MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402276500 · doi:10.29333/iejme/15075

Exploring the creative potential of mathematical tasks in teacher education

2024· article· en· W4402276500 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Isabel Vale, Ana Barbosa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaUniversidade do MinhoInternational Council for Canadian Studies
KeywordsCreativityFluencyOriginalityFlexibility (engineering)Mathematics educationDimension (graph theory)Divergent thinkingCreativity techniquePsychologyCreative thinkingCreative problem-solvingComputer sciencePedagogySocial psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Creativity is a cross-cutting ability that is highly valued in today’s society. Therefore, it should play an important role in education in general and in mathematics in particular. This requires teachers to create appropriate learning opportunities that allow creativity to flourish in students, helping them to develop their mathematical potential. In particular, the use of rich and challenging tasks can encourage fluency, flexibility and originality as three of the essential dimensions of creative thinking. Based on these assumptions, we developed a qualitative study with 19 elementary pre-service teachers to identify the dimensions of creativity revealed by these participants when solving challenging tasks, as well as their ability to recognize these dimensions in written tasks’ resolutions. Ultimately, we aimed to identify potential tasks that contribute to the development of creativity in future teachers. Data was collected mainly through written productions. Preliminary results suggest that the tasks used have creative potential, with participants demonstrating some of the dimensions of creativity. Flexibility was identified as the most challenging dimension for them to identify.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Electronic Journal of Mathematics EducationSame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207