The Effect of Digital Device Usage on Student Academic Performance: A Case Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Device usage, multitasking, distractions, and participation in (non-)/learning activities on student academic performance after controlling for the types of devices (laptop, smartphone or both devices); and
- Learning variables, such as self-efficacy, perceived course utility, test anxiety, surface strategy, and behavioural self-regulation, after controlling for the types of devices (laptops, smartphone or both devices).
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Questionnare
2.2. Participants
3. Results
- The smartphone itself: Although students from all the years of studies brought their smartphone into a lecture theatre, they were aware that it caused them more distractions than laptops—“I rarely use my phone during lectures, but I find it very distracting when I get a notification. I don’t need to bring my phone to lectures but I feel like I should keep it with me all the time” (first-year student). A second-year student provides more details about the use of smartphones linking it to Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO)—“I know I shouldn’t go on my mobile phone when in lectures and that I should be just concentrating on listening and making notes but it’s very difficult to disengage from then. I think it’s massively due to FOMO, this in turn dramatically affects my ability to multitask and my attitudes on multitasking as I know I can’t multitask, but I still try and do. Overall, I fully know that using my phone is distracting but cannot stop the habit”. Finally, an explanation as to why laptops are not so distracting compared to smartphones is provided by a third-year student—“My laptop does not distract me during lectures because it feels too public to being doing private things on like social media etc. but using my phone in the breaks of lectures is a bad idea because it does not actually set me up for the second hour and then it’s harder to take notes in the second half because I do not have a proper break, just a phone break”. Several students followed techniques to reduce distractions from smartphones such as “I only tend to bring my phone to lectures and I only find this distracting when it is face up, so I place it face down on the desk” (first-year student).
- Their peers’ engagement with their devices: Students have mentioned that they were distracted when their peers were involved in non-learning activities due to “constant social media notification tones”, “flashing images” from games or “the sound of people typing watching videos i.e., blue planet”.
- Learning content and delivery process: Students from all the years of studies pointed out the importance of a more enjoyable way of teaching—“I often cannot always listen for 2 h to heavy content and take it all in and make notes. So I often then turn to my device thinking: I’ll catch up on this later as they’re talking too fast and won’t take it in anyway” (second-year student) and “I struggle to listen to a monotone voice for hours” (third-year student) which prevents them from being “mostly concentrated on the lectures” (first-year student).
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sani, A. BYOD strategies in higher education: Current knowledge, students’ perspectives, and challenges. New Dir. Teach. Phys. Sci. 2017, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tafesse, W. The effect of social networking site use on college students’ academic performance: The mediating role of student engagement. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 4747–4763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, N. Flexible Pedagogies: Technology-Enhanced Learning. The Higher Education Academy. 2014. Available online: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/flexible-pedagogies-technology-enhanced-learning (accessed on 15 October 2018).
- Song, Y.; Kong, S.C. Affordances and constraints of BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) for learning and teaching in higher education: Teachers’ perspectives. Internet High. Educ. 2017, 32, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Limniou, M.; Mansfield, R. (Game-Based) Student Response Systems Engage Students with Research-Teaching Nexus Activities and Support Their Skills Development. Creat. Educ. 2019, 10, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, A.I. The Wear out Effect of a Game-Based Student Response System. Comput. Educ. 2015, 82, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Limniou, M.; Schermbrucker, I.; Lyons, M. Traditional and flipped classroom approaches delivered by two different teachers: The student perspective. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2018, 23, 797–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- José-Antonio Marín-Marín, J.-A.; Soler-Costa, R.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J.; López-Belmonte, J. Effectiveness of Diet Habits and Active Life in Vocational Training for Higher Technician in Dietetics: Contrast between the Traditional Method and the Digital Resources. Nutrients 2020, 12, 3475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morehead, K.; Dunlosky, J.; Rawson, K.A. How much mightier is the pen than the keyboard for note-taking? A replication and extension of Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014). Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2019, 31, 753–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pozo-Sánchez, S.; López-Belmonte, J.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J.; Reche, J.M.S.; Fuentes-Cabrera, A. Eect of Bring-Your-Own-Device Program on Flipped Learning in Higher Education Students. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundgren, M. Blurring time and place in higher education with bring your own device applications: A literature review. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2017, 22, 3081–3119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lang, A. The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. J. Commun. 