MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Investigating African 'Digital-Immigrant' Students' Reactions to Moodle Resources

2013· article· en· W1661295044 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter Adebayo Aborisade

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher education of social science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteractivityBlended learningRelevance (law)TUTORComputer sciencePeer learningFocus groupVirtual learning environmentMathematics educationPerceptionAutonomyPsychologyEducational technologyPedagogyMultimediaSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we investigated the reactions and perceptions of ‘digital immigrant’ students to the adoption of blended learning combining the Moodle VLE and traditional face-to-face instructional delivery method on EAP courses in a Nigerian university of technology. Data sets from extractable online logs for activities, discussion board interaction and two online surveys are triangulated by focus group discussion responses. The data revealed that students’ use of the online components of the courses are high and perceptions of the various values such as relevance, reflective thinking, interactivity, tutor support, interpretation, learning experience and benefit are very positive, and are in the range of 60s to 90s in percentage points. However, peer to peer interaction while positive is not as high, indicating the additional work that need be done in addition to the challenges of infrastructure and cost that students would want addressed. Implications of the findings include the potentials of blended learning in difficult academic contexts and subject areas, the relevance of social interaction platforms in language learning and other subject areas, and the crucial role technology can play in large class contexts. Key words: Digital immigrant; Moodle; Blended learning; Interaction; Critical thinking; Learner autonomy

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher education of social scienceSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207