MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1546923248 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i1.1982

The analysis of Iranian students' persistence in online education

2015· article· en· W1546923248 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahdi Mahmodi, Issa Ebrahimzade

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersistence (discontinuity)Asynchronous communicationPsychologyMathematics educationStratified samplingE learningDescriptive statisticsDistance educationOnline learningInstructional designEducational technologyComputer sciencePedagogyMultimediaStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>In the following research, the relationship between instructional interaction and student persistence in e-learning has been analyzed. In order to conduct a descriptive- analytic survey, 744 undergraduate e-students were selected by stratified random sampling method to examine not only the frequency and the methods of establishing an instructional interaction, but also the barriers to the student persistence in e-learning. The research findings confirmed the relationship between the instructors’ and the students’ application of two interaction methods including the discussion forum and email (asynchronous method), as well as the relationship between the frequency of instructional interaction and the student persistence in e-learning. According to the findings, family and job commitment, loss of instructional motivation and economic problems constitute the most important barriers to the student persistence in e-learning. The research results can help reduce one of the primary concerns of online learning, that is the student persistence rate, if they would be implemented in various instructional systems such as higher instructional system, for the purpose of providing favorable condition in e-learning, facilitating online learning interactions and, eventually, increasing the student persistence in e-learning.</p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.372 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207