2000, 50, 46–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basil, M.D. Multiple Resource Theory. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning; Seel, N.M., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Carrier, L.M.; Cheever, N.A.; Rosen, L.D.; Benitez, S.; Chang, J. Multitasking across generations: Multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in three generations of Americans. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2009, 25, 483–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salvucci, D.D.; Taatgen, N.A. The Multitasking Mind; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Bailey, B.A.; Konstan, J.A. On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2006, 22, 685–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- May, K.E.; Elder, A.D. Efficient, helpful, or distracting? A literature review of media multitasking in relation to academic performance. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High Educ. 2018, 15, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Downs, E.; Tran, A.; McMenemy, R.; Abegaze, N. Exam performance and attitudes toward multitasking in six, multimedia-multitasking classroom environments. Comput. Educ. 2015, 86, 250–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamet, E.; Gontihier, C.; Cojean, S.; Colliot, T.; Erhel, S. Does multitasking in the classroom affect learning outcomes? A naturalistic study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 106, 106264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sumuer, E. The effect of mobile phone usage policy on college students’ learning. J. Comput. Higher Educ. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junco, R. Student class standing, Facebook use, and academic performance. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2015, 36, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, E.; Mirza, A.; Shaw, L. Using technology to promote classroom instruction: Assessing incidences of on-task and off-task multitasking and learning. J. Comput. Higher Educ. 2018, 30, 553–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuznekoff, J.H.; Munz, S.; Titsworth, S. Mobile Phones in the Classroom: Examining the Effects of Texting, Twitter, and Message Content on Student Learning. Commun. Educ. 2015, 64, 344–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Q.; Yan, Z. Does multitasking with mobile phone affect learning? A review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 54, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marzouki, O.F.; Idrissi, M.K.; Bennani, S. Effects of social constructivist mobile learning environments on knowledge acquisition: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 2017, 11, 18–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alkahtani, M.; Ahmad, A.; Darmoul, S.; Samman, S.; Al-zabidi, A.; Matraf, K. Multitasking Trends and Impact on Education: A Literature Review. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Open Science Index 111. Int. J. Educ. Pedagog. Sci. 2016, 10, 1006–1012. [Google Scholar]
- Schunk, D.H. Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects on self-efficacy and achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 1983, 75, 848–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmerman, B.J. A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 1989, 81, 329–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pintrich, P.R. The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. Int. J. Educ. Res. 1999, 31, 459–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W. Learning variables, in-class laptop multitasking and academic performance: A path analysis. Comput. Educ. 2015, 81, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alghamdi, A.; Karpinski, A.C.; Lepp, A.; Barkley, J. Online and face-to-face class multitasking and academic performance: Moderated mediation with self-efficacy for self-regulation learning and gender. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 102, 214–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Limniou, M.; Duret, D.; Hands, C. Comparisons between three disciplines regarding device usage in a lecture theatre, academic performance and learning. High. Educ. Pedagog. 2020, 5, 132–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Zimmerman, B.J.; Bandura, A. Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. Am. Educ. Res. J. 1994, 31, 845–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educ. Psychol. 1993, 28, 117–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glass, A.L.; Kang, M. Dividing attention in the classroom reduces exam performance. Educ. Psychol. 2019, 39, 395–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Song, Y.; Kong, S.C. Affordances and Constraints of BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) for Learning in Higher Education: Teachers’ Perspectives. In Emerging Practices in Scholarship of Learning and Teaching in a Digital Era; Kong, S., Wong, T., Yang, M., Chow, C., Tse, K., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kadimo, K.; Kebaetse, M.B.; Ketshogileng, D.; Seru, L.E.; Sebina, K.B.; Kovarik, C.; Balotlegi, K. Bring-your-own-device in medical schools and healthcare facilities: A review of the literature. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2018, 119, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Limniou, M.; Mansfield, R.; Petichakis, C. Students’ Views for a Research-Intensive School Curriculum in Psychology: Research-Teaching Nexus. Creat. Educ. 2019, 10, 796–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boelens, R.; Van Laer, S.; De Wever, B.; Elen, J. Blended Learning in Adult Education: Towards a Definition of Blended Learning [online], 2015, Adult Learners Online! Available online: http://www.iwt-alo.be/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/01-Project-report-Blended-learning-in-adult-education-towards-a-definition-of-blended-learning.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2020).
