What are primary teachers’ experiences of policy on shaping a context of sustainable mathematics professional development?
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
The author explored the extent to which policy could be a source of sustainable professional development for elementary teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. The study involved three policies in England: the National Numeracy Strategy and the Primary National Strategy, introduced in response to concerns regarding mathematics teaching and student attainment, and a new National Curriculum. Professional development was offered to support teachers in the processes of changing their practice. This article focuses on the responses of eight teachers who suggest that the National Numeracy Strategy and the Primary National Strategy were useful sources of mathematical knowledge for teaching. However, the 2013 National Curriculum, along with the teaching for mastery policy, show how the teachers’ professional development had been rooted in policy enactments and was temporal. The author discusses the need for sustainable professional development to facilitate teachers’ continuous enhancement of their mathematical knowledge for teaching within a changing policy landscape.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it