MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905285472 · doi:10.5430/wje.v8n6p96

The Impact Technology Has Had on High School Education over the Years

2018· article· en· W2905285472 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Egemen Hanımoğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetTechnology integrationMathematics educationQuality (philosophy)Educational technologyWork (physics)PsychologyInternet accessPedagogyLearning stylesComputer scienceEngineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology in secondary school is of great importance to students and teachers. School management teams focus onensuring that learners have access to computers during the high school years. The existence of the internet has led toan increase in the drive to promote the availability of computers to all high school scholars. For instance, wiring theinstitutions and classrooms is a measure adopted to improve access to quality education facilitated by internet use.Through technology, various concepts related to learning can be shared easily. Integration of IT in learning processrequires practical skills and access to technological tools for teachers. Therefore, many academic institutions havesignificantly invested in the purchase of equipment. The current study analyses various literature focusing on theroles that technology has played on high school education over the years. The critical area to focus on includestechnology and interaction of teachers, students, benefits of the technology, as well as possible drawbacks.Accordingly, integrating online learning and teaching activities plays a crucial role in accommodating student'sdiverse learning styles. In addition, such strategies can assist leaner's to work before or after school, unlike inconditions where only classroom learning occurs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207