- Farley, J.; Risko, E.R.; Kingstone, A. Everyday attention and lecture retention: The effects of time, fidgeting, and mind wandering. Front. Psychol. 2013, 4, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yeykelis, L.; Cummings, J.J.; Reeves, B. Multitasking on a single device: Arousal and the frequency, anticipation, and prediction of switching between Media content on a computer. J. Commun. 2014, 64, 167–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bond, M.; Bedenlier, S. Facilitating Student Engagement Through Educational Technology: Towards a Conceptual Framework. J. Interact. Media Educ. 2019, 11, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dontre, A.J. The influence of technology on academic distraction: A review. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mueller, P.A.; Oppenheimer, D.M. The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 25, 1159–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Wyk, M.; van Ryneveld, L. Affordances of mobile devices and note-taking apps to support cognitively demanding note-taking. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2018, 23, 1639–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zaitseva, E.; Milsom, C.; Stewart, M. Connecting the dots: Using concept maps for interpreting student satisfaction. Qual. High. Educ. 2013, 19, 225–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raghunath, R.; Anker, C.; Nortcliffe, A. Are academics ready for smart learning? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2018, 49, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Year of Studies | Number of Participants (Response Rate % per Year) | Males (%) | Females (%) | Grades Mean (±SD 1) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1st-Year Student | 159 (47.6% of full cohort) | 20% | 80% | 59.1 (±8.5) |
2nd-Year Student | 124 (29.4% of full cohort) | 16% | 84% | 61.2 (±6.3) |
3rd-Year Student | 78 (20.1% of full cohort) | 22% | 78% | 62.4 (±7.7) |
Behavioural Variable | 1st Year (%) | 2nd Year (%) | 3rd Year (%) | Chi-Square |
---|---|---|---|---|
The device(s) that students bring into a lecture theatre | ||||
Smartphone | 34.6% | 21.8% | 21.8% | χ2(4) = 14.070, p = 0.007 |
Laptop | 25.8% | 45.2% | 39.7% | |
Both devices | 39.6% | 33.1% | 38.5% | |
The applications that they mostly use during lecture time | ||||
Microsoft Word | 58.5% | 59.7% | 57.7% | χ2(2) = 0.084, p = 0.959 |
Microsoft PowerPoint | 71.7% | 70.2% | 84.6% | χ2(2) = 5.950, p = 0.051 |
22.4% | 41.9% | 24.4% | χ2(2) = 13.766, p = 0.001 | |
12.6% | 31.5% | 17.9% | χ2(2) = 15.701, p = 0.000 | |
Chat applications | 33.3% | 46.8% | 30.8% | χ2(2) = 7.242, p = 0.027 |
The behaviour(s) that students usually exhibit during lecture time | ||||
Keep notes by hand | 45.9% | 21.0% | 25.6% | χ2(2) = 22.031, p = 0.000 |
Read PowerPoint slides on their devices | 55.3% | 46.8% | 50.0% | χ2(2) = 2.111, p = 0.348 |
Type notes on their devices | 52.8% | 68.5% | 61.5% | χ2(2) = 7.263, p = 0.026 |
Receive and send messages | 40.9% | 54.8% | 39.7% | χ2(2) = 6.733, p = 0.034 |
Check social media | 39.0% | 49.2% | 28.2% | χ2(2) = 8.939, p = 0.011 |
Behavioural Variable | 1st-Year Students (M, SD) | 2nd-Year Students (M, SD) | 3rd-Year Students (M, SD) | ANOVA between the Year of Studies (α = 0.05) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Devices mostly used in a lecture theatre | ||||
