MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409770359 · doi:10.70177/jete.v3i1.2128

Utilizing Technology in Multicultural Education: Experiences from Canadian Schools

2025· article· en· W4409770359 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emma Clark, James Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Emerging Technologies in Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Technology Integration
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticulturalismMulticultural educationPedagogySociologyPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. In the context of increasingly diverse classrooms, Canadian schools face both the challenge and opportunity of fostering inclusive learning environments through multicultural education. As technology becomes more integrated into pedagogy, its role in addressing linguistic, cultural, and social differences gains prominence.Purpose. This study explores how educators in Canadian schools utilize digital tools to support multicultural education and promote equity among students from diverse backgrounds. The research aims to identify effective strategies, tools, and practices that enhance cultural inclusivity and student engagement through technology-enhanced instruction.Method. A qualitative multiple-case study approach was employed, involving interviews with 28 teachers, classroom observations across six schools, and analysis of institutional technology integration plans. Results. The findings indicate that technology, when used intentionally, facilitates culturally responsive teaching through language support apps, collaborative platforms, and digital storytelling tools. However, the study also reveals disparities in access, digital literacy, and institutional readiness, which hinder equitable outcomes.Conclusion. The study concludes that leveraging technology for multicultural education requires not only pedagogical innovation but also systemic support, teacher training, and inclusive design principles. These insights offer practical implications for educators and policymakers seeking to enhance diversity and inclusion in digital learning environments.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0360.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal Emerging Technologies in EducationSame topicEducation and Technology IntegrationFrench-language works237,207