MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396947864 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v25i2.7572

Exploring Teachers’ Digital Literacy Experiences

2024· article· en· W4396947864 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jaewon Jung, Seohyun Choi, Mik Fanguy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital literacy in education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracyDigital literacyPedagogyMathematics educationSociologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study analysed digital literacy issues encountered by elementary school teachers in remote classrooms due to COVID-19. The study sought to derive a plan for cultivating teachers’ digital literacy to support students’ distance education. To this end, focus group interviews were conducted with five elementary school teachers in charge of upper grades, the results were analysed, and strategies to improve teacher digital literacy were derived. Specifically, three main areas of teacher digital literacy were identified for improvement. The first was providing training to use digital devices and online platforms, develop online content, and strengthen copyright understanding. The second was providing professional development programs to train digital teaching methods or pedagogies by level and by subject characteristics. The third was activating online and offline platforms for information sharing among teachers and establish a digital teaching support system. This study will be of value to teachers and school administrations in preparing for distance education in the era of digital transformation because it presents measures to foster teachers’ digital literacy required by future society.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicDigital literacy in educationFrench-language works237,207