Laptop | 57.7 (±8.73) | 61.4 (±6.58) | 62.8 (±9.16) | F (4, 352) = 1.398, p = 0.234, n2 = 0.016 |
Smartphone | 61.3 (±8.17) | 61.9 (±6.01) | 60.8 (±7.96) | Simple main-effects analysis: a significant difference between 1st and 3rd years (p = 0.015) |
Both Devices | 58.2 (±8.48) | 60.3(±6.15) | 62.8 (±5.63) | No significant difference between 1st and 2nd years (p = 0.067) and 2nd and 3rd years (p almost equals to 1). |
Total number of applications which are mostly used during the lecture time | ||||
One Application | 60.5 (±8.40) | 60.6 (±6.08) | 63.6 (±7.31) | F (10, 343) = 0.493, p = 0.776, n2 = 0.181 |
Two Applications | 57.9 (±8.57) | 63.1 (±5.35) | 61.5 (±8.19) | Simple main-effects analysis: 1st and 2nd years (p almost equals to 1), 1st and 3rd years (p = 0.283) and 2nd and 3rd years (p = 0.844). |
Three Applications | 58.9 (±7.79) | 60.1 (±6.37) | 61.7 (±9.16) | |
Four Applications | 56.6 (±8.26) | 60.2 (±6.94) | 64.4 (±4.35) | |
Five Applications | 55.6 (±3.91) | 58.7 (±8.59) | 61.0 (±6.08) | |
Total numbers of different types of behaviours which are mostly exhibited during the lecture time | ||||
One behaviour type | 59.6 (±10.81) | 62.9 (±4.51) | 64.4 (±7.21) | F (10, 343) = 1.692, p = 0.081, n2 = 0.047 |
Two behaviour types | 59.7 (±6.65) | 61.8 (±5.48) | 60.3 (±8.71) | Simple main-effects analysis: 1st and 2nd years (p almost equals to 1), 1st and 3rd years (p = 0.076) and 2nd and 3rd years (p = 0.563). |
Three behaviour types | 59.1 (±8.42) | 59.1 (±7.20) | 63.5 (±5.85) | |
Four behaviour types | 57.8 (±8.64) | 61.4 (±6.50) | 66.2 (±2.59) | |
Five behaviour types | 59.1 (±5.24) | 61.3 (±6.24) | 61.5 (±4.95) |
Behavioural and Learning Environment Variable | Year (M, SD) Digital Device (M, SD) | Two-Way ANCOVA between the Years (α = 0.05) |
---|---|---|
Learning activities (productive) (13 items, a = 0.883) | 1st Year: 3.9 (±1.15) | F(4, 352) = 0.581, p = 0.677, η2 = 0.007 |
Laptop: 4.4 (±1.03) | ||
Smartphone: 3.3 (±1.18) | Simple main-effects analysis: | |
Both devices: 4.2 (±0.95) | ||
2nd Year: 3.8 (±1.31) | No significant difference between | |
Laptop: 4.1 (±1.35) | ||
Smartphone: 3.1 (±1.29) | 1st and 2nd year (p = 0.555); | |
Both devices: 4.0 (±1.31) | ||
3rd Year: 3.9 (±1.15) | 1st and 3rd year (p = 0.339); and | |
Laptop: 4.2 (±1.13) | ||
Smartphone: 3.3 (±1.15) | 2nd and 3rd years (p almost equals to 1.000). | |
Both devices: 4.1 (±1.02) | ||
Non-learning activities (unproductive) (3 items, a = 0.857) | 1st Year: 3.5 (±1.57) | F (4, 352) = 0.881, p = 0.476, η2 = 0.010 |
Laptop: 3.4 (±1.60) | ||
Smartphone: 3.3 (±1.54) | Simple main-effects analysis: | |
Both devices: 3.6 (±1.59) | ||
2nd Year: 4.2 (±1.21) | A significant difference between | |
Laptop: 4.0 (±1.16) | 1st year and 2nd year (p < 0.001); and | |
Smartphone: 4.4 (±1.21) | ||
Both devices: 4.3 (±1.26) | ||
3rd Year: 3.3 (±1.40) | 2nd year and 3rd year (p< 0.001) | |
Laptop: 3.0 (±1.31) | No difference between 1st and 3rd year | |
Smartphone: 3.8 (±1.71) | ||
Both devices: 3.4 (±1.14) | (p almost equals to 1). | |
Distractions (3 items, a = 0.685) | 1st Year: 3.1 (±1.28) | F (4, 352) = 0.471, p = 0.757, η2 = 0.005 |
Laptop: 3.0 (±1.13) | ||
Smartphone: 3.4 (±1.37) | Simple main-effects analysis:v | |
Both devices: 3.0 (±1.27) | ||
