MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400994092 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v13n4p10

Impact of Technology in Classrooms in the Colleges of Kathmandu: Challenges and Policy Recommendations

2024· article· en· W4400994092 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tulasi Acharya, Gopi Krishna Dhungana

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Technology integrationLiteracyEducational technologyPublic relationsDigital divideThe InternetQuality (philosophy)Political sciencePedagogySociologyBusinessComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of technology in classrooms has transformed educational practices globally, accelerated notably by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examines the impact of technology in colleges throughout Kathmandu, Nepal, focusing on both its benefits and challenges. Technology, including platforms like Google Classroom and educational apps, has significantly enhanced engagement and learning experiences for students, as highlighted by educators and learners surveyed. However, persistent challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, limited access to devices, and technical issues like unreliable internet connectivity hinder widespread adoption and effective use. Through a mixed-methods approach, utilizing surveys and narrative analysis, the article interprets experiences and insights from teachers and students and discusses themes that underscore the critical role of technology in improving educational access and quality in Nepal. Teachers express varying degrees of confidence and readiness in integrating technology, while students report increased engagement and improved learning outcomes facilitated by digital tools. The discussed results reflect on both the challenges and opportunities of technology in classrooms which suggest Policy recommendations, such as enhancing infrastructure investment, providing professional development for educators, and fostering digital literacy among students to bridge the digital divide and maximize the benefits of technology in education. This research contributes to understanding the nuanced dynamics of technology integration in a developing country context, offering insights for policymakers, educators, and stakeholders to optimize educational practices and ensure inclusive access to quality education in Kathmandu and beyond.

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)0.000
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 score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.417 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicTechnology-Enhanced Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207