Degree of Possession and Practicing of Mathematics Teachers in the Basic Stage of Basic Education Principles in Their Teaching from Their Point of View
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at recognizing the degree of possession and practicing mathematics teachers in the basic stage of basic education principles in their teaching from their point of view. Is there a connective relationship between the degree of possessing of basic education principles and the degree of practicing them. The sample of study consisted of (32) mathematics teachers in the basic stage. The instrument of study covered a questionnaire consisted of (14) items. The validity of the questionnaire and its reliability had been assured; the possession reliability coefficient amounted to (0.90) and (0.88) for practice. The researcher employed the appropriate statistical techniques, such as arithmetic means and standard deviations, and Pearson’s Correlation coefficient for examining the strength of relationship between both degrees of possession and practice. Results of study deduced that mathematics teachers in the Basic stage possess Basic Education principles, as a whole, at a medium degree, where it was conspicuous that they possess (4) principles of the Basic Education principles at a high degree, (5) principles at a medium degree and (5) principles at a little degree, meanwhile mathematics teachers in the Basic stage practice the Basic Education principles as a whole at a medium degree too, where it was cleared that they practice (4) principles of the Basic Education principles at a great degree, (5) principles at a medium degree and (5) at a little degree. Results also deduced existence of positive connection, stab, (5) principles at a medium degree and (5) at a little degree. Results also deduced existence of positive connection, statistically significant at (α< 0.05) between the degree of possessing the Basic Education principles and the degree of practicing them at mathematics teachers in the Basic Stage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".