MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404623826 · doi:10.37119/ojs2024.v29i3.746

A Teacher’s Perspective on Grit and Student Success in a High School Physics Classroom

2024· article· en· W4404623826 on OpenAlexaffvenue

Bibliographic record

Venuein education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGritIdeologyPerspective (graphical)CourseworkMathematics educationPedagogyArgument (complex analysis)Academic achievementSociologyNarrativePsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyMathematicsPoliticsLinguisticsGeometryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a high school classroom, there are many factors that may influence academic achievement. One such factor may be due to the grit of individual learners. While much of the literature related to grit is focused on deficit ideological elements, structural elements, which are often overlooked, may also be present and could impact a student’s ability to be ‘gritty’ and successful in school. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to understand, from a teacher’s perspective, whether these structural elements, in addition to deficit elements, also impact student achievement. This autoethnographic study explores the culture of grit and student success in relation to three former students enrolled in Grades 11 and/or 12 Physics as they progress in their coursework. While deficit ideological elements exist within my autoethnographic narratives, structural ideological elements also implicate crucial moments when a student’s grit and success either radically improved or declined. Consequently, for those who support learners, the argument put forth in this paper suggests that being mindful of structural circumstances is essential if educators are to use grit to reinforce achievement. Keywords: grit, student success, high school, physics, deficit ideology, structural ideology

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuein educationSame topicGrit, Self-Efficacy, and MotivationFrench-language works237,207