MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408345225 · doi:10.22329/jtl.v19i1.8810

Emerging Digital Technologies: Building Competencies of STEM Pre-Service Teachers

2025· article· en· W4408345225 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter Abayomi Onanuga, Adewale Owodunni Saka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital literacy in education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService (business)BusinessKnowledge managementComputer scienceEngineering managementEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the level of emerging digital technologies’ competencies of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) pre-service teachers. It employed a descriptive survey research design. A sample of 357 STEM pre-service teachers from a Nigerian university were selected purposively, based on the criteria that they were willing to participate in the online test. The Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Emerging Digital Technologies’ Competencies Test (STEM-EDTCT, r=0.84) was used to collect data online, through a Google form. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive mean, standard deviations, simple percentages, and inferential statistics (independent t-test and analysis of variance). The results showed that the level of emerging digital technologies’ competencies of STEM pre-service teachers was low, regardless of their mode of entry into the university. The study also found a significant gender difference in the level of digital competencies, with male pre-service teachers scoring higher than their female counterparts. Based on the findings, it is recommended that Nigeria’s policy on pre-service teacher-training should focus on acquiring skills and competencies, particularly in digital technologies. STEM pre-service teachers should be equipped with known and emerging technologies to enable them to deliver knowledge and information effectively.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

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 communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teaching and LearningSame topicDigital literacy in educationFrench-language works237,207