MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984739749 · doi:10.4102/rw.v4i1.27

Digital literacy in Ugandan teacher education: Insights from a case study

2013· article· en· W1984739749 on OpenAlexafffund
Samuel Andema, Maureen Kendrick, Bonny Norton

Bibliographic record

VenueReading & Writing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnthusiasmInformation and Communications TechnologyLiteracyDigital literacyPublic relationsThe InternetQualitative researchDigital dividePolitical sciencePedagogyMedical educationSociologyPsychologySocial scienceMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case study investigated the relationship between policy and practice with regard to advances in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Ugandan teacher education. Our qualitative study, conducted in 2008, focused on the experiences of six language teacher educators in an urban Primary Teachers’ College (PTC). We also drew on insights from an interview with the then Ugandan Minister of ICT, Doctor Ham-Mukasa Mulira and the national ICT policy. Whilst the Minister expressed the hope that technology would transform Ugandan education, our findings suggest that the success of ICT initiatives depends largely on whether local conditions support such initiatives. Despite their enthusiasm for digital technology, the participants were challenged by the expense of Internet connectivity, inadequate training, power outages, and culturally irrelevant material. We suggest that ICT policy should address teacher educators’ use of digital technology across diverse sites, and that innovations such as the eGranary portable digital library might be particularly useful in poorly resourced educational institutions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0200.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReading & WritingSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207