Teacher’s Use of Instructional Materials in Teaching and Learning Mathematics in Rwandan Primary Schools
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teaching and learning mathematics is easier, more interesting, more enjoyable, and more closely connected to real life applications with the use of instructional materials like textbooks, manipulatives, technology tools, and (physical or digital) models. This study investigated the impact of instructional aids on classroom interaction through semi-structured interviews and classroom observations of 15 mathematics teachers from five primary schools in Rulindo district, in Rwanda’s Northern Province. Interviews were analyzed thematically, and classroom observations were analyzed descriptively. The analysis indicates a lack of instructional materials for teaching mathematics overall. Most teachers use course books, but report that there are not enough books available. Use of ICT is limited due to the lack of power supply in some schools. Teachers in this study either did not use available instructional materials at all, or, if they were used, they were not used appropriately. Teachers also did not allow students to actively use the materials; thus, students were not given the opportunity to enhance their active learning and participate in constructing their knowledge of the mathematics content.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it