Determination of Critical Success Factors Affecting Mobile Learning: A Meta-Analysis Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With rapid technological advancements, mobile learning (m-Learning) offers incredible opportunities, especially in the area of higher education. However, while interest in this area has been significant and several pilot studies have been conducted within universities, relatively less is known about how higher educational institutions can make efficient use of the m-Learning platform to support teaching and learning. Although there are numerous studies in the area, the lack of this insight is mostly due to the fact that very little effort has been made to collate these studies and determine a common set of key success factors that affect the acceptance of m-Learning within universities. This study conducts a systematic analysis of several studies conducted in the area of m-Learning to assess the critical success factors, by making use of the meta-analysis technique. Our investigation has shown that the most important perceived advantages of m-Learning, from learner perspectives, are collaboration during studies, the prospect of ubiquitous learning in space and time, and user friendly application design.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.093 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.060 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.044 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".