MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109386935 · doi:10.5539/elt.v13n12p91

The Effect of Mobile Learning on Students’ Reading Self-Efficacy: A Case Study of the APP “English Liulishuo”

2020· article· en· W3109386935 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mengna Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Learning in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)PsychologyPopularitySelf-efficacyMathematics educationMobile deviceReading motivationPedagogyComputer scienceSocial psychologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of studies have been conducted regarding self-efficacy in the field of foreign language learning. Yet, with the popularity of mobile learning, research on the relationship between mobile learning and self-efficacy in this field is still limited. To bridge the gap, the study aims to investigate the effects of mobile learning on students’ reading self-efficacy, i.e. whether the use of mobile learning can improve students’ English reading self-efficacy. A questionnaire is employed to collect data from 294 non-English major students in universities. To survey the effect of mobile learning on students’ reading self-efficacy, the data is accessed by the software SPSS 20.0. Results of independent T test demonstrate that for overall students, reading self-efficacy for students who have used the app is significantly different from those who haven’t in overall reading skills and in the four dimensions of reading skills, i.e. basic reading skills, applied reading skills, reading task skills, and advanced reading skills. As for students with relatively better reading performance, the results are consistent. However, for students with relatively weak reading performance, the reading self-efficacy of students who have used the app only shows significant differences in overall reading skills and in the two dimensions of basic reading skills and applied reading skills, but shows no difference in the dimensions of reading task skills and advanced reading skills. Finally, practical suggestions for mobile learning and students’ English reading are given.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicMobile Learning in EducationFrench-language works237,207