A Survey on Acceptance and Readiness to Use Robot Teaching Technology Among Primary School Science Teachers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it