MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1907855825 · doi:10.20355/c5js3b

Challenges of Implementation of e learning in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education (MSTE) in African schools: A Critical Review

2010· review· en· W1907855825 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samson O. Gunga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary Issues in Education · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Information and Communications TechnologySubject (documents)Mathematics educationMathematical practiceEpistemologyComputer scienceScience educationSociologyEngineering ethicsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the general ICT challenges in education and poses questions, the attempt of whose answers establish the manner in which e-learning technology could be appropriate for understanding and communicating the structures of mathematics and science. Challenges in understanding mathematics and science arise out of the interaction between these two intertwined yet disparate disciplines. While mathematical proof is established deductively and hence conclusive and not amenable to confutation in a logically possible world, scientific truth is established inductively on probable yet utilitarian grounds in the actual world. While challenges in implementation of the understanding of mathematics and science through technology arise from social and infrastructural issues related to ICT in African environment, the difficulty posed by challenges of communicating the principles of understanding the structure of mathematics and science are not yet insurmountable. An attempt to bring into coherence the mathematical and scientific understanding through e-learning instructional paradigm in quasi-philosophic terms is the main subject of this paper.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.409 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contemporary Issues in EducationSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207