Management’s Perspective on Critical Success Factors Affecting Mobile Learning in Higher Education Institutions—An Empirical Study
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
Mobile learning (m-Learning) is considered to be one of the fastest growing learning platforms. The immense interest in m-Learning is attributed to the incredible rate of growth of mobile technology and its proliferation into every aspect of modern life. Despite this, m-Learning has not experienced a similar adoption rate in the education sector, chiefly higher education. Researchers have attempted to explain this anomaly by conducting several studies in the area. However, mostly the research in m-Learning is examined from the perspective of the students and educators. In this research, it is contended that there is a third important stakeholder group whose opinion is equally important in determining the success of m-Learning: the university management. Although diversified by nature, heads of departments, deans, and information technology system administrators are nevertheless considered members of any university management. The results of the research show that university commitment to m-Learning, university learning practices, and change management practices were the factors critical to the success of m-Learning, from the university management perspective.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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