Barriers to successful implementation of technology integration in educational settings: a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Representing issues discussed at the EduSummIT 2011 relative to essential conditions and barriers to successful technology integration, this article presents a systemic analysis of barriers that needed to be overcome for an information technology initiative (Remote Networked School project) to be successfully implemented. The analysis was conducted from an activity theory framework. Barriers were conceptualized as tensions that pulled constituents of an activity system or activity systems in opposite directions at four distinct levels of contradiction. Chains of tensions–pivotal actions that led to the overcoming of barriers were identified. Twelve exemplars illustrate how roles, policies and routines were transformed for necessary conditions to be in place in small remote schools. As emphasized by our application of activity theory, these conditions, which parallel the essential conditions formulated by the International Society for Technology in Education, can never be taken for granted by the educational agents of a specific setting. In the case presented, activity theory explains that the overcoming of barriers is an ongoing exercise as some tensions get resolved, reappear or give way to new ones.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".