Evaluating and Integrating Educational Technology in the Elementary Mathematics Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used a meta-analysis to analyze several studies examining the impact of technology in the mathematics classroom in order to investigate the functionality of digital tools, and the integration of those digital tools, that most positively impact student achievement and student engagement. Through a keyword search and exclusion criteria, a systematic collection of relevant articles was compiled and analyzed through a two-tier coding scheme. The analysis determined that professional development opportunities need to be provided before, during, and after integration of technology. In addition, educators and students need time prior to the lesson or unit to become familiar with the digital tool and its available functions. Furthermore, educators need to put pedagogy first in order to align strategies with the appropriate digital tools. Finally, digital tools should be introduced in a blended format, with the teacher as a facilitator and the digital activities connected to the curriculum.
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 | 0.096 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".