MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405325921 · doi:10.3390/educsci14121362

Technology and K-12 Environmental Education in Ontario, Canada: Teacher Perceptions and Recommendations

2024· article· en· W4405325921 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew A. Millward, Courtney Carrier, Gregory T. O. LeBreton

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous and Place-Based Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental educationPerceptionTeacher educationPedagogyMathematics educationPsychologySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research explores the perspectives of kindergarten through to Grade 12 (K-12) teachers on incorporating information and communication technology (ICT) into the environmental education (EE) curriculum. In the context of the increasing influence of ICT in education, this study examines both the potential enhancements ICT offers to EE and the challenges it poses. Using data from an online survey and an in-person focus group, the investigation addresses the capacity of ICT to promote environmental stewardship and personal growth, alongside concerns regarding technology’s potential to alienate students from nature and the divided opinions among educators regarding optimal technology use. Attention is given to systemic barriers that complicate EE integration and the variability of its implementation in Ontario, Canada, where EE is mandated across K-12 curricula. The findings illuminate educators’ concerns about digital dependencies among their students and the difficulty they face in striking a balance between the use of ICT and non-technical pedagogical approaches when engaging students in environmental lessons. Importantly, study participants identified limited contemporary and timely technological tools to support EE delivery that deemphasize using personal mobile devices (e.g., smartphones and tablets). In response, we recommend three forms of technology (and accompanying lesson ideas) that are affordable, easy to integrate into classrooms, and do not require off-site trips, thereby enhancing accessibility and equity. This study’s implications are aimed at educators, policymakers, and stakeholders seeking to enhance EE delivery within a technologically evolving educational framework and ensure the development of environmentally conscious students.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation SciencesSame topicIndigenous and Place-Based EducationFrench-language works237,207