MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054304914 · doi:10.4018/jicthd.2010100102

The Concerns of Elementary Educators with the Diffusion of Information and Communication Technology

2010· article· en· W2054304914 on OpenAlexaff
Armin Samiei, Dan Laitsch

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Information Communication Technologies and Human Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyIntervention (counseling)Resource (disambiguation)Knowledge managementTechnology integrationDiffusion of innovationsMedical educationPedagogyPsychologyComputer scienceEducational technologySociologyMedicineWorld Wide WebSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the authors use a mixed methods study, including a survey and follow up interviews, to investigate the concerns that elementary educators in a school district in British Columbia have regarding the diffusion and integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in their teaching. The research participants identified four major categories of concerns: the philosophy and pedagogy of ICT integration; accessibility of ICT (including software, hardware and resource personnel); infrastructure technical support; and educational integration of ICT in their teaching. Based on the research findings, the authors propose appropriate intervention methods to address these concerns, including targeted professional development, technical and educational support, and sustained access to proper ICT equipment.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Information Communication Technologies and Human DevelopmentSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207