Revisioning Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D) at the Comparative & International Education Society (CIES): A Five-Year Account (2009-2013).
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTIONAfter its inaugural meeting at Teachers College, Columbia University in New York City in 2008, Information and Communication for Development (ICT4D) Special Interest Group (SIG) has grown rapidly in number and strength. In 2013, ICT4D SIG celebrated its fifth anniversary. Thus is it a good time to take a closer look at how subject matter has evolved, how has changed, and what CIES members have been doing in ICT4D area in this past five years.Reviewing this evolution not only helps us celebrate what we have accomplished in past five years as a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), but also gives us an opportunity to gain better understanding of current ICT4D related issues and to recognize direction of theory, research, policy, and practice in ICT4D area in this context. As interplay of technology with education is very complex (ITU, 2011; Fu, 2013), effort of such is by all means a central factor in defining our field and defining those of us who work in this field. It is also a necessary step for us to envision what ICT4D community of practice in general and ICT4D SIG at CIES in particular can do in next five to ten years to contribute to the future of EFA movement in a context envisioned by 2014 CIES conference committee (CIES, 2014, para. 2).Therefore, purpose of this paper is to provide an account of how ICT4D has evolved as a key topic and research area at CIES annual conferences in past five years. The assumption underpinning this research is that each year's CIES conference papers included in all general sessions with ICT4D component not only reflect rapid changing emphasis and orientation of ICT4D research area, but also provide strong evidence on growing diversity and maturity of field itself. This research involved a comparative analysis on 2009-2013 CIES conference papers that had an ICT4D component. In doing so, this study looked for common developmental trends, opportunities, and challenges by asking following questions:1. How is presence of ICT4D community of practice at CIES?2. Which countries and regions' ICT4D initiatives are represented at CIES? And which countries and regions' ICT4D initiatives are not represented?3. Who are key ICT4D players at CIES?4. How does ICT4D interplay with other research areas at CIES?METHODOLOGYThis study is a content analysis of CIES conference papers with an ICT4D component from 2009 through 2013. All conference papers with ICT4D components were retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/ where recent years' CIES conference papers were archived and indexed. The only exception is 2011 CIES conference at Montreal, Canada, but conference's main website (http://cies2011.mcgill.ca/) provides access to full conference program in pdf format.The indexes built into CIES's online database and print programs were used to develop following five categories: SIG, Submission Session, Area, Country, and Presenter's Affiliation. The purpose of adopting these existing categories built into conference management system was two fold. First, I wanted to locate all conference papers with ICT4D components. Second, I wanted to keep search keys mutually exclusive and inclusive to minimize chance of missing global development themes/structures (Hand, 2007, p. 621) while still having ability to organize our conference paper data into different categories for analysis.Data Collection ProcedureThe first step was to locate CIES conference papers with ICT4D components in past five years from 2009 through 2013. To do so, phrase Technology in classroom and ICTs was used to conduct key search on Research Area with CIES annual conferences held in 2009 and 2010. The rationale behind this search strategy is that this phrase was predetermined by CIES and all conference papers tagged with this phrase self-identified themselves as having an ICT4D component. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,022 | 0,009 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».