MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207571190 · doi:10.5539/ass.v17n11p115

A Survey on Acceptance and Readiness to Use Robot Teaching Technology Among Primary School Science Teachers

2021· article· en· W3207571190 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laxmi Nagendra Rao, Habibah Ab Jalil

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobeProcess (computing)Information and Communications TechnologyRobotRoboticsMathematics educationPsychologySchool teachersInformation technologyComputer scienceMedical educationArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interest in educational robotics has grown in recent years, and many efforts have been undertaken across the globe to include robots into school instruction from kindergarten to high school, mostly in science and technology subjects. The current study is to determine teachers' technological acceptance and readiness to implement robotic technology in the teaching and learning process. A descriptive research design was employed which utilized a survey method. This survey was conducted among primary school teachers of Science, Mathematics, Design and Technology, and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Malaysia. According to the findings, teachers' acceptance of robot technology in the classroom is at a modest 3.77 (SD = 0.598) while the readiness score is 3.67 (SD = 0.611). The findings indicated that school teachers are only moderately prepared to employ robotic technology in classrooms. Respondents also argued that the high cost of robotic technology is a significant barrier to incorporate robotic technology into teaching and learning. The practicality of this paper is the provision of insights for exploring adoption possibilities and barriers in auguring robots into primary school classrooms. This indicates that the higher the level of teachers’ acceptance, the higher teachers’ readiness in robotic technology. Respondents argued that the high cost of robotic technology is a significant barrier to incorporating robotic technology into teaching and learning.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207