Gwakkamole
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 105 keywords for Gwakkamole in Google Play
Gwakkamole tracks 105 keywords (no keywords rank yet; 105 need traction). Key metrics: opportunity 71.4, difficulty 42.6.
Brain training made fun
Tracked keywords
105
0 ranked • 105 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
—
Best rank — • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
71.4
Top keyword: refer
Avg difficulty
42.6
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 63.7
refer
Opportunity: 75.0 • Difficulty: 39.4 • Rank —
Competitors: 370
- 64.4
collaboration
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 44.0 • Rank —
Competitors: 293
- 61.8
institute
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 37.3 • Rank —
Competitors: 73
- 66.1
university
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 40.8 • Rank —
Competitors: 178
- 61.1
emotions
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 39.2 • Rank —
Competitors: 357
Unranked opportunities
refer
Opportunity: 75.0 • Difficulty: 39.4 • Competitors: 370
collaboration
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 44.0 • Competitors: 293
institute
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 37.3 • Competitors: 73
university
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 40.8 • Competitors: 178
emotions
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 39.2 • Competitors: 357
High competition keywords
new
Total apps: 367,866 • Major competitors: 23,577
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 58.6
designed
Total apps: 260,161 • Major competitors: 8,471
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 53.6
way
Total apps: 207,093 • Major competitors: 11,481
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.5
create
Total apps: 202,992 • Major competitors: 14,536
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 59.6
view
Total apps: 184,804 • Major competitors: 6,222
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 54.9
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| brain training | 73 | 100 | 38 | 58 4,114 competing apps Median installs: 2,591 Avg rating: 4.3 | — | — | 305 major competitor apps |
| fun | 67 | 100 | 57 | 83 169,969 competing apps Median installs: 5,588 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 15,613 major competitor apps |
| new | 65 | 100 | 59 | 89 367,866 competing apps Median installs: 3,163 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 23,577 major competitor apps |
| collaboration | 74 | 100 | 44 | 64 11,066 competing apps Median installs: 591 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 293 major competitor apps |
| internal | 73 | 100 | 44 | 67 16,878 competing apps Median installs: 1,051 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 608 major competitor apps |
| external | 73 | 100 | 47 | 67 16,869 competing apps Median installs: 1,501 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 927 major competitor apps |
| support | 67 | 100 | 55 | 83 172,139 competing apps Median installs: 1,475 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 8,015 major competitor apps |
| digital | 68 | 100 | 51 | 81 125,323 competing apps Median installs: 877 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 4,613 major competitor apps |
| designed | 66 | 100 | 54 | 86 260,161 competing apps Median installs: 843 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 8,471 major competitor apps |
| institute | 74 | 100 | 37 | 62 7,608 competing apps Median installs: 584 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 73 major competitor apps |
| control | 67 | 100 | 54 | 82 136,842 competing apps Median installs: 1,832 Avg rating: 3.8 | — | — | 7,550 major competitor apps |
| created | 70 | 100 | 48 | 76 55,678 competing apps Median installs: 1,995 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 2,182 major competitor apps |
| people | 68 | 100 | 54 | 80 104,023 competing apps Median installs: 2,890 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 5,786 major competitor apps |
| way | 66 | 100 | 56 | 85 207,093 competing apps Median installs: 1,976 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 11,481 major competitor apps |
| avoid | 71 | 100 | 51 | 72 34,563 competing apps Median installs: 2,428 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 2,161 major competitor apps |
| university | 74 | 100 | 41 | 66 14,219 competing apps Median installs: 1,724 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 178 major competitor apps |
| speed | 70 | 100 | 53 | 76 58,002 competing apps Median installs: 4,780 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 4,911 major competitor apps |
| among | 71 | 100 | 47 | 73 36,852 competing apps Median installs: 2,788 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,947 major competitor apps |
| monitor | 69 | 100 | 47 | 77 64,414 competing apps Median installs: 599 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 1,781 major competitor apps |
| effective | 71 | 100 | 45 | 73 37,829 competing apps Median installs: 1,094 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,243 major competitor apps |
| smart | 68 | 100 | 55 | 81 123,691 competing apps Median installs: 1,748 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 6,499 major competitor apps |
| achievement | 73 | 100 | 37 | 58 4,559 competing apps Median installs: 1,304 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 207 major competitor apps |
| create | 66 | 100 | 60 | 85 202,992 competing apps Median installs: 3,021 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 14,536 major competitor apps |
| view | 66 | 100 | 55 | 84 184,804 competing apps Median installs: 910 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 6,222 major competitor apps |
| related | 70 | 100 | 48 | 76 57,705 competing apps Median installs: 1,800 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 1,959 major competitor apps |
App Description
Brain training made fun
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.