Tracking change in primary teachers’ understanding of mathematical reasoning through demonstration lessons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
\n\t\t\t\t\tThis paper reports on the impact of a professional learning programme on participating teachers’ perceptions of mathematical reasoning. A total of 26 teachers participated in this study from four schools in Victoria, Australia and one school in British Columbia, Canada. The participants observed two demonstration lessons prepared and taught by the research team, attended pre- and post-demonstration lesson group discussions and taught each lesson in their classroom. Interviews with participating teachers before beginning the program, after trialling the first demonstration lesson, and after trialling the second lesson provided data for analysis. The Primary Teachers' Perceptions of Mathematical Reasoning Framework previously established by the research team was used to track the shifts in teachers’ perceptions and understanding of mathematical reasoning across the program. We theorise that intentional foci on salient aspects of reasoning demonstration lessons, highly collaborative reflections, and teacher enactment of the demonstrated lessons have the potential to develop teachers’ perceptions and understanding of reasoning.\n\t\t\t\t
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".