'ICT-Periodism' in the Classroom: Lessons Learnt from English in Action
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
This paper illustrates the factors affecting the use of ICT in the classroom in a large scale language development project in Bangladesh. The project, called English in Action (EIA) provides ICT materials along with print based materials for the teachers as well as face-to-face training to bring changes in primary and secondary classroom practices. On-going monitoring data showed that the use of audio materials increases as the intervention progresses through the year, however, the pattern changes when a decrease is observed during the third quarter. The study focused on the factors that have an influence on the use of audio in EIA classrooms during different quarters of the year and explored the underlying causes. The study adopted a mixed method approach and used classroom observations and semi-structured interviews with fifteen primary teachers to gather data. Findings showed that different nature and the pressure of the contents during different quarters of the year and the examination focused education system are the key factors that affect the use of ICT in English classes at the primary level. This raises the concern regarding ‘negative back-wash effect’ (Pan, 2009) of the exam system, which can stop effective pedagogical changes in the classroom from happening.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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