MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384028210 · doi:10.1108/ijced-05-2023-0039

Understanding numeracy coach research in Canada: a review

2023· review· en· W4384028210 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peng Liu, Xuyang Li, Ciren Zhuoma

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of comparative education and development · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNumeracyCoachingContext (archaeology)Qualitative researchCitationPsychologyContent analysisEmpirical researchQualitative analysisSociologyPedagogySocial scienceLiteracyComputer scienceLibrary scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.757
GPT teacher head0.641
Teacher spread0.117 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of comparative education and developmentSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207