A Survey of Factors Contributing to Learners' “Listening” Behaviors in Asynchronous Online Discussions
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
Sixty-seven undergraduates taking either a Blended Business Course (BBC) or an Online Education Course (OEC) were surveyed about factors influencing their “listening” behaviors in asynchronous online course discussions. These are the ways they attend to the posts made by others: which posts they open, how they engage with open posts, and which posts they choose to respond to. Goal-orientations were also assessed. Results indicate that student decisions about which posts to open relied strongly on discussion reply-structure and message timing; authorship was important only to BBC students. Once open, OEC students often scanned posts to decide whether to read in-depth. In the BBC, similar triage strategies were used by work-avoidant students, while mastery students read posts thoroughly. In deciding which posts to reply to, BBC students favored posts that agreed with them while OEC students favored those that disagreed. Course and student characteristics that may account for these differences are discussed and implications for research and practice are presented.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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