Integrating Technology: The Principals’ Role and Effect
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
There are many factors that influence technology integration in the classroom such as teacher willingness, availability of hardware, and professional development of staff. Taking into account these elements, this paper describes research on technology integration with a focus on principals’ attitudes. The role of the principal in classroom practice was found to be substantial. The purpose of this research was to assess the current attitudes concerning technology integration in schools from the school principal’s perspective. This research investigated the value principals place on using technology in student learning, what principals believe prevents teachers from succeeding in technology integration, what can best facilitate teacher development, and if principals perceive peer coaching or mentoring to be a viable option. The research herein consisted of a survey and an interview to help assess principals’ attitudes regarding the importance of technology integration, the perceived challenges and whether or not teacher coaches are a viable option for the future. This examination concluded that most principals in this research study value technology in education, perceive teacher willingness and professional development to be the strongest obstacles, and think teacher coaches would be a viable option for success. This study sheds light on a couple of paths for future research.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it