MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411286614 · doi:10.3390/educsci15060741

Changes in Support Intervention Practices in Mathematics for 5-Year-Old Preschool Education: The Importance of a Collaborative and Reflective Process

2025· article· en· W4411286614 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle Deshaies

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationIntervention (counseling)Process (computing)PsychologyPreschool educationComputer sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preschool mathematics support remains insufficient, which can limit children’s skill development and impact their long-term academic success. This study explores how collaboration between researchers and teachers can enhance these practices. It is based on the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) model, which examines three key dimensions: concept development, language modeling, and the quality of feedback. This theoretical framework highlights the importance of pedagogical interactions in supporting early mathematical learning. A mixed-methods, longitudinal approach was adopted. Over three years, six teachers participated in five collaborative sessions per year. Systematic CLASS observations, questionnaires, interviews, and reflective journals were used to assess the evolution of teaching practices. The results reveal a significant improvement in the quality of mathematics support, particularly in concept development. However, feedback and language modeling progressed more slowly. Integrating mathematics into spontaneous situations, such as free play, remains a challenge. The discussion emphasizes the importance of continuous pedagogical support to further strengthen these practices and promote more interactive and contextualized learning experiences.

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)0.005
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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.398 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation SciencesSame topicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skillsFrench-language works237,207