MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175811262 · doi:10.21083/ajote.v10i1.6645

Teachers’ Perception of the Use of Microsoft Teams for Remote Learning in Southwestern Nigerian Schools

2021· article· en· W3175811262 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Damola Olugbade, Oluwakemi Olurinola

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Teacher Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionMicrosoft excelGrading (engineering)Microsoft OfficeDescriptive statisticsMathematics educationData collectionPsychologyComputer scienceMedical educationSimple random sampleEngineeringWorld Wide WebMathematicsStatisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic has required schools in Nigeria to embrace remote learning using technology solutions, in this case, Microsoft Teams, to effectively engage students. This study, therefore, aimed to reveal teachers’ perception of the use of Microsoft Teams for remote learning. The descriptive survey research design was adopted. The participants in the study were 51 teachers who were randomly selected using convenient sampling technique. E-questionnaire was used in the collection of data. Descriptive statistics of frequency counts, simple percentages, mean and standard deviations were used to analyze the data. Results revealed that teachers’ perception of effectiveness of Microsoft Teams for assignment and grading, for teacher and student interaction, and for classroom organisation was very good. The result obtained revealed that Microsoft Teams was effective in addressing some of the major challenges encountered by teachers during remote learning which includes students being often on other websites and poor student engagement. It was concluded that Microsoft Teams was effective for smooth interaction between teacher and students. Its use enhanced classroom organization and consequently facilitated teaching and learning process. The study encourages wider adoption of the application by schools.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Teacher EducationSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207