MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025474698 · doi:10.5430/wje.v4n2p50

Towards The Use Of Information And Communication Technology In Undergraduates Learning: Possession, Perception And Problems In Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

2014· article· en· W2025474698 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. O. Egbedokun, Lawunmi Molara Oyewusi

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyPossession (linguistics)PerceptionLikert scalePsychologySample (material)Medical educationApplied psychologyComputer scienceMedicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses the potentials of information and communication technologies (ICT) on three main areas as related to students learning (possession, perception and problems). It investigated students’ possession, perception and problems (as envisaged or experienced) by students of Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife on the use of ICT facilities. The study employed survey method. Sample for this study consisted of 500 undergraduates randomly selected from Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife. The instrument used in this study was a 45 item likert-type questionnaire. Four objectives were formulated for the study, while simple percentages were used in data analysis. It was found that majority of the undergradutes in OAU possess ICT facilities that can be used in learning. The facilities include laptops, ipad, ipod, android phones, blackberry etc, which have capabilities for carrying instructional contents. It was also found that undergraduated perceived that these ICT facilities are useful for instructional purposes. However, they identified lack of power supply, pproblem of access, financial constrains, and phones without MMS capability as problems that might militate against the use of ICT in learning. The paper concludes that the university should harness this opportunity and use ICT facilities fully in teaching and learning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207