MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590594815

ICTs in Language and Literacy Education in Bangladesh: A Critical Review

2015· review· en· W1590594815 on OpenAlexaff
Sardar M. Anwaruddin

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyCurriculumPedagogyLiteracySociologyCritical literacyAgency (philosophy)Sociocultural evolutionICTSIdentity (music)Information literacyMathematics educationPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advancement of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has challenged the traditional notion of literacy as print-based reading and writing. In this article, I discuss why integration of ICTs into language and literacy curricula is important from the perspectives of the pedagogy of multiliteracies and sociocultural theories of learning. After reviewing the state of ICT use in language and literacy education in Bangladesh, I argue that the use of ICTs does not automatically guarantee improved student learning. On the contrary, it may reify transmission models of education and situate teachers and students in certain identity positions as passive consumers of pre-packaged curricula. Building on Althussers notion of interpellation, I give an example of how a top-down ICT-integrated curriculum may severely restrict teachers and students agency to interrogate assumptions about power and politics around schooling and to develop a language of critique and hope. I conclude the article with a call for integrating the principles of critical pedagogy into teachers professional development programs so that teachers may learn to use ICTs in liberatory ways.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.379
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207