MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036837465 · doi:10.3776/tpre.2020.v10n1p42-72

Thinking Outside the Box

2020· article· en· W3036837465 on OpenAlexaffabout
Candy Skyhar

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory & Practice in Rural Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNumeracyStaffingProfessional developmentPedagogyTransactional leadershipRural areaMathematics educationFaculty developmentPublic relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceLiteracy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the fact that they are all unique, rural school districts/divisions (in Canada and elsewhere) face similar challenges when it comes to providing effective professional development (PD) for teachers. Issues related to funding, geography, staffing, and contextual differences impact the availability of PD opportunities for educators in rural contexts; however, rural school divisions possess many strengths from which solutions to these challenges might be fashioned. The question of how rural divisions might construct local teacher PD models that draw on local strengths, mitigate local challenges, and support teacher professional growth is critical to the provision of quality education for rural students. Through a single-case study design, this study examined the effectiveness of a rural initiative, the Numeracy Cohort, that was locally constructed to mitigate challenges and improve mathematics instruction and student numeracy outcomes in a school division in Manitoba, Canada. Findings from the study suggest that (a) the Numeracy Cohort model was effective in accommodating contextual differences and mitigating challenges related to funding, geography and staffing through several promising practices; (b) the PD provided to teachers was effective in supporting teacher professional growth in several ways; (c) attention to the multiple nested and dynamic contexts in which teachers worked was an important and effective element of the model; (d) fostering social interaction (among teachers and with more competent others) was important for teacher learning; and (e) finding ways to foster human engagement through mediating tools for learning (e.g., dialogue, reflection, and action research) was critical to the model’s success.

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)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.378 · 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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory & Practice in Rural EducationSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207