Student Independent Projects Psychology 2015: Reading, Writing and Mathematics: Computer Assisted Instructionas a Learning Intervention (K-9)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Computer Technology (CT) has permeated everyday life in Canada, so too has the implementation of computers in classrooms. The 1990’s saw the widespread of the personal PC and later the mobile phone. The early 2000’s marked the advent of e-readers and smart phones followed by the creation of the tablet in 2010. Each form of technology has respectively sparked a boom in academic research (Li & Ma, 2010). For this paper, I will look at all forms of digital screens under the working definition of Computer Technology (CT) to avoid compounding a broad topic. There is debate about the efficacy of Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI), as research indicates similarities and differences in learning through digital and paper mediums. There are many forms of software and computer technology applied to CAI and reading, writing and mathematics interventions and educational psychologists and educators have been interested in the efficacy of CT in the classroom to help teach students (Woolfolk et al., 2010). The implementation of CT has been tailored to suit the needs of learners in individual subjects with different software designers and different forms of delivery. My purpose was to outline some of the most successful CAI learning intervention methods when compared with paper based learning interventions.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".