Writing and iPads in the early years: Perspectives from within the classroom
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
Abstract Writing is a complex and effortful activity and recent surveys indicate that fewer children are enjoying writing or engaging in writing outside of school. Yet compositional writing is a part of the primary curriculum and is an essential part of education. This small‐scale international study aimed to garner the views of primary school teachers and children on using iPads in teaching compositional writing and how this writing differed from using paper and pencils. Three teachers and classes of primary school children in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland participated in the study. Individual interviews with the teachers, focus groups with the children and child‐led virtual tours of the iPad were all used to gather perspectives. All participants reported on the benefits of using iPads to teach compositional writing. These included fun and enjoyment, greater choice and creativity, the value of multimodal communication and assistance with spelling. However, all participants also advocated a balanced approach to the teaching of compositional writing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it