Mobile Technologies That Help Post-Secondary Students Succeed: A Pilot Study of Canadian and Israeli Professionals and Students With Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this preliminary investigation we examine the uses of mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets and laptops for (a) non-academic and (b) academic purposes in the post-secondary classroom, as well as for (c) academic tasks outside the class by post-secondary students with disabilities. Integration of smartphones and other mobile devices into the learning process is innovative, challenging and highly relevant for post-secondary education. Also, research shows that post-secondary students like courses where use of their personal mobile devices in class is allowed. To explore how students with disabilities use their mobile devices we held four focus groups, with six to eight participants each: two in Canada (one for students with disabilities, one for professionals who assist students with disabilities) and two in Israel. The findings show that students with disabilities use their mobile devices for all the same reasons as nondisabled students. In addition, students with disabilities use general purpose mobile device features and apps as assistive aids. Implications of the blurring of the distinction between assistive and general use mobile device features and apps for the academic inclusion of post-secondary students with disabilities is discussed. It appears that for many students with disabilities, access to their personal mobile devices for academic purposes, both in and out of the classroom, is essential to ensure their full inclusion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".