MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918669139 · doi:10.5430/wje.v9n1p196

Investigation of the Self-efficacy of the Teachers in Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Their Use of Information and Communication Technologies

2019· article· en· W2918669139 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Technology Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyPsychologySelf-efficacyVocational educationSubject (documents)ICTSMathematics educationSample (material)Descriptive statisticsSchool teachersKnowledge levelPedagogyComputer scienceSocial psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to determine the teachers' views on technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)self-efficacy and the frequency of using ICT in education and to examine whether there is a differentiation in theseviews according to certain variables. In addition, the relationship between teachers' use of ICT and TPACK-ISTEself-efficacy in various processes is examined. The study which is carried out with a descriptive survey, causalcomparison and correlational survey models includes 387 secondary and high school teachers as study sample. In thestudy, teachers consider themselves very competent especially in terms of content knowledge. TPACK-ISTEself-efficacy of vocational and technical teachers was significantly higher than that of the science and mathematicsteachers. While teachers benefit from ICT tools less frequently in measurement and evaluation as well as inpresenting the course subject; in terms of presenting the course subject, high school teachers use ICTs significantlymore often than the secondary school teachers; those who did receive in-service training on the use of technology ineducation use ICTs significantly more often than those who did not receive it. It is seen from the study results thatthe variables such as preparing the lecture notes, presenting the course subject and doing study explain theTPACK-ISTE self-efficacy significantly.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.244 · 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