Exploring Techniques for Integrating Mobile Technology into Field-Based Environmental Education
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental education authors have argued for cultivating a relationship with nature and the outdoors, and have urged parents to unplug their children from technology. In this perspective, technology is seen as curtailing ties to the environment and its use needs to be limited. In this paper, we consider the idea that while technology may contribute to children's disconnect from the natural world around them, it could also support being outdoors. Thus, we explore techniques for incorporating mobile technology into a field-based environmental science curriculum and compare two approaches to field-based environmental education: a traditional approach and a traditional-plus technological intervention approach. A mixed methods design was used to evaluate learning outcomes and record observations. Based on comparisons of pre- and post-test scores and common themes detected through reflexive journaling, results show that the traditional-plus approach to environmental education facilitated an increase in student knowledge and comprehension during a weeklong residential science program. Appropriate implementation of technology can enable outdoor education to enhance existing practice, but there is still a need for further research on the topic.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it