Attitudes Affecting Online learning Implementation in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores attitudes towards and affecting online learning implementation (OLI). In recent years there has been greater acceptance of online learning (OL) by institutional decision-makers, as evidenced by higher levels of institutional involvement; nevertheless, the increase in faculty acceptance lags behind. This gap affects the widespread adoption of OL. This paper proposes that faculty acceptance of OL is influenced by attitudes related to four variables that affect practice change: intellectual reluctance, support, change and cost-benefit. Inherently, these attitudes translate into behaviours that influence the level of resistance toward OLI. Resume Cette etude explore les attitudes envers, et affectant, l’instauration de l’apprentissage en ligne. Ces dernieres annees, il y a eu une plus grande acceptation de l’apprentissage en ligne par les decideurs, comme on peut le voir par l’augmentation de l’implication institutionnelle; cependant, les professeures et professeurs ne suivent pas. Cet ecart affecte l’adoption a grande echelle de l’apprentissage a distance. Cet article propose que l’acceptation par les professeures et professeurs de l’apprentissage a distance est influencee par les attitudes liees a quatre variables qui affectent le changement de pratique : mefiance intellectuelle, soutien, changement et cout-benefice. Ces attitudes se traduisent par des comportements qui influencent le niveau de resistance a l’apprentissage en ligne.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".