1,720,954 research outputs found
Difficulties in setting up a startups in Bangladesh: Business Challenges in Bangladesh
No full textThe most recent global innovation index showed a rank that shocked the startup industry and the country as a whole, and the news quickly spread on social media. "Bangladesh, the least innovative country," the headlines read. Although these figures only apply to Asian countries, they piqued everyone\u27s interest, and the bad publicity about our country was disheartening. It piqued the interest of the government\u27s ICT section, as well as all organizations that work with startups. They couldn\u27t figure out why such a huge assertion was made. Having said that, every individual can see that Bangladesh has not seen any unique business ideas in any sector in recent years. Nothing novel has occurred. The significance of startups and businesses to the economy cannot be overstated. With one of the world\u27s fastest growing economies, it is critical to maintain development so that it does not become stable and linear. It must also be ensured that the line is not sloping lower. This study seeks to uncover the causes of a lack of innovation as well as the challenges that businesses encounter that contribute to their failure.
REFERENCES
Abadeen, S. J. (2021). Problems and Prospects of Startups in Bangladesh.
Asif, M., Pasha, M. A., Shafiq, S., & Craine, I. (2022). Economic Impacts of Post COVID-19. Inverge Jounal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 56-65.
Aurangzeb, Alizai, S.H., Asif, M., & Rind, Z. K. (2021). Relevance of Motivational Theories and Firm Health, International Journal of Management (IJM), 12(3), 2021, pp. 1130-1137. http://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJM?Volume=12&Issue=3
Baker, M., & Wurgler, J. (2013). Do investors value smooth performance?. Journal of Finance, 68(5), 1787-1823.
Bari, M., Obayed, S.& Tahmida, Q. (2019). Opportunities and Shortcomings of Developing and Implementing Academic Entrepreneurial Activities in Bangladesh. Academic Entrepreneurial Activities in Bangladesh.
Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56.
Brush, C. G., & Vanderwerf, P. A. (2014). A gendered perspective on entrepreneurship: The role of resources and motivation. In M. Bruni, D. Gherardi, & B. Poggio (Eds.), Gender and Entrepreneurship: An Ethnographic Approach (pp. 15-33). Routledge.
Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1994). Market attractiveness, resource-based capabilities, venture strategies, and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(4), 331-349.
Chen, G., & Rasmussen, S. (2014). bkash bangladesh: A fast start for mobile financial services.
Choudhury, A. H., & Mandal, S. (2021). The role of familial, social, educational and business environmental factors on entrepreneurial intention among university students in Bangladesh. Materials Today: Proceedings.
Chowdhury, F. (2017). A Study of Entrepreneurship Development in Bangladesh: Pros and Cons. Journal of Asian Scientific Research, 7(1). 1-11.
Colton, D., & Sherony, M. (2005). The importance of mentoring for new entrepreneurs. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 10(2), 103-118.
Haque, M. A., & Rahman, M. S. (2019). An analysis of the challenges of startups in Bangladesh. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, 5(2), 279-296.
Hasan, M. R., & Ahmad, M. S. (2018). Exploring the prerequisites of institutionalizing crowdfunding process in Bangladesh as an alternative financing option for the startups. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 18(C1), 17-31.
Islam, M. T., & Khan, M. T. A. (2020). Inertia to the adoption of crowdfunding in Bangladesh: A study on start-up entrepreneurs. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1811597.
Jiang, R., & Yang, Y. (2019). The effect of business model innovation on the performance of sustainable development: Empirical evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 209, 704-713
Kerr, S., & Robinson, E. (2010). When the student is ready: Managing the challenges of a mentoring program. Journal of Management Education, 34(2), 204-226.
Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Dembek, K. (2017). Sustainable business model development: A review of the literature and the development of a conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 1148-1162.
Mukta, M. A., & Islam, M. A. (2020). Start-up ecosystem in Bangladesh: An analysis of barriers and opportunities. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, 6(2), 278-303.
