MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024817187 · doi:10.31756/jrsmte.322

Mathematics Curriculum Change: Identifying Parental Expectations

2020· article· en· W3024817187 on OpenAlexaffabout
P. Janelle McFeetors, Lynn McGarvey, Kylie Palfy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Science Mathematics and Technology Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsAlberta Advanced EducationUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumPhenomenographyPerceptionAgency (philosophy)Focus groupGrounded theoryPsychologyPedagogyMathematics educationQualitative researchDevelopmental psychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parents’growing concerns about the current approaches to learning mathematics in elementary school have drawn public attention in Canada. Rather than dismiss such concerns, understanding parent perceptions and garnering their support is essential to ongoing curriculum transformation and students’ success in mathematics learning. Using phenomenography, we examined parents’ perceptions of the current mathematics curriculum and their children’s experiences as expressed in community-based focus groups and individual interviews. Parents responded based on their past experiences, their views of children’s current experiences and their future aspirations for their children. Our analysis of parents’ perspectives revealed that their concerns and critiques were grounded in the expectations they held for their children’s mathematics learning. In particular, parental expectations fell into three categories: students need the opportunity to reach expected goals of mathematics learning; essential supports must be in place to reach expected goals; and, home-school communication is necessary for parent understanding and engagement. We suggest that by understanding the specific expectations that underlie parents’ concerns, teachers can engage in conversations that begin with affirming mutual expectations and respecting parents’ personal experiences to lead to partnering with parents as they realize their agency in their children’s learning.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.244
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in Science Mathematics and Technology EducationSame topicParental Involvement in EducationFrench-language works237,207