2nd Year: 3.5 (±1.33) | Significant difference between | |
Laptop: 3.4 (±1.49) | ||
Smartphone: 3.7 (±1.03) | 1st and 2nd year (p = 0.045) | |
Both devices: 3.5 (±1.29) | ||
3rd Year: 3.3 (±1.28) | No difference between | |
Laptop: 3.2 (±1.27) | ||
Smartphone: 3.2 (±1.41) | 1st year and 3rd year (p almost equals to 1) | |
Both devices: 3.4 (±1.26) | 2nd year and 3rd year (p = 0.562). |
Individual Learning Variable | Year (M, SD) | Two-Way ANCOVA between Years (α = 0.05) |
---|---|---|
Self-efficacy (4 items, a = 0.797) | 1st Year: 4.7(± 1.08) | F (2, 357) = 0.408, p = 0.665, η2 = 0.002 |
2nd Year: 4.8 (±0.77) | Simple main-effects analysis: no significant difference between all the years (p almost equals to 1). | |
3rd Year: 4.8 (±0.95) | ||
Perceived course utility (3 items, a = 0.748) | 1st Year: 5.8 (±0.83) | F (2, 357) = 6.151, p = 0.002, η2 = 0.033 |
2nd Year: 5.4 (±0.91) | Simple main-effects analysis: significant differences between 1st year and 2nd year (p = 0.003), but no significant difference between 1st and 3rd year (p = 0.060) and 2nd year and 3rd year (p almost equals to 1). | |
3rd Year: 5.5 (±0.80) | ||
Test anxiety (4 items, a = 0.855) | 1st Year: 5.5 (±1.25) | F (2, 357) = 5.941, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.032 |
2nd Year: 5.9 (±0.96) | Simple main-effects analysis: significant difference between 1st year and 2nd year (p = 0.001), but no significant differences between 1st year and 3rd year (p = 0.065) and 2nd year and 3rd year (p almost equals to 1). | |
3rd Year: 5.8 (±1.01) | ||
Surface strategy (3 items, a = 0.809) | 1st Year: 5.3(±1.22) | F (2, 357) = 4.056, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.022 |
2nd Year: 5.6 (±0.95) | Simple main-effects analysis: significant difference between 1st year and 2nd year (p = 0.031), but no significant difference between 1st year and 3rd year (p = 0.105) and 2nd year and 3rd year (p almost equals to 1). | |
3rd Year: 5.5 (±0.98) | ||
Source diversity (3 items, a = 0.815) | 1st Year: 5.0 (±1.04) | F (2, 357) = 4.681, p = 001, η2 = 0.026 |
2nd Year: 5.3 (±0.93) | Simple main-effects analysis: significant difference between 1st year and 3rd year students (p = 0.017), but no significant difference between 1st year and 2nd year (p = 0.113) and 2nd year and 3rd year (p almost equals to 1). | |
3rd Year: 5.4 (±0.94) | ||
Behavioural self-regulation (negative habit) (7 items, a = 0.837) | 1st Year: 4.7 (±1.18) | F (2, 357) = 1.088, p = 0.338, η2 = 0.006 |
2nd Year: 4.8 (±1.00) | Simple main-effects analysis: no significant difference between 1st year and 2nd year (p = 0.642), 1st year and 3rd year (p almost equals to 1) and 2nd year and 3rd year (p = 0.812). | |
3rd Year: 4.6 (±0.99) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Limniou, M. The Effect of Digital Device Usage on Student Academic Performance: A Case Study. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030121
Limniou M. The Effect of Digital Device Usage on Student Academic Performance: A Case Study. Education Sciences. 2021; 11(3):121. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030121
Chicago/Turabian StyleLimniou, Maria. 2021. "The Effect of Digital Device Usage on Student Academic Performance: A Case Study" Education Sciences 11, no. 3: 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030121