MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081752597 · doi:10.22329/jtl.v14i1.6259

Why Does Digital Learning Matter? Digital Competencies, Social Justice and Critical Pedagogy in Initial Teacher Education

2020· article· en· W3081752597 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Helen Coker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching and Learning · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital literacy in education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituatedContext (archaeology)PedagogySociologyCritical pedagogyDigital learningSocial justiceTeacher educationMathematics educationPsychologyComputer scienceSocial scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital tools and spaces are becoming prevalent in schools across the world requiring the development of digital skillsets for student-teachers. Digital technology, in enabling education to extend beyond the space and time boundaries of the conventional classroom (Seifert, T., Sheppard, B. Wakeham, M., 2015) , brings the digital landscape into the classroom and firmly into the frame of reference for those preparing student-teachers to enter the profession. For Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programmes which foreground social justice, the digital (technology which is linked to the internet) goes far beyond a skillset or a discrete subject. Engaging with digital learning encompasses the 21st century context - both local and global - in which student-teachers and their future pupils are situated. Developing a critical pedagogic approach involves understanding the context in which one lives and enabling learners to challenge or change it (Freire, 1996) . For those working in ITE a postdigital lens provides a means to understand the context in which they are situated. Critical pedagogy enables student-teachers to understand that context and challenge the inequities which persist, preparing them not simply to navigate the digital landscape, but to engage with it critically. Reflecting on student-teacher learning this article explores the digital dimension, highlighting the importance of digital learning when engaging with critical pedagogy and social justice in ITE.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.024
Scholarly communication0.0160.020
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.329
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teaching and LearningSame topicDigital literacy in educationFrench-language works237,207