M-Learning in an Undergraduate Business Program: Recruitment Promises, Student Perceptions, and Mixed Realities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study described in this paper was to explore student views (n=136) on the use of Apple iPad technology within various in-class courses offered by a School of Business at a small Ontario university as well as the overall effectiveness of a recruitment message focused on mobile learning. The results of the study are as follows: 1) over half of the students had not heard about the offer of a “free” iPad before they had enrolled at the University; 2) students expressed positive and negative views regarding the use of iPads in their face to face classes (e.g., the iPads were helpful in enhancing learning; the iPads were time consuming to use and distracting in the classroom; other devices work better in the classroom); and 3) differences that existed between students’ in-class and everyday use of their iPads could be connected to their frustrations with the steep learning curve experienced by faculty. Key word descriptors: millennials, tablet technology, mobile technology, digital technology, learning transferability, higher education, iPad
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".