Understanding numeracy coach research in Canada: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to understand the research on numeracy coach in the Canadian context. Design/methodology/approach This study was a systematic review of studies about numeracy coaching in Canada, which described the trend of knowledge production on this topic. The study made use of qualitative meta-analysis. According to Timulak (2009, p. 591), qualitative meta-analysis is “an attempt to conduct a rigorous secondary qualitative analysis of primary qualitative findings. Its purpose is to provide a more comprehensive description of a phenomenon and an assessment of the influence of the investigation on findings.” By using meta-analysis, this article analyzed the general pattern of knowledge production, the nature of the publications, the focal topics, the research methods and the citation impact of numeracy coaching studies in Canada. The literature analyzed in this review included all the available sources we were able to find with regard to Canadian numeracy coaches. The sources included peer-reviewed journal articles, online magazines, program reports and information from non-profit organizations, as well as doctoral theses. Findings Research about numeracy coaches in Canadian contexts remains in an initial stage, and there is, as yet, no accepted definition of a Canadian numeracy coach. Scholars in this area have been fond of empirical studies and qualitative research methods. This research has shown that numeracy coaches, who can be regarded as directors, evaluators and consultants in schools, also experience difficulties such as a lack of background knowledge in math. Scholars have advised several ways to improve the quality of coaching activities, including teacher collaboration and coaching models. The citation impact of the current Canadian literature about numeracy coaches has been quite uneven; only a few articles have been cited by other researchers. This article concludes by summarizing the results of this meta-analysis, its limitations and suggestions for future research. Originality/value This is one of important studies to explore numeracy coach research in Canadian context. Theoretical and practical significance is explored.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.053 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".