MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4375841220 · doi:10.47381/aijre.v23i3.669

Rural Schools and Technology

2013· article· en· W4375841220 on OpenAlexaffabout
Barbara Barter

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian and International Journal of Rural Education · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumBarterContext (archaeology)SociologyClass (philosophy)Distance educationPedagogyPresentation (obstetrics)VideoconferencingMathematics educationComputer sciencePsychologyMultimediaMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Placed within the context of rural teaching and learning and the use of new technologies, this paper presents a comparative study of three technological approaches to the presentation of curriculum in schools. Supported by three different research projects in one Canadian province, it highlights three areas of e-learning: the use of video conferencing to deliver curriculum to children in five rural schools (Barter, 2004), web-based distance education implemented by the Ministry of Education to deliver academic courses to students in rural and remote areas (Barter, 2011), and a lap top computer-based project with a class of intermediate students (Barter, Murphy, Hardy, Norman & Pack, 2004). Including a literature review, the paper provides a brief background of each project, outlines the results, and then discusses the impact such projects can have on education. Two projects (video conferencing and Ministry of Education delivered distance education) are described and then discussed through the responses of practicing teachers, while the third (lap tops for learning) is explored through the reflections of participating teachers as well as those from consenting junior high students.
 Accepting that the three projects represent a largely localized instance of curriculum research, they are used as a ‗stepping off point‘ that serves to highlight the challenges and successes in implementing curriculum through multiple forms of technology that can be expanded to a wider audience. The paper does not delve into the effects of different technology applications. Rather, it focuses on the effects of implementation in general. The intent is to present the successes and challenges of the three projects as examples that may help educators to identify and define theoretical aspects of technology leadership and lead to further understandings about how users may experience its implementation and use. The three projects and an extant literature indicate that innovations involving technology are process driven. They bring opportunity as well as challenges that stretch the limits of teaching and learning. As a result, the effective use of distance education, in any form, requires consistent, extensive support for both students and teachers.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian and International Journal of Rural EducationSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207