MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109143703 · doi:10.5539/ies.v13n12p58

Evaluation of Digital Competency of Public University Students for Web-Facilitated Learning: The Case of Saudi Arabia

2020· article· en· W3109143703 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Moatasim A. Barri

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital literacy in education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationQuality (philosophy)Public universityMathematics educationPsychologyDigital learningComputer sciencePedagogyPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our public universities in Saudi Arabia have made considerable investments in digital hardware, on-site training, and online tutorials to improve the quality of e-learning. However, there is an observed gap among students between the expected and actual use of digital technology in their learning. To close that gap, this requires a conceptual evaluation model that illustrates technological actions students are involved in, the level of digital proficiency they are in, type of digital technology they use, and kind of support they need. This study used the Digital Competency Profiler to evaluate the digital competency of public university students in Saudi Arabia. Data on 94 students from a public university were collected using an online platform. Multiple procedures were used for instrument validation, data screening, and data analysis. Findings from the study suggest that the majority of public university students had high digital readiness for performing social and informational skills through smartphones. In addition, most of university students missed all skills in the epistemological competency and some technical skills. Finally, implications for practice, limitations for generalization, and directions for future research are presented.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicDigital literacy in educationFrench-language works237,207