Learners’ Perceptions of the Use of Mobile Technology in a Task-Based Language Teaching Experience
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 class="apa">This research explored perceptions of learners studying English in private language schools regarding the use of mobile technology to support language learning. Learners were first exposed to both a mobile assisted and a mobile unassisted language learning experience, and then asked to express their thoughts on the incorporation of mobile devices into the language classroom. The mobile assisted tasks involved learners posting a review online based on a real past experience, as well as using web-search engines to gather enough information to plan a hypothetical trip. Findings revealed overall positive attitudes amongst the students surveyed. Arguments in favour of the incorporation of mobile technology in the language classroom included: the possibility of having access to a range of materials superior in both quality and quantity when using mobile devices to access the Internet, among others. However, a significant amount of scepticism towards Mobile Assisted Language Learning emerged. Arguments against suggested that the format of presentation, rather than the type of task, seemed to constitute a motivational factor that played a psychologically significant role to some of the learners.</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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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