The Czech Adaptation of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to provide theoretical and methodological insights into the process of self-regulated learning, and to describe the adaptation of The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), developed by Pintrich et al. (1993). This Likert-scaled instrument was designed to assess motivation orientations and use of learning strategies. The adaptation concerned only the first section, the learning strategies section was not part of the adaptation. The motivation scales originally tap into three broad areas: (1) value, (2) expectancy, and (3) affect. In exploratory factor analysis a 3-factor model was generated and good internal consistency of the adapted instrument was achieved. In this version the questionnaire has 27 items with overall reliability of ? = 0.83. The alphas for the three subscales range from 0.70 to 0.86 and explaines 35% of the total variance. The data proved a student’s academic self-efficacy (F1), task value (F2) and test anxiety (F3) to be strong predictors of students’ motivation.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it