M-Learning as a Convenient Support to the Learning Process in Computer Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies undertaken in the field of education have revealed that m-learning is emerging more and more as an effective learning method with the use of smartphones. Always turned on and easily transported, smartphones can be used anywhere, at any given time and in any context. Considering the potential of m-learning, we seek to understand this novelty as a support in the learning process, especially in computer science education. To reach this end, we asked a group of students their opinion in the form of a survey, in order to know the most beneficial aspects of a mobile application in education. The outcome of this survey helped us to develop a mobile application from which students could access course news, work timing, frequently asked questions and results. After using this application, a second survey highlights students' interest. We thus show that, especially for courses such as programming courses, m-learning plays a full role as it offers accessibility to valuable information which comes in a continuous flow to support the learning process and as it offers an environment where interaction with the learning tool can be adapted and adjusted to the learner's style and needs.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.008 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".