Mushtaque, T., Tunio, M. N., ur Rehman, Z., & Asif, M. (2021). INFLUENCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERTISE OF HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTITIONERS ON THE JOB PERFORMANCE: MEDIATING ROLE OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION. International Journal of Management (IJM), 12(4).
Patel, P. C., Favorskaya, M. N., & Perminov, V. Y. (2015). Startup technology companies: Key strategies for success. International Journal of Management and Economics, 46(1), 95-112.
Purnell, L., & Freeman, R. E. (2012). Sustainability, value, and scalable business models. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 365-377.
Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model”. Organization & Environment, 21(2), 103-127.
Uddin, M. R., & Bose, T. K. (2012). Determinants of entrepreneurial intention of business students in Bangladesh. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(24), 128.
Vallabh, P., & Azadegan, A. (2018). Systematic review of sustainable business models and their performance in developing economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 192, 411-429.
World Bank. (2021). Doing Business 2021: Comparing Business Regulation in 190 Economies. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Zahra, S. A., Newey, L. R., & Li, Y. (2018). On the frontiers: The implications of social entrepreneurship for international entrepreneurship research. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 135-149
The Impact of Technology in the Classroom: An Insight into Students\u27 and Teachers\u27 Psychological Perspectives
No full textThe integration of technology in the classroom has become increasingly popular, with many educators seeing it as a way to enhance teaching and learning. However, there is a need to understand how technology is being used and how it is impacting both students and teachers. This qualitative study aimed to explore students\u27 and teachers\u27 perspectives on the use of technology in the classroom. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight teachers and ten students in a high school in the United States. The interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. The findings revealed that technology was perceived as a valuable tool for enhancing learning, but that there were also challenges associated with its use, such as technical difficulties and distractions. Additionally, students and teachers had differing opinions on how technology should be used in the classroom, with some students preferring a more traditional approach to learning. Overall, this study highlights the need for careful consideration of how technology is integrated into the classroom, as well as the importance of understanding students\u27 and teachers\u27 perspectives on its use.
References
Akbulut, Y., & Cardak, C. S. (2012). The advantages and challenges of using ICTs in teaching and learning processes: The case of a Turkish online university. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 87-105.
Al-Qudah, D. M., & Al-Dababneh, K. A. (2022). Investigating the impact of using educational technologies on English language teaching and learning at a higher education institution in Jordan. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 1-21.
Alqurashi, E. (2021). The Impact of Mobile Learning on EFL Students’ Vocabulary Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16(8), 36-54.
Asif, M., Adil Pasha, M., Shafiq, S., & Craine, I. (2022). Economic Impacts of Post COVID-19. Inverge Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 56–65.
Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(2), 1-54.
Baker, R. S., & Inventado, P. S. (2016). Educational data mining and learning analytics: Potentials and possibilities for online education. Emergence and innovation in digital learning, 83-98.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J., & Kenney, J. (2017). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 114, 121-137.
Bulger, M. E., Mayer, R. E., & Almeroth, K. C. (2019). The effects of technology on the human mind and body. In K. Peppler (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of out-of-school learning (pp. 1022-1026). SAGE Publications, Inc.
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org/
Chen, W (2009). Integrating technology into classroom teaching: A theory-practice nexus? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 229-243.
Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). Effects of educational technology applications on reading outcomes for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(3), 277-299.
Cho, M. H., & Her, H. (2021). Understanding the relationship between blended learning, self-regulated learning, and academic achievement: A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 167, 104164.
Chong, J. L., Wong, S. C., & Lim, J. Y. (2022). Designing an E-learning system for problem-based learning in STEM education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 25(1), 85-101.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2011). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. McGraw Hill Professional.
Davis, F. D. (2019). Technology acceptance model for education and research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(5), 1281-1304.
Dey, M. (2021). Psychological processes in language learning and teaching: Scoping review and future research directions. Journal of Psychological Perspective, 3(2), 105-110.
