Study of mathematics pedagogical consultants’ and elementary teachers’ mutual expectations of participation in collaborative research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis paper studies the mathematics pedagogical consultants' (MPCs) and teachers' mutual expectations for their participation in a collaborative research project.To study this collaboration, two MPCs and nine teachers responded to a questionnaire regarding their goals for participation in the project, their identification of their roles and their expectations toward their participation in the project.The literature describes a three-component model for collaborative research: the co-situation phase, the co-operation phase and the co-production phase.Goals and motivations may be redefined throughout these stages.However, a gap in the literature has been noted in terms of investigating expectations of teachers for themselves and for other collaborators in a collaborative research context.This qualitative study presents teachers' and MPCs' goals for participation in the project and how they define their goals and their expectations towards the participation in a collaborative research project.The findings reveal the importance of setting out the collaborators' goals, roles and expectations explicitly in the cooperation stage of a collaborative research project.An alignment between the collaborators' expectations must surface, from which the necessity to discuss those expectations to permit collaborators to work towards the purpose of the research.Findings from this study inform researchers, MPCs and/ or teachers on setting out a collaborative research project, specifically, on the execution of the co-situation phase in a collaborative research context.Thus informing stakeholders, principals and school boards on how collaborative projects may be carried out and how they can provide opportunities for professional development through this collaborative research.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it