MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3124855585 · doi:10.32674/jcihe.v12iwinter.1949

Online Higher Education

2020· article· en· W3124855585 sur OpenAlexaff
Hanan Duri, Dahabo Ibrahim

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Comparative & International Higher Education · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEducation and experiences of immigrants and refugees
Établissements canadiensYork University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRefugeeOvercrowdingHigher educationEmpowermentEconomic growthPolitical sciencePublic relationsSociologyChinaIndependence (probability theory)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Online higher education has been a critical element in the lives of refugees trying to create a better future for their families and community (Kekwaletswe 2007; Crea and McFarland 2015; Giles 2018). Education programs in refugee and humanitarian contexts have been inadequate for a variety of reasons such as: a lack of resources and poor infrastructure, shortage of trained teachers, overcrowding, lack of funding from national governments and NGOs (LWF, 2015). In the last 10 years we have seen an influx of educational institutions and Northern-based universities partnering with development organizations to provide online higher education to bridge the gaps in quality education (Kirk 2006). There have been studies that speak to the potential of higher education for refugees from the perspective of development organizations. However, little has been said from the perspective of refugees themselves about their educational experiences in their local contexts. There are major differences in how men and women experience online education that deserves attention. Higher education equips refugees with the practical skills and qualifications to obtain employment opportunities within the camps or in their home countries should they return. It also enables them to think critically about their lives in a meaningful way. For women the impact goes even further, as it creates a path towards self-sufficiency, independence and empowerment (i.e., economically, politically and socially) (Kabeer, 1999). The gendered nature of access to technology has had significant impacts in the rates of participation (Kekwaletswe, 2007). Furthermore, it is also a pathway for creating female refugee scholars which is an area that is under-researched. Much of the writing on refugees by refugees themselves and development practitioners have been primarily male-dominated. The purpose of this article is to give the opportunity to heighten the female refugee scholar voice from the lens of a recent graduate of the Educational Studies program provided by York University under the Borderless Higher Education (BHER) project online higher education model. The purpose of this article is to explore the empowering potential of BHER’s online teacher education program that has allowed women (and men) to be critical, thoughtful scholars speaking about their experiences, on their own terms. BHER is a development project that seeks to build the capacity of untrained refugee teachers in the Dadaab refugee camps by delivering gender-sensitive teaching and learning skills that can build the capacity of future leaders and teachers in their communities. The findings shared in this article are from the direct experiences of Dahabo Ibrahim, who is a recent graduate of the Educational Studies program. It will highlight the unique experiences of women in Dadaab pursuing tertiary education, through their own lens. The value of women authoring their own lives, and what is meaningful to them in a patriarchal society and development industry. Our aim is to ultimately examine how female scholarship shifts the way we think about refugee education in the humanitarian context.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,541
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,996

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,084
Tête enseignante GPT0,443
Écart entre enseignants0,359 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Comparative & International Higher EducationMême sujetEducation and experiences of immigrants and refugeesTravaux en français237 207