MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769177354 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v18i7.2702

Applying UNESCO Guidelines on Mobile Learning in the South African Context: Creating an Enabling Environment through Policy

2017· article· en· W2769177354 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Folake Ruth Aluko

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Learning in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobile technologyInformation and Communications TechnologyContext (archaeology)Distance educationKnowledge managementLearning environmentThematic analysisMobile devicePolitical scienceComputer scienceQualitative researchSociologyGeographyPedagogyWorld Wide WebSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile broadband penetration is growing rapidly in Africa, and it offers vast opportunities for mobile learning. Together with its possibilities is the danger of overlooking standards related to its use. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) has initiated work in this area focusing on African and Middle East (AME) countries. Countries are required to develop their own mobile learning policies. Examining information and communication technology (ICT) in the South African education environment, a qualitative approach is adopted using a literature review to assess the relevance and applicability of mobile learning in the broader education environment. A thematic analysis is used to identify themes from UNESCO’s guidelines, which are compared to the South African environment. Tracing the use of technology by an open distance learning (ODL) provider, an adapted framework was developed for mobile learning. This article argues the need to create an environment that enables sustainable mobile learning provision through policy development.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0110.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicMobile Learning in EducationFrench-language works237,207