Indigenous Culture-Based School Mathematics in Action Part II: The Study’s Results: What Support Do Teachers Need?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This second part of two related articles reports the answers to the research question: What precise supports must be in place for Grades 5 to 12 teachers to enhance their mathematics classes in a sustainable way with Indigenous mathematizing and Indigenous worldview perspectives? In addition to various logistical supports, two other types of supports were identified: supports for learning and unlearning ways of perceiving the world generally and perceiving Western mathematics specifically. These needed supports came to light when we mentored the teachers. On the one hand, the co-researching teachers learned, or had already learned: (a) the plurality of mathematical systems; (b) the perspective of Western mathematics as a human endeavor along with its values, ideologies, and definitions; (c) the mere inclusion of Indigenous mathematizing in a lesson is not enough; and (d) the goal of two-eyed seeing. On the other hand, the co-researching teachers unlearned, or had already unlearned: (a) pure mathematics’ claim to be value-free, (b) all students have a predilection to excel at mathematics, and (c) subtle appropriation committed by many mathematics educators as if it were common sense to do it.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".