English Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology Integration: Are They Different From Their Peers in Engineering and Medical Science?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role played by subject areas in information and communication technology (ICT) integration has been insufficiently researched. This study compares English language teachers' perceptions of ICT integration with their peers in engineering and medical science in ICT integration. It also examines the effects of teachers’ sociobiographical variables (gender, age, computer proficiency, and years of teaching experience) predict teachers’ perceptions of ICT integration. A total of 180 teachers (112 males, 68 females) responded to a Teacher Technology Questionnaire (Lowther, Inan, Strahl, & Ross, 2008). Results show that among the predictor variables, computer skills had the highest relative impact on ICT integration. Furthermore, English language teachers' perceptions of ICT are reported to be similar to those of their peers in engineering and medical science. This study does not lend support to any significant role played by subject area in ICT integration. Implications for teaching are offered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".