MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385550865 · doi:10.26522/jiste.v27i1.4338

Utah K-12 Teachers’ Perspective: Challenges and Changes with Technology Integration during COVID-19 Pandemic

2023· article· en· W4385550865 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Katarina Pantic, Natali Gonzalez, Ryan Cain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Society for Teacher Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital literacy in education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlWeber State University
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Cognitive dissonanceVideoconferencingPerspective (graphical)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakTechnology integrationOnboardingSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PsychologyMedical educationMathematics educationEducational technologyOutbreakMedicineMultimediaComputer scienceInfectious disease (medical specialty)VirologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In March 2020, the global health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic brought about significant changes in classrooms around the world. This paper is part of a larger study that investigated how Utah teachers across the state adapted to technology integration during that period. Specifically, we present interview findings from ten teachers in Utah, which we analyzed using open and axial coding. The study identified four distinct challenges that teachers faced at the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak: increased stress, difficulties in transitioning to digital formats, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) dissonance, and students’ lack of technological knowledge. As a result, teachers began to reassess their pedagogical approaches and incorporate greater care for themselves and their students. In terms of technology, teachers reported an increased willingness to utilize technology and videoconferencing, as well as a shift toward digital formats and platforms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International Society for Teacher EducationSame topicDigital literacy in educationFrench-language works237,207