Factors That Influence Superintendents in Iowa to Implement a One-To-One Computer Initiative
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this study is to identify factors that influence superintendents in Iowa to implement a one-to-one computer initiative. An in-depth, phenomenological based interview method was used. Two interviews were conducted with each of the five superintendents in the study. The superintendent responses were then organized using the Saskatchewan Educational Indicators, which are context, process and outcome indicators. The major questions addressed in the study were: 1. What factors influenced the decision to implement a one-to-one computer initiative? 2. What are the results of implementing a one-to-one computer initiative? 3. What decision-making process do superintendents in Iowa use when deciding to implement a one-to-one computer initiative? Factors that influenced superintendents in the study to implement a one-to-one computer initiative were visits to other districts that had implemented a one-to-one computer initiative, student engagement, equity of student access to laptop computers and online resources, political considerations, staff readiness and doing what is best for students. Factors that did not influence the decision of the superintendents were student achievement, enrollment trends, the bandwagon effect and budget. While budget did not influence the decision, what made this possible was the ability to fund the initiatives through two specific funding mechanisms separate from the general fund; the School Infrastructure Local Option tax and the Physical Plant and Equipment Levy. The results of implementing a one-to-one computer initiative included greater student engagement and a change in the student/teacher relationship. This was characterized as moving away from a teacher-centered approach and toward a student-centered approach, which included students in formal and informal teaching roles with adults and peers. The decision making process the superintendents used was similar to the process typically used when making large, district-affecting decisions. Each superintendent communicated with various stakeholder groups and most facilitated the process rather than overtly advocating for the initiative. The major departure from their typical approach included sending various teams to visit other school districts that had implemented a one-to-one computer initiative to gather information and see the initiative first hand. The study concluded with recommendations for further study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».