The Impact of Whatsapp Use on Success in Education Process
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
The purpose of this study is to explore the effects of WhatsApp use for education and determine the opinions of students towards the process. The study was designed in mixed research model which combines both qualitative and quantitative data. In the quantitative aspect of the study, quasi-experimental design, with a pretest-posttest control group, was used and the data were analyzed by two factor variance analysis for mixed measurements. The analysis indicated that both learning environments have different effects on the success of students and that supporting the traditional environment by using WhatsApp is more effective for the increase of success. For the qualitative aspect of the study, content analysis techniques were employed to analyze the data which were collected by open-ended question forms. The analysis showed that students developed positive opinions towards the use of WhatsApp in their courses. They demanded the same practice in their other courses as well. They reported that learning could also take place unconsciously and the messages with images were more effective for their learning. However, a few students have expressed adverse opinions about the timing of some posts and the redundant posts within the group. Finally, it is suggested that use of WhatsApp in education process be encouraged as a supportive technology.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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