MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2227648051 · doi:10.21083/ajote.v4i1.2804

USABILITY OF COMPUTERS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING AT TERTIARY-LEVEL INSTITUTIONS IN UGANDA

2015· article· en· W2227648051 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter Neema-Abooki, Nakintu Rukia

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Teacher Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityInformation and Communications TechnologySet (abstract data type)Presentation (obstetrics)Process (computing)Mathematics educationComputer scienceTertiary levelPsychologyMedical educationWorld Wide WebHuman–computer interactionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since a computer-enriched learning environment is positively correlated with users’ attitudes towards computers in general, the rationale of this study was to investigate the extent to which computers were applied in the teaching and learning at tertiary-level institutions; specifically at the Core Primary Teachers’ Colleges (PTCs). The study accordingly set out to examine this duo-fold ideal at Shimoni and Kibuli Core PTCs; both in Kampala District in Uganda. The specific objectives were to find out the level to which computers have been integrated in teaching and leaning at PTCs and to determine the competency of both the tutors and the students in the use of information and communication technology (ICT). Both categories served as respondents to whom a questionnaire was subjected. Findings indicated that although computers were generally being integrated in the teaching process, there was need for more guidance and support in order to ensure expertise of both tutors and students in the use of ICT. This article is cognisant that integration of technology requires a move from the traditional model of teacher presentation to a learning model whereby students draw information relevant to their future profession.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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