MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386430931 · doi:10.54922/ijehss.2023.0544

INFLUENCE OF GENDER ON EDUCATORS’ COMPETENCE AND USE OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

2023· article· en· W4386430931 on OpenAlexaff
Bright Ihechukwu Nwoke, Michael Olugbenga Ajileye, Ndidiamaka Rosekate Uwazurike

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Education Humanities and Social Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital literacy in education
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)PsychologyPedagogySociologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study was carried out to determine the influence of gender on digital competence of educators in tertiary institutions in Imo State.The population of the study consists of 722 academic staff referred to as "educators" of Alvan Ikoku Federal College of Education Owerri, Imo State.A sample of 225 multidisciplinary educators determined using stratified random sampling was used for study.Based on the objectives of the study, 2 research questions and a hypothesis guided the study.The descriptive survey research design was adopted in conducting the study.The instrument for data collection was a researcher made likert 4-points type questionnaire titled "Educators Gender and Digital Competence (EGDC)".It had a reliability coefficient of 0.87 determined using Cronbach alpha method.The data generated were analyzed using mean and standard deviation to answer research questions while the hypothesis was tested at 0.05 level of significance using t-test statistical tool.The result of the study revealed that educators in tertiary institutions were digitally competent; gender had no influence on the digital competence of the educators.Based on the result of the study, it was recommended that, in-service trainings, workshops, conferences should be organized to sustain and improve the competence level of educators.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Education Humanities and Social ScienceSame topicDigital literacy in educationFrench-language works237,207