Fostering Academic Integrity in the Digital Age: Empowering Student Voices to Navigate Technology as a Tool for Classroom Policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital technology has transformed classrooms, enabling new teaching methods. With widespread personal technology, students’ devices can enhance learning but also cause distractions. This research amplifies secondary students’ voices, exploring how they use technology and how it should be managed. The study addresses the question: What considerations are needed for school policies on personal, digital technologies? Conducted in an Ontario secondary school with Grade 11 students, data was collected through observations, conferences, focus groups, and journaling. Findings highlight that while technology is vital for learning, it can distract users and classmates. Students want clear directives on device use and training on managing distractions. This research underscores the role of teachers in promoting responsible technology use. By involving students in policy development and providing guidance, educators can empower them to use technology effectively while maintaining academic integrity in the digital era that now includes artificial intelligence.Keywords: digital technology, school policy, student perspectives, secondary school, Ontario
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".