MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1528154692

Attitude Toward Instructional Technology Following Required Versus Optional WebCT Usage

2005· article· en· W1528154692 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

VenueThe Journal of Technology and Teacher Education · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Technology Integration
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumTechnology integrationPsychologyEducational technologyInstructional technologyMathematics educationMedical educationInstructional designPedagogyComputer scienceMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study sought understand the mechanisms that facilitate improvement in preservice teacher attitude toward instructional applications of computer technology. Participants comprised two groups: education students whose use of WebCT was required for completion of course assignments (n = 42) and education students whose use of WebCT was entirely optional (n = 82). All students made pre- and postcourse ratings of the perceived value of instructional technology. Across groups, positive changes from pre postcourse occurred on seven of the ten items that evaluated attitude toward instructional technology. Additionally, students required use WebCT showed a greater overall change in attitude from pre postcourse and made greater use of optional online course material relative those whose use of WebCT was optional. Requiring the use of technology in course work may generate favorable attitudes toward technology and thereby foster greater utilization of other available computer-based applications. ********** Teacher preparation programs are frequently criticized for their inability to fully prepare new teachers use technology effectively in their professional practice (Milken Exchange on Education Technology, 1999, p. i). Most teacher preparation programs reportedly offer one course in which preservice teachers are develop basic computer technology skills (Hsu & Hargrave, 2000). Cherup and Snyder (2003) proposed a more integrated approach technology in teacher education, one that includes a curriculum of technology operations, planning and designing learning environments, assessment and evaluation, professional practice, and social, ethical, and legal issues. Despite concerted and evolving postsecondary effort equip novice teachers with technological competencies, relatively few teachers routinely use computer-based technologies for instructional and when computers are used, are generally used for low-level tasks such as drills and word processing (Abdal-Haqq, 1995, p. 1). While there are numerous explanations for such limited instructional applications of technology in public education, not the least of which is lack of access equipment and inadequate training (Bosch & Cardinale, 1993; Moersch, 1999), teacher beliefs and attitudes emerge as particularly critical variables (Zhao & Cziko, 2001). Whetstone and Carr-Chellman (2001) conducted a comprehensive survey of preservice teachers' perceptions of technology and their future plans implement instructional technology. Seventy-six percent (76%) of those surveyed claimed that computers have a substantial role in school reform. When asked indicate the computer applications they felt competent apply as future teachers, 94% felt prepared use word processors, 75% felt prepared use e-mail, and 65% felt prepared use content area software. However, only 57% felt prepared use spreadsheets and only 41% and 33% felt prepared use internet applications and databases, respectively. Such survey results suggest diminishing preparation for more advanced applications of computer technology. Moreover, there is an absence of survey results for sophisticated school-based applications of instructional technology such as those supported by WebCT. WebCT is a set of web-based course tools that provide instructors and students with a range of applications such as calculating and accessing grades, posting and accessing course material, developing and publishing presentations online, posting and taking tests and surveys, accessing course syllabi, and participating in online discussion (WebCT, 2003). The Homepage is the first page appear following WebCT log in and is the page that allows users link all available WebCT tools. The WebCT Discussions tool enables the instructor place students in groups for purposes of online discussion. Instructors use the WebCT Content Module put course material online. …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.327 · 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