MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7006091660

Teachers' Perspectives and Pedagogical Documentation in Early Years Mathematics: Tensions and Possibilities

2024· other· en· W7006091660 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationContext (archaeology)Transformative learningEvent (particle physics)Class (philosophy)Qualitative research
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this dissertation, I endeavour to explore the transformative potential of pedagogical documentation in early years mathematics education with a focus on the implementation challenges and divergent perspectives within the context of the Ontario Kindergarten Program (2016). Pedagogical documentation offers teachers an opportunity to explore the possibilities of children’s theories, while challenging discourses that underscore neoliberalist practices. Pedagogical documentation includes collecting materials (e.g., photos, videos, written transcriptions, etc.) to be revisited and considered by students and educators together, to create pedagogical trajectories that are emergent and responsive. This study examines the perspectives of 12 Ontario Kindergarten teachers regarding pedagogical documentation in their kindergarten math classrooms, revealing tensions and inconsistencies with the literature and practices as outlined in the Ontario Kindergarten Program (2016) document. The teachers convened for ten weeks where video and audio recordings of every meeting were kept. Teachers examined two specific examples of pedagogical documentation of learning events. ‘The Price of Apples’ documentation portrayed three children engaged in a learning event about selling apples (Appendix A). ‘The Columns of the Municipal Theatre’ documentation portrayed a class visiting the columns outside a municipal building in their town (Appendix C). Through phenomenography-inspired analysis, the data demonstrated how the participants thought about pedagogical documentation as a way to collect evidence of student ideas. Interestingly, an analysis of high-frequency words uncovered key terms such as ‘centres’, ‘grades’, and ‘values’ that stand out in contrast to existing literature on pedagogical documentation. The results of this study indicate that participants used pedagogical documentation to capture evidence of student ideas, however, they did not speak of pedagogical documentation as a “way of being” with children, as a practice that nourishes emergent curriculum making, or as a method to build upon students’ mathematical ideas. This research not only exposes the tensions and inconsistencies in the use of pedagogical documentation within the Ontario Kindergarten program, but also contributes to the discourse by highlighting nuanced perspectives of the participants. In turn this paves the way for a more comprehensive understanding of the transformative potential of pedagogical documentation in early years mathematics education.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0270.046
Scholarly communication0.0190.012
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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 venueYork University Digital Library (York University)→French-language works237,207→