MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239875112 · doi:10.24124/2008/bpgub1351

How to support technology use in the elementary classroom

2008· dissertation· en· W4239875112 on OpenAlexaff
Judith Minion

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumTechnology integrationSchool districtAdaptation (eye)Mathematics educationInformation technologyTechnology educationProfessional developmentSchool teachersPsychologyPedagogyEducational technologyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A technology survey was conducted in a small British Columbia urban school district. The objective was to determine the districts' elementary teachers' support needs, beliefs, and technology adoption stage with regard to the integration of technology in their classrooms. From the data collected, I have provided an additional source of information that could enhance my district's future technology plans. Specifically, the data provide additional information on how the elementary teachers in the District believe the integration of technology can be supported in this District. Past research has found numerous interconnected factors that influence the level of integration of technology in today's classrooms. The analysis of the survey responses indicated that in this District elementary teachers most frequently identify their level of technology adoption at level 5 (adaptation to other contexts), recognize there is a need for a school-based technology support person, and that the teachers need to experiment with technology-enhanced curriculum before they are comfortable with it. The teachers have the technology skills and believe in its usefulness to foster student success however they lack the knowledge to integrate technology throughout the curriculum. The results from the survey suggest that future district technology plans incorporate professional development activities and support structures that recognize their elementary teachers' identified needs, beliefs, and present adoption level in order to encourage the integration of technology in the elementary curriculum.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207