東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

The Impact of Algorithmic Literacy a...

Henderson, Jessa,

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

The Impact of Algorithmic Literacy and Purpose on Educator Use of and Confidence in Algorithmic Advice /

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	The Impact of Algorithmic Literacy and Purpose on Educator Use of and Confidence in Algorithmic Advice // Jessa Henderson.
作者:	Henderson, Jessa,
面頁冊數:	1 electronic resource (135 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-05, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International85-05B.
標題:	Educational technology. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30695118
ISBN:	9798380851664

The Impact of Algorithmic Literacy and Purpose on Educator Use of and Confidence in Algorithmic Advice /
Henderson, Jessa,

The Impact of Algorithmic Literacy and Purpose on Educator Use of and Confidence in Algorithmic Advice /Jessa Henderson. - 1 electronic resource (135 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-05, Section: B.

Algorithms may be better at prediction than humans in a variety of contexts, but they are not perfect. A deeper understanding of the ways in which educators use and question algorithmic advice within their professional domain is needed. Educators are a particularly unique professional group, in comparison with the other groups studied in the literature, and will likely be the on-the-ground employees expected to integrate algorithmic advice into their pedagogical planning and decision making. This quantitative study used a 2x2 pretest-posttest experimental design to investigate the way that educators used and trusted algorithmic advice for high school science course recommendations, including the way contextual framing and individual-level differences impacted these relationships. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two purpose conditions in a simulation environment designed using the Judge-Advisor System (JAS) paradigm to assess the influence of algorithmic advice. Group comparison and multiple regression techniques were utilized to test hypotheses. Results indicated that approximately 30% of participants did not change their decision at any time and that the remaining 70% tended to not change their decision when given the chance. Additionally, a significant interaction was detected for average confidence change with participants who had more years of teaching experience having higher rates of average confidence change in the positive purpose condition. More research is suggested that investigates the potential for manipulation of educator trust based on a recommendation system's framing and/or marketing.

English

ISBN: 9798380851664Subjects--Topical Terms:

517670
Educational technology.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Algorithm appreciation

The Impact of Algorithmic Literacy and Purpose on Educator Use of and Confidence in Algorithmic Advice /
LDR:03146nmm a22004453i 4500 001 2431857
005 20250624125358.5
006 m o d
007 cr|nu||||||||
008 261011s2024 miu||||||m |||||||eng d
020 $a 9798380851664
035 $a (MiAaPQD)AAI30695118
035 $a AAI30695118
040 $a MiAaPQD $b eng $c MiAaPQD $e rda
100 1 $a Henderson, Jessa, $e author. $0 (orcid)0000-0001-5778-7607 $3 3820860
245 1 0 $a The Impact of Algorithmic Literacy and Purpose on Educator Use of and Confidence in Algorithmic Advice / $c Jessa Henderson.
264 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2024
300 $a 1 electronic resource (135 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-05, Section: B.
500 $a Advisors: Milman, Natalie B. Committee members: Weiss, Brandi; Wright, Brian.
502 $b Ph.D. $c The George Washington University $d 2024.
520 $a Algorithms may be better at prediction than humans in a variety of contexts, but they are not perfect. A deeper understanding of the ways in which educators use and question algorithmic advice within their professional domain is needed. Educators are a particularly unique professional group, in comparison with the other groups studied in the literature, and will likely be the on-the-ground employees expected to integrate algorithmic advice into their pedagogical planning and decision making. This quantitative study used a 2x2 pretest-posttest experimental design to investigate the way that educators used and trusted algorithmic advice for high school science course recommendations, including the way contextual framing and individual-level differences impacted these relationships. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two purpose conditions in a simulation environment designed using the Judge-Advisor System (JAS) paradigm to assess the influence of algorithmic advice. Group comparison and multiple regression techniques were utilized to test hypotheses. Results indicated that approximately 30% of participants did not change their decision at any time and that the remaining 70% tended to not change their decision when given the chance. Additionally, a significant interaction was detected for average confidence change with participants who had more years of teaching experience having higher rates of average confidence change in the positive purpose condition. More research is suggested that investigates the potential for manipulation of educator trust based on a recommendation system's framing and/or marketing.
546 $a English
590 $a School code: 0075
650 4 $a Educational technology. $3 517670
650 4 $a Behavioral sciences. $3 529833
650 4 $a Education. $3 516579
653 $a Algorithm appreciation
653 $a Algorithmic advice
653 $a Algorithmic aversion
653 $a Algorithmic literacy
653 $a Decision making
690 $a 0710
690 $a 0602
690 $a 0800
690 $a 0515
710 2 $a The George Washington University. $b Educational Leadership & Administration. $e degree granting institution. $3 3820659
720 1 $a Milman, Natalie B. $e degree supervisor.
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-05B.
790 $a 0075
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2024
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30695118