MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1568808016 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v8i1.334

Impact of ICTs on Open and Distance Learning in a Developing Country Setting: The Philippine experience

2007· article· en· W1568808016 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Melinda dela Peña Bandalaria

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistance educationICTSInformation and Communications TechnologyDeveloping countryEducational technologyQuality (philosophy)Information technologyKnowledge managementE learningOpen educationEconomic growthPublic relationsSociologyBusinessPedagogyComputer sciencePolitical scienceWorld Wide WebEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of the information and communication technologies (ICTs) in open and distance learning (ODL) in a developing country, the Philippines, is critically evaluated in this paper. Specifically, this paper examines how ICTs have influenced or shaped the development of ODL in this country. Also examined are the different stages or generations of distance education (DE) in the Philippines, which are characterized mainly by the dominant technology used for the delivery of instructional content and student support services. The different ICTs being used in ODL and their specific applications to the various facets of this mode of delivery are also described. Also included is an examination on how quality of education is ensured in a technology-driven system of teaching and learning, which includes, among others, the employment of the ‘quality circle approach’ in the development of courses and learning packages, and the provision of appropriate technologies to perform academic processes and achieve institutional goals. Experiences of the various universities in the Philippines are also cited in this paper. Lessons have been drawn from the ODL experience to guide educators from other developing countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.425 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations120
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207