Teachers’ Technology Acceptance and Usage Situations and the Evaluation of Web Pedagogic Content Knowledge in Terms of Different Variations and the Determination of the Relationship between These
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study is to analyze the situations of teachers’ technology acceptance and usage (TAU) and web pedagogy content knowledge (WPACK) in terms of different variations and to determine of the relationship between these two. The study group of this research consists of 96 teachers in total having different variations such as different branches, different professional seniorities, different ages and different educational levels they work in. Data collection tools comprising of 3 open-ended questions which are developed and structured by researchers and two different scales measuring technology acceptance and usage and web pedagogical content knowledge are utilized in this study. The scales and structured forms are applied through random sampling with screening model. In the results of the research, teachers’ technology acceptance and usage situations, web pedagogical content knowledge situations and their sexes and web 2.0 technologies usage situations don’t differ in terms of the dimensions and the entirety of the scales. The following are established according to the results; there are differences among teachers’ TAU situations, there aren’t any differences among their WPACK in terms of their branches; there aren’t any differences among their TAU situations and there are differences among their WPACK situations in terms of their ages; TAU and WPACK situations are not reasonable statistically in terms of their professional seniorities and educational levels they work in. Furthermore, it is also determined that web applications usage durations are not reasonable in terms of their TAU situations but they are reasonable in terms of WPACK. The answers which teachers provided towards open-ended questions are established to be categorized as education, technology, interaction, visuality, source and development. Additionally, it is settled that there is a low correlation between TAU and WPACK situations but it is possible to form a model between them. From the point of view of the findings of this study, it is suggested that knowledge and information regarding technology integration is provided experimentally to teachers in in-service seminars.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".