Developing as Culturally Responsive Mathematics Teacher Educators: Reviewing and Framing Perspectives in the Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Culturally responsive pedagogies (CRP) are widely accepted as a critical component of teaching in ways that value and incorporate children's diverse cultural and community knowledge resources 77). She describes common hazards of becoming stuck in limited understandings of culture, or ignoring the socio political dimensions. As such, growing one's CRP is important ongoing work for mathematics teacher educators (MTEs). Growing our own CRP practices as mathematics teacher educators has been our goal for some time now (Keazer & Nolan, 2021; In the context of teaching mathematics education courses, we are committed to reflect on our efforts to enact a pedagogy that is responsive to the culture(s) and knowledge(s) of our students (i.e., practicing and prospective teachers). Our efforts respond to Averill et al. 's (2009) challenge for educators to -critically reflect on their own culturally responsive practices, ideally in discussion with other practitioners, teacher educators, and students (p. 181). To date, no specific tool has been proposed for supporting and guiding the professional growth of culturally responsive (mathematics) teacher educators. Thus, this review shares our process and outcomes of identifying, synthesizing, and analysing a collection of key scholarly texts in the field of teacher educator culturally responsive pedagogy, that provide framing around: a) how CRP has been defined (that is, what does CRP mean?) and b) how CRP has been described through the naming of dimensions, components, characteristics, or questions (that is, what does CRP look like?).
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".