University Students’ Perception of the Pedagogical Use of Podcasts: A Case Study of an Online Information System Course
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
Previous studies on podcasting assessed the usage impact of this technology on some cognitive and affective variables such as learning, performance efficiency, satisfaction and anxiety. However, these studies assumed that students had adopted podcasting without questioning their opinions. In order to reach a deeper understanding of students’ perception of podcasting, this study aimed at examining two aspects: the advantages and the disadvantages of podcast use. A case study relying on open-ended questions was conducted among 130 participants enrolled in an online undergraduate business course. Obtained results indicated that practical aspects of use of this technology, such as improving attention and facilitating note-taking, dominated among the advantages. Lack of interaction and visual contact was one of the most notable disadvantages. This study could help enrich existing theoretical writings and empirical research about podcasts. It practical contributions would lead professors and educational tool creators to think about the relevance of developing and using podcasts for academic purposes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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