MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291342032 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2217

Connectivism in Learning Activity Design: Implications for Pedagogically-Based Technology Adoption in African Higher Education Contexts

2016· article· en· W2291342032 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rita Kizito

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConnectivismContext (archaeology)Argument (complex analysis)Educational technologyInstructional designSociologyLearning theoryExploratory researchPedagogyKnowledge managementComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="Style3">This paper examines the possible characteristics and the value of designing learning activities grounded in connectivism—an emerging learning theory. It is an exploratory attempt to connect the theory to the prevailing technology adoption archetypes used in African contexts with the aim of extracting influences that could shape pedagogical technology adoption in African higher education contexts. A reflection on the process of designing learning activities that employ <em>blogging</em> in an experimental training intervention provides a unique context in which to try and infuse connectivist principles while outlining the challenges that surface. The questions driving the argument in this paper include: What do connectivist perspectives offer learning activity design and practice? What can the prevailing technology adoption models used in African contexts offer to learning activity design? Can we combine connectivist perspectives and African-based technology adoption models to inform pedagogical technology adoption in African higher education contexts? These questions are exploratory and are based on one single subjective experience of the author. They are part of an argument put forward as a proposal which is yet to be tested in practice.</p>

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations43
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207