The use of a mobile learning management system at an online university and its effect on learning satisfaction and achievement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p align="left"> </p><p>This study investigates online students’ acceptance of mobile learning and its influence on learning achievement using an information system success and extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Structural equation modeling was used to test the structure of individual, social, and systemic factors influencing mobile learning’s acceptance, and how said acceptance influences learning satisfaction and achievement. Unlike earlier TAM-related research that did not provide a broad view of technological acceptance and its impact on learning activities, the present study’s results highlight the relationship between behavioral intention/learning satisfaction and learning achievement. Additionally, this study tests the theoretical model of successful mobile learning by empirically accepting mobile learning management systems. The findings further imply that students at online universities have started to accept mobile technology as a new learning tool; consequently, its acceptance has influenced their learning achievement both directly and indirectly. These discoveries should facilitate a better understanding of students’ usage of mobile learning systems in higher education, and provide timely guidance for its development and implementation.</p>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it