The Role of Digital Technologies in Learning: Expectations of First Year University Students / Le rôle des technologies numériques dans l’apprentissage : les attentes des étudiants de première année universitaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing literature suggests that there is a disjuncture between the instructional practices of the education system and the student body it is expected to serve, particularly with respect to the roles of digital technologies. Based on surveys and focus group interviews of first-year students at a primarily undergraduate Canadian university and focus group interviews of professors at the same institution, this study explores the gaps and intersections between students’ uses and expectations for digital technologies while learning inside the classroom and socializing outside the classroom, and the instructional uses, expectations and concerns of their professors. It concludes with recommendations for uses of digital technologies that go beyond information transmission, the need for extended pedagogical discussions to harness the learning potentials of digital technologies, and for pedagogies that embrace the social construction of knowledge as well as individual acquisition. Des études de plus en plus nombreuses suggèrent qu’il existe un écart entre les pratiques d’enseignement dans le système de l’éducation et la population étudiante desservie, notamment en ce qui concerne le rôle des technologies numériques. La présente étude, fondée sur les résultats de sondages et d’entrevues de groupe auprès des étudiants de première année inscrits à une université canadienne principalement axée sur les études de premier cycle, ainsi que sur des entrevues de groupe auprès de professeurs du même établissement, explore les écarts et les concordances entre, d’une part, l’utilisation et les attentes des étudiants relativement aux technologies numériques dans l’apprentissage en classe et dans les relations sociales en dehors des classes, et, d’autre part, l’utilisation de ces technologies dans les pratiques d’enseignement, les préoccupation et les attentes des professeurs. L’étude se conclut par des recommandations concernant une utilisation des technologies numériques dépassant la transmission de l’information, et la nécessité de discussions pédagogiques poussées permettant d’exploiter le potentiel des technologies numériques dans le cadre de l’apprentissage ainsi que de méthodes pédagogiques adaptées à la construction sociale des connaissances et au mode individuel d’acquisition des connaissances.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".