MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2261162284 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v17i1.2111

An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Mobile Wireless Technology Adoption for Promoting Interactive Lectures in Higher Education

2016· article· en· W2261162284 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chin Lay Gan, Vimala Balakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Malaya
KeywordsInteractivityHigher educationQuality (philosophy)Medical educationPsychologyTechnology integrationPerceptionMobile technologyDistance educationEmpirical researchEducational technologyMathematics educationMobile deviceComputer scienceMultimediaMedicinePolitical scienceWorld Wide WebMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Use of mobile technology are widespread, particularly among the younger generation. There is a huge potential for utilizing such technology, particularly in lecture sessions with large number of students, serving as an interaction tool between the students and lecturer. The challenge is to identify adoption factors to ensure effective adoption of the technology to promote interactivity between students and lecturer in the classroom. This paper aims to examine factors supporting use of mobile wireless technology during lectures to promote interactivity between students and lecturers in Malaysia’s higher education institutions. Survey involving higher education students in Malaysia was conducted with a sample size of 302. Factor analysis results identified five factors: independent variables System Usefulness (SU), User System Perception (USP), User Uncertainty Avoidance (UUA), System and Information Quality (SIQ), and dependent variable Mobile Wireless Technology Adoption for Interactive Lectures (MWT_AIL). All independent variables are positively associated to MWT_AIL, with UUA and SIQ having higher level of significance compared to SU and USP. Respondents were selected from higher learning institutions from urban areas in Malaysia. Therefore results obtained are not representative of the entire higher education landscape in Malaysia and future studies are warranted to include higher learning institutions located in rural areas. It is hoped that findings from this study will serve as a catalyst for future researches to be conducted in this area, particularly among higher education researchers seeking ways to utilize technology effectively to enhance the learning experiences of the students in the classroom.</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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207