USING ICT IN SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHING – WHAT STUDENTS AND TEACHERS IN TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO SAY?
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
Over the last decade and a half, classrooms have become swamped with a range of electronic devices. Technology will continue to be more efficient, more versatile and indeed more abundant in schools and in classrooms. This study explores the views of students and teachers on the effectiveness of ICT in science teaching in terms of (i) levels of enjoyment derived by students, and (ii) usefulness of ICTs to teachers for their teaching. A questionnaire was used to elicit the views of students and teachers in respect of a range of ICT-based classroom activities. Qualitative and quantitative data collected through the questionnaires from 12 teachers and 100 students involved in science teaching and learning at a selected secondary school in Trinidad were analyzed. The results show that students enjoy ICT interventions in their lessons and teachers rank it high in many respects but, both students and teachers agree that ICT loses its appeal when its use is arbitrary and ill-planned. Article visualizations:
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 | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.077 | 0.101 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| 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