Gwakkamole
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 99 keywords for Gwakkamole in Apple App Store
Gwakkamole tracks 99 keywords (no keywords rank yet; 99 need traction). Key metrics: opportunity 70.8, difficulty 39.2.
Tracked keywords
99
0 ranked • 99 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
—
Best rank — • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
70.8
Top keyword: collaboration
Avg difficulty
39.2
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 63.2
collaboration
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 44.2 • Rank —
Competitors: 60
- 62.6
internal
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 37.9 • Rank —
Competitors: 40
- 64.5
external
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.5 • Rank —
Competitors: 94
- 64.1
university
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 39.7 • Rank —
Competitors: 28
- 67.3
among
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.5 • Rank —
Competitors: 187
Unranked opportunities
collaboration
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 44.2 • Competitors: 60
internal
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 37.9 • Competitors: 40
external
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.5 • Competitors: 94
university
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 39.7 • Competitors: 28
among
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.5 • Competitors: 187
High competition keywords
new
Total apps: 182,233 • Major competitors: 3,779
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.7
create
Total apps: 130,860 • Major competitors: 2,323
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 54.5
way
Total apps: 115,772 • Major competitors: 1,944
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 53.3
designed
Total apps: 113,897 • Major competitors: 1,081
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 51.4
view
Total apps: 108,094 • Major competitors: 1,319
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 52.3
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| new | 65 | 100 | 56 | 87 182,233 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 3,779 major competitor apps |
| collaboration | 73 | 100 | 44 | 63 6,341 competing apps Median installs: 300 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 60 major competitor apps |
| internal | 73 | 100 | 38 | 63 5,793 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 40 major competitor apps |
| external | 73 | 100 | 41 | 65 7,623 competing apps Median installs: 600 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 94 major competitor apps |
| support | 67 | 100 | 51 | 82 83,388 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,123 major competitor apps |
| digital | 69 | 100 | 49 | 78 52,257 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 718 major competitor apps |
| designed | 66 | 100 | 51 | 84 113,897 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 1,081 major competitor apps |
| institute | 71 | 100 | 34 | 56 2,322 competing apps Median installs: 250 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 5 major competitor apps |
| control | 68 | 100 | 50 | 81 72,831 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 983 major competitor apps |
| created | 71 | 100 | 45 | 73 26,277 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 298 major competitor apps |
| people | 68 | 100 | 52 | 79 56,356 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 920 major competitor apps |
| way | 66 | 100 | 53 | 84 115,772 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,944 major competitor apps |
| avoid | 72 | 100 | 45 | 70 17,304 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 332 major competitor apps |
| university | 73 | 100 | 40 | 64 7,173 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 28 major competitor apps |
| speed | 70 | 100 | 47 | 74 28,418 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 516 major competitor apps |
| among | 73 | 100 | 42 | 67 11,109 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 187 major competitor apps |
| monitor | 70 | 100 | 46 | 75 34,239 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 377 major competitor apps |
| effective | 72 | 100 | 43 | 71 17,928 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 145 major competitor apps |
| smart | 68 | 100 | 50 | 79 58,362 competing apps Median installs: 483 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 805 major competitor apps |
| achievement | 71 | 100 | 35 | 57 2,706 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 29 major competitor apps |
| create | 66 | 100 | 55 | 85 130,860 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 2,323 major competitor apps |
| view | 67 | 100 | 52 | 84 108,094 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 1,319 major competitor apps |
| related | 71 | 100 | 46 | 72 22,222 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 230 major competitor apps |
| plan | 69 | 100 | 49 | 77 42,311 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 759 major competitor apps |
| part | 70 | 100 | 48 | 74 29,289 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 405 major competitor apps |
App Description
Players need to smash avocados that have no hat or that tip their hat but avoid smashing avocados with spiky hats or with electric hats.
How does this support learning?
Executive functions refer to a set of top-down, goal-oriented cognitive processes that enable people to control, monitor and plan behaviors and emotions. Miyake and Friedman’s model supports a unity-and-diversity view of EF in that it incorporates the three distinct but related components of EF: inhibitory control, task-switching and updating (Miyake et al., 2000).
What is the research evidence?
Our research suggests that Gwakkamole is an effective way to train inhibitory control. Homer, B.D., Ober, T., Rose, M., MacNamara, A., Mayer, R., & Plass, J.L. (2019). Speed Versus Accuracy: Implications of Adolescents' Neurocognitive Developments in a Digital Game to Train Executive Functions. Mind, Brain, and Education, 13(1), 41–52. DOI: 10.1111/mbe.12189
Research has found that EF is related to performance in literacy and math along with long-term gains in school performance and academic readiness (Blair & Razza, 2007; Brock, Rimm-Kaufman, Nathanson, & Grimm, 2009; St Clair-Thompson & Gathercole, 2006; Welsh, Nix, Blair, Bierman, & Nelson, 2010) and that disparities in EF among preschool children from low-income versus high-income homes may contribute to the achievement gap (Blair & Razza, 2007; Noble, McCandliss, & Farah, 2007).
This game is part of the Smart Suite, created by New York University’s CREATE lab in collaboration with the University of California, Santa Barbara, and The Graduate Center, CUNY.
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A150417 to the University of California, Santa Barbara. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.