.130
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.130
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSound Ideas (University of Puget Sound)Same topicEducation Practices and EvaluationFrench-language works237,207