Examining the Changes in Beliefs of Preservice Mathematics Teachers Attending the Pedagogic Formation Program about Teacher and Students Roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the beliefs of preservice mathematics teachers receiving formation program as undergraduates or graduates in the Faculty of Science and Letters about teacher and student roles in the classroom setting and to explore how their beliefs changed at the end of the program. The research was conducted in the qualitative research design. The data were collected with a form of three open-ended questions asked to the preservice mathematics teacher attending the formation program in the faculty of education in the fall term of 2014-2015 academic year. The data were collected by applying this questionnaire to the preservice teachers at the beginning and end of the formation program. The answers of the preservice teachers were analyzed by classifying thematically by similarity and difference using the MAXQDA 11 qualitative data analysis software. While the preservice teachers had had beliefs placed somewhere between absolute knowing and transitional knowing about both teacher and student roles before the formation program, these beliefs were transformed into ones placed somewhere between transitional knowing and independent knowing after the formation program. This result indicated how important the pedagogical formation programs are for preservice teachers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".