Status of e-learning Quality in Kenya: Case of Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology Postgraduate Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a substantial increase in the use of learning management systems (LMSs) to support e-learning in higher education institutions, particularly in developing countries. This has been done with some measures of success and failure as well. There is evidence from literature that the provision of e-learning faces several quality issues relating to course design, content support, social support, administrative support, course assessment, learner characteristics, instructor characteristics, and institutional factors. It is clear that developing countries still remain behind in the great revolution of e-learning in Higher Education. Accordingly, further investigation into e-learning use in Kenya is required in order to fill in this gap of research, and extend the body of existing literature by highlighting major quality determinants in the application of e-learning for teaching and learning in developing countries. By using a case study of Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT), the study establishes the status of e-learning system quality in Kenya based on these determinants and then concludes with a discussion and recommendation of the constructs and indicators that are required to support qualify teaching and learning practices
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".