On Multi-Device Use: Using Technological Modality Profiles to Explain Differences in Students’ Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With increasing abundance and ubiquity of mobile phones, desktop PCs, and tablets in the last decade, we are seeing students intermixing these modalities to learn and regulate their learning. However, the role of these modalities in educational settings is still largely under-researched. Similarly, little attention has been paid to the research on the extension of learning analytics to analyze the learning processes of students adopting various modalities during a learning activity. Traditionally, research on how modalities affect the way in which activities are completed has mainly relied upon self-reported data or mere counts of access from each modality. We explore the use of technological modalities in regulating learning via learning management systems (LMS) in the context of blended courses. We used data mining techniques to analyze patterns in sequences of actions performed by learners (n = 120) across different modalities in order to identify technological modality profiles of sequences. These profiles were used to detect the technological modality strategies adopted by students. We found a moderate effect size (ϵ2 = 0.12) of students’ adopted strategies on the final course grade. Furthermore, when looking specifically at online discussion engagement and performance, students’ adopted technological modality strategies explained a large amount of variance (η2 = 0.68) in their engagement and quality of contributions. The result implications and further research are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".