The relationship between mobile learning and self-regulated learning: A systematic review
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
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.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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