Díaz-Rodríguez, M. L., & Álvarez-Valdivia, I. (2020). Students\u27 perceptions of e-learning platforms in higher education: Analysis of a satisfaction model. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 13(1), 1-13.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by "collaborative learning"? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp. 1-19). Elsevier.
Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers & Education, 51(1), 187-199.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., & York, C. S. (2007). Exemplary technology-using teachers: Perceptions of factors influencing success. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(2), 55-61.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435.
Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Pearson.
Gewerc, A., Segura-Robles, A., & Arroyo-Cañada, F. J. (2018). Are we ready for educational robotics? A survey on teacher training needs. Computers & Education, 116, 1-17.
Gros, B. (2014). Challenges to digital game-based learning. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 525-535). Springer.
Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do media interfere with learning? A review on learner control in hypermedia environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(4), 269-287.
Hodges,C (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27.
Honey, M., & Hilton, M. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. National Academies Press.
Hsu, Y. C., & Wang, C. (2021). Investigating the effects of mobile learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 163, 104094.
Kizilcec, R. F., Bailenson, J. N., & Gomez, C. J. (2017). The instructor\u27s face in video instruction: Evidence from two large-scale field studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 849.
Khan, B. H. (2018). Technology-enhanced learning: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Springer International Publishing.
Koc, M., & Bakir, N. (2019). Technology integration in education: A review of research. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 12(1), 1-14.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.
Lee, J., & Srinivasan, S. (2012). What motivates students to learn? An examination of e-learning in higher education. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 5(1), 1-14.
Liu, S.-H., Liao, H.-L., & Pratt, J. A. (2010). Impact of media richness and flow on e-learning technology acceptance. Computers & Education, 54(2), 599–609.
Mangen, A., & Velay, J. L. (2010). Digitizing literacy: Reflections on the haptics of writing. Advances in Haptics, 171-182.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Mouza, C., & Lavigne, N. C. (2016). Technology integration in K-12 contexts: Examining the process of classroom transformation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 431-441.
Muir-Herzig, R. M., & Mulder, C. M. (2018). Technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A teacher perspective. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 11(1), 1-14.
OECD. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. OECD Publishing.
Papadakis,(2018). Greek teachers\u27 attitudes towards information and communication technologies in education. Education and Information Technologies, 23(2), 735-751.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.
Puentedura, R. (2014). SAMR: A model for technology integration. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/06/29/SAMRAModelForTechnologyIntegration
Redondo, R. D., & Cabrera-García, M. (2022). Augmented reality as a tool to develop reading comprehension in students with learning difficulties. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(1), 57-76.
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Teo, T. (2016). Becoming more specific: Measuring and modeling teachers’ perceived usefulness of ICT in the context of teaching and learning. Computers & Education, 96, 1-17.
Shabani, M., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2019). Investigating the effects of technology-enhanced language learning on EFL learners\u27 motivation and attitudes. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 12(2), 1-13.
Shahid, N., Asif, M., & Pasha, D. A. (2022). Effect of Internet Addiction on School Going Children. Inverge Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 13–55.
Shin, W. S., Kim, J. E., & Kim, K. J. (2021). The effects of educational technology on student creativity: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(2), 527-547.
Tamim, (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4-28.
Teo, T. (2015). Examining pre-service teachers\u27 perceived usefulness, ease of use, and attitude towards educational technology: A Malaysian perspective. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 274-285.
Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Books.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2012). Technological pedagogical content knowledge-A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109-121.
Wang, Q., & Chen, L. (2019). Exploring students\u27 attitudes towards mobile learning: A case study in China. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(7), 904-917.
Wang, Y., & Baker, R. (2015). Content-Based Adaptive Review: Effects of Time Delay and Adaptivity on Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 1070–1085.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press.
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225.
Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Using technology wisely: The keys to success in schools. Educational Testing Service.
Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. Y. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1052-1084
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
