Information and Communication Technologies: Views of Canadian College Students and “Excellent” Professors
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
We explored students’ perspectives about their professors’ use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and compared these to the views of professors deemed by their students to be excellent in their use of ICTs. 311 students completed an online questionnaire and nominated up to three of their professors who used technology in a way that worked well for them. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 114 of the nominated professors, who also completed a checklist of technologies used in their teaching. There are some technologies that students said worked well for them that not many professors used in their teaching, such as online tests / quizzes, podcasts, and clickers. However, there were some technologies that both students and professors agreed did not facilitate learning, such as digital text books, blogs and chat rooms. Finally, there was also agreement among professors and students about technologies that did help with learning, such as e-mails, videos and online submission of assignments.Both student and professor perspectives need to be considered when evaluating what technologies work in teaching. Future research should examine why students prefer certain technologies. In addition, reasons for the discrepancies between professors and student views needs further investigation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it