MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587859126 · doi:10.21083/ajote.v5i1.3515

KENYA PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ PREPARATION IN ICT TEACHING: TEACHER BELIEFS, ATTITUDES, SELF-EFFICACY, COMPUTER COMPETENCE, AND AGE

2017· article· en· W2587859126 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gladwell Wambiri, Mary N. Ndani

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Teacher Education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Technology in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologySyllabusCompetence (human resources)PreparednessKenyaSchool teachersGovernment (linguistics)PedagogyMathematics educationComputer literacyTechnology integrationMedical educationPsychologyTeaching methodComputer sciencePolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) has become globally recognized as an effective medium for learning. The Kenyan government made a commitment to provide computers for use in teaching in primary schools. This is expected to enable teachers to integrate ICT in their teaching beginning in primary standard one. Teachers will directly implement the ICT project at the classroom level, so are very crucial players to its effectiveness. This article discusses the preparedness of lower primary school teachers for this implementation process regarding their beliefs and attitudes, computer competence, and computer self-efficacy. The authors argue that the provision of computers and other infrastructure in schools may not automatically lead to integration of ICT in schools unless the government addresses teachers’ beliefs and attitudes, computer competence and their self-efficacy. The authors recommend revision of the primary teacher education preparation syllabus and training practice for pre-service teachers in ICT pedagogy to enhance their preparation to integrate ICT in their teaching in primary school.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Teacher EducationSame topicGender and Technology in EducationFrench-language works237,207