MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292665565 · doi:10.21432/cjlt27961

Sustainability and Scalability of Digital Tools for Learning: ABRACADABRA in Kenya

2022· article· en· W4292665565 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Larysa Lysenko, Philip C. Abrami, C. Anne Wade

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicICT in Developing Communities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityContext (archaeology)Computer sciencePsychological interventionExpectancy theoryExploratory researchKnowledge managementLiteracyPedagogyPsychologySociologySocial scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores factors to increase the likelihood that the implementation of ABRACADABRA, a technology-based approach to teaching and learning literacy, endures and expands beyond the initial research. Started as a pilot study in 12 classrooms, the implementation spread to more than 500 primary classrooms over six years in five areas of Kenya. Drawing from research about scalability and sustainability of educational interventions and value-expectancy-cost theory, an exploratory survey was designed to interview a range of actors involved in the software implementation. We used a combination of an a priori and data-driven coding approaches to analyse the narratives. We then built a model exploring the relationship between expectancy-value-cost beliefs and the factors associated with implementation and sustainability. The model explained an important portion of variance in the self-reported intent to use the software with the most significant contributions from policies, professional development, and students. These findings may be useful in the context of low- and medium-income countries where no research-proven principles exist to building sustainable and scalable educational interventions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicICT in Developing CommunitiesFrench-language works237,207