Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examined the ways two secondary school teachers used Mathematics 9 (Ontario Edition) (Addison-Wesley, 1999) for planning and classroom purposes. The aims were to determine how these teachers used the textbook in classrooms, relative to other materials, at different stages of curriculum implementation and in regard to its embedded features. An instrumental case study approach was employed. Collected were teacher selection, classroom observation, document and semi-structured interview data. Each classroom was observed over a three-month period for approximately 12 hours and each teacher was interviewed for approximately seven hours. Both teachers were in their second year of using Mathematics 9 when teaching the Principles of Mathematics, Grade 9, Academic Course mandated by the Government of Ontario through The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 and 10: Mathematics, 1999. Curriculum implementation was also in its second year. Observations revealed that both teachers employed the same teaching approaches and used the textbook similarly in each situation. The textbook to some degree affected the extent to which each strategy was employed. Both teachers continually modified how they used Mathematics 9 as curriculum implementation progressed, that is, they used it differently before, during and after the initial year of implementation—the teachers indicated that, during the first year of implementation, department heads and the textbook greatly influenced their planning. A combination of factors caused the teachers to adapt a modified version of the textbook's chapter and section structure for personal planning purposes. Although the teachers had greater freedom when planning individual lessons, they continued to use the textbook, albeit differently depending on the type of lesson planned.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".