MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Professional Development for Information Communication Technology Integration

2008· article· en· W1484460048 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research on Technology in Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyTechnology integrationProfessional developmentFaculty developmentKnowledge managementComputer scienceSociologyPedagogyEducational technologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research suggests effective classroom ICT integration occurs through needs-based, collaborative professional development (Chandra-Handa, 2001; Cuttance, 2001; Figg, 2000; Gibson, Oberg, & Pelz, 1999; Gross, 2000; Haughey, 2002). A community of practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) can be an effective mode of such collaborative professional development. A synthesis of the literature enabled the construction of the concept that a CoP, investigated through a design-based research methodology, can contribute to effective ICT integration research. Principles for this research approach are discussed and address the membership of a CoP and teacher/researcher ownership of research goals and design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.410 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it