How elementary principals assist teachers in implementing computer technology in mathematics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the research was to explore how elementary principals assist teachers in implementing computer technology in mathematics. The research was an in-depth qualitative study utilizing the case study method. The study was conducted in three elementary schools in a large urban school board over four-months. The main participants were principals, vice principals, teachers, support staff, and a superintendent. Interviews, observations, and field notes were the main data collection tools. The five major findings suggest important considerations for an elementary school principal in the implementation of computer technology in mathematics. (1) The role of the elementary school principal was found to be central in assisting and supporting teachers in the integration of computer technology in mathematics. (2) Principals create supportive conditions, which foster the use of computer technology for mathematics. (3) The study suggests principals are advocates for new computer technology initiatives to support the mathematics curriculum. (4) This research identified that principals need to know, understand, and be able to apply appropriate assessment and evaluation strategies for assessing the use of computer technology for the teaching and learning of mathematics. (5) The superintendent of schools was found to model and directly influence curriculum management processes for principals for the implementation of computer technology in mathematics. For principals there are several implications. The integration of computer technology into mathematics requires more than an infrastructure including hardware and software. Principals, together with their staff, have to envision the potential of computer technology for the teaching and learning of mathematics. They need to have a common understanding of what is meant by computer technology integration and understand how computer technology can be used to support constructivist teaching in mathematics. It is beneficial for principals to have a full understanding of the levels of technology integration and how they can assist teachers as they progress through the various stages. In addition to creating supportive conditions, principals need to cooperatively plan with teachers for mathematics and determine how computer technology can effectively support instruction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".