Barriers to Systemic, Effective and Sustainable Technology Use in High School Classrooms
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
The purpose of the Technology and High School Success (THSS) initiative was to encourage innovative strategies focused on improving provincial high school completion rates, using technology and student-centered learning to engage student interest. The primary purpose of this paper is to report on barriers that impede systemic, effective and sustainable technology integration within schools. Even with teacher and administrative support and commitment for THSS, evaluative research indicated minimal change in system capacity as a result of the initiative. Three primary barriers to program sustainability were: 1) schools and school districts did not leverage the opportunity to revisit their existing vision(s), 2) schools and school districts did not use data to make changes, and 3) limited access to technology. Le but de l’initiative « Technology and High School Success (THSS) » était d'encourager des stratégies novatrices visant à améliorer le taux d’achèvement des études secondaires dans la province de l’Alberta en utilisant la technologie et un apprentissage centré sur l'élève afin de susciter l'intérêt des élèves. L'objectif principal de cet article est de rendre compte des obstacles entravant l'intégration systémique, efficace et durable de la technologie dans les écoles. La recherche évaluative a révélé des changements minimes dans la capacité systémique à la suite de l'initiative, et ce, malgré l’appui et l’engagement des enseignants et des administrateurs envers le THSS. Les trois obstacles principaux à la viabilité du programme sont les suivants: 1) les écoles et les districts scolaires n'ont pas profité de l’occasion pour revoir leur(s) vision(s), 2) les écoles et les districts scolaires n'ont pas utilisé les données pour effectuer des changements, et 3) l'accès limité à la technologie.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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