MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311955100 · doi:10.9734/jesbs/2022/v35i121196

A Mixed-Methods Study of Secondary Student and Teacher Attitudes towards Mobile Education Apps in Lagos

2022· article· en· W4311955100 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Krochinak, Sunny Cui, Babatunde Ajayi, Remare Egonu, Esther Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education Society and Behavioural Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisMobile appsTracking (education)Medical educationPsychologyPerceptionQualitative researchMobile deviceQualitative propertyMathematics educationPedagogyComputer scienceMedicineWorld Wide WebSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the advent of smartphones, laptops, and other various portable devices, the ability to incorporate technology into the classroom has increased dramatically in the last few decades. This study evaluates the perceptions and attitudes of both students and teachers in relation to mobile apps that assist in classroom learning. The research used a mixed-methods approach that collected demographic information and conducted qualitative interviews to determine the perceptions of mobile apps to students and teachers. Cross-sectional data was collected from participants and analyzed for associations. 43 students and 6 teachers were recruited and interviewed. The participants were asked about their thoughts on mobile educational apps, and their interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the data and 5 themes were identified for students: barriers to educational app adoption, barriers to continued use of education apps, tracking progress, tracking of progress, and goal setting. For teachers, themes identified included factors to mobile app use, and criteria used for mobile app selection. These findings may provide school boards and scientists with insights on how to best develop educational apps to fit the needs of students.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education Society and Behavioural ScienceSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207