Using workshops to enhance parent understanding of and beliefs about reform-based mathematics teaching and learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a middle school teacher, I often find that parents are concerned about the quality of their children’s mathematics education, especially when they are confronted with unfamiliar methods and teaching practices. The topic of mathematics education is often the subject of public scrutiny (Chernoff, 2019; Herrera & Owens, 2001), but it has also been well-researched. In this study, I investigated the experiences of parents of middle school students who attended a series of three workshops on mathematics teaching and learning. I used positioning theory to analyze how they positioned themselves in relation to the discourse on mathematics education. After attending the workshops, listening to explanations of key concepts, and participating in hands-on activities, I found that many participants felt better equipped and empowered to help their children with mathematics. They expressed a sense of trust in teachers and the education system and seemed to have an enhanced understanding of the value of reform-oriented mathematics teaching and learning. At the same time, their views of the centrality of fact fluency seemed more resistant to change. This study provides valuable insight for researchers looking to further investigate the use of parent workshops in a middle school context, as well as teachers, administrators, and school divisions looking to perform outreach in their communities in the area of 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".