The relationship between mobile learning and self-regulated learning: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic review of 38 primary research peer-reviewed articles, drawn from six databases and spanning from January 2007 to January 2019, was conducted to determine the principle information that they collectively offered on the relationship between mobile learning (m-learning) and self-regulated learning (SRL). In answering the research questions posed, a synthesis of the following 12 key elements was undertaken: (1) research aims, (2) research methodologies, (3) outcomes, (4) education discipline areas, (5) educational levels, (6) educational contexts, (7) geographic location, (8) time frame, (9) type of device, (10) m-learning and SRL definitions, (11) theoretical models, and (12) m-learning, self-regulation (SR), and SRL variable measurement instruments. The frequency of studies on the relationship between m-learning and SRL increased in more recent years, as did the types of devices used in these studies. More than three quarters of the studies concluded that m-learning enhanced SRL, SRL enhanced m-learning, or m-learning and SRL enhanced other learning factors (e.g., health, curriculum development). Moreover, the relationship between m-learning and SRL was dynamic and complex. A primary recommendation was to intentionally integrate m-learning and SRL into formal curricula guided by informed, technologically adept educators who provided appropriate, ever-decreasing support and scaffolding as learners became more self-determined. Implications for practice or policy: M-learning research and practice should be founded upon relevant theory and validated definitions of m-learning that consider ever-advancing technologies and related pedagogies that include participatory activities. M-learning designers should ensure that mobile technologies are used intentionally and selectively, guided by clearly defined learning objectives, and integrated into the curriculum by technologically adept educators who provide appropriate, ever-decreasing support and scaffolding as learners become more self-determined. When designing m-learning, educators should consider digital safety and privacy issues.
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 | 0.028 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".