Requiring Mobile Devices in the Classroom: the Use of Web-Based Polling Does Not Lead to Increased Levels of Distraction
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
Abstract We conducted an observational exploratory study of distraction by digital devices in multiple different sections across three large undergraduate physics courses. We collected data from two different settings based on the type of devices used for classroom polling: lecture sections that required mobile devices for polling and those that used standalone clickers. Our analysis shows no difference in the average distraction level between the two settings. However, we did observe an overall lower level of distraction during active learning modes, as compared to passive learning modes. Based on there being no observable difference in distraction levels in the mobile polling and standalone clicker classrooms, we recommend that instructors should choose the polling technology that best suits their needs without worrying about the impact on student distraction. The observed difference in distraction between the active and passive learning modes is consistent with previous results from the literature, which reinforces support for the use of active learning modes as much as possible.
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 | 0.032 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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