Digital learning tools in the classroom: comparing their impacts on student motivation to learn and academic achievement in post-secondary students from Canada, Germany, and India
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
Use of digital learning tools (DLTs) in classrooms has markedly increased since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Concerns exist that some DLTs were integrated without careful consideration of their impacts on student motivation to learn and/or academic achievement. Moreover, differences in student demographic profiles and the learning environment may also impact potential relationships. We surveyed post-secondary students from Canada, Germany, and India to determine if DLT use, effectiveness, and/or mode of course delivery differed across jurisdictions, and if any relationships exist between use of different types of DLTs and student GPA. Results indicate that although students from all countries examined preferred classes utilising particular types of DLTs, increased use of DLTs did not improve academic achievement. Nevertheless, it is crucial that DLTs continue to play key roles in modernising our pedagogical approaches given their impacts on course satisfaction and general appeal to the sensibilities of today’s 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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