Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis, I describe how interactive journal writing was used to improve the understanding of mathematics, and to foster communication with two groups of remedial grade ten students. Mathematics is a gatekeeper course in high school, and students who are not successful with this subject are at a distinct disadvantage, both in terms of their education and in their future careers. A persistent source of difficulty for these students is related to language; students often struggle both to understand what is being taught, and how to explain concepts or problem solutions in their own words. Interactive journal writing was initiated as a means of addressing this situation, and of meeting the objectives proposed by the Quebec Education Plan, which specifies three closely related competencies: (1) solve situational problems; (2) use mathematical reasoning; (3) and communicate by using mathematical language. There is ample proof in the research literature that communication plays an important role in supporting learners by helping them clarify, refine and consolidate their thinking. This study demonstrates the importance of allowing and encouraging students to use writing as part of their learning processes. By writing about what they are being taught, students are forced to slow down, examine and reflect on the steps they use to solve problems. Sharing what they write promotes meaningful dialogue and personal engagement, essential ingredients of successful learning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".