Educational Technology in Elementary Teaching: Philosophies and Practices of Selected Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technology is present in almost all of society, including education. While there is increased use of various forms of technology and their applications, it is also essential to understand the philosophies and beliefs of elementary teachers and their decision points in incorporating technology into their teaching practice. This study aimed to systematically review the educational technology used in elementary teaching and document and describe the philosophies and practices of selected teachers. The researcher used the PRISMA model to review literature and group best practices into five areas: Teaching Methods, Instructional Materials, Interaction and Collaboration, Assessment, and Accessibility. Data was collected through surveys and a Focus Group Discussion (FGD). One survey question used SAMR descriptors to assess how often and in what ways teachers used technology in class. These helped identify which practices worked well for both teachers and students. To see if teachers followed best practices found in literature, the researcher included them in the survey and confirmed them in the FGD. A Teaching Philosophy test also identified each teacher's dominant philosophy. Results were analyzed qualitatively. The study found that even with some challenges, elementary teachers used technology in varied ways aligned with global best practices. The literature review highlighted effective strategies from countries like the US, the UK, Singapore, Japan, and Canada, offering models the Philippines can adopt or adapt. It also showed that teaching philosophy did not affect how teachers applied technology in their classrooms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".