MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530438507

Understanding The Nature of Out-of-School-In-School Technological Divide in Uganda

2016· article· en· W2530438507 on OpenAlexaff
Stella Maris Namae

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Learning in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyContext (archaeology)CurriculumICTSPresentation (obstetrics)PedagogySociologyMathematics educationPsychologyPolitical scienceGeographyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Currently, there seem to be a big gap between students’ experiences with Information Communication Technology (ICT) In-school and Out-of- school in Uganda. Ironically there is more exposure and use of digital technologies in Out-of-school context than is In-school settings in Uganda and in majority of sub-Saharan African countries. The question that arises is, do teachers use these out-of school acquired experiences when designing learning opportunities to harness this great knowledge capital? And, What flexibilities are embedded in the current curriculum in Uganda to allow teachers to explore these rich technological proficiency that students bring to their classrooms to create more meaningful and relevant learning experiences? This poster presentation will explore the existing ICT resources available in the Out-of-school environment and further, examine the possible challenges teachers might encounter and possible strategies available to provide rich vibrant technologically enriched learning environments. Invariably, students whose daily interaction with ICTs in out-of school context find In-school learning more meaningful and relevant. Teachers in such learning environment require strong technological Content Knowledge (TPACK) yet not all teachers in Uganda might have this rich background in technology knowledge. Keywords: ICT, In-School, Out-of-School, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge       (TPACK)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Learning in EducationFrench-language works237,207