An Examination through Conjoint Analysis of the Preferences of Students Concerning Online Learning Environments According to Their Learning Styles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines learning styles of students receiving education via online learning environments, and their preferences concerning the online learning environment. Maggie McVay Lynch Learning Style Inventory was used to determine learning styles of the students. The preferences of students concerning online learning environments were detected through the prioritization of determined main factors and sub-factors. Conjoint analysis, which is a multivariate statistical method, was employed in this study. The prepared conjoint questionnaire was administered both to the entire research group and to visual, auditory and kinesthetic style learning student groups separately. The findings obtained were interpreted by matching with their learning styles. It was concluded that online learning students attached great importance to the employed technology characteristic and to the student—administrator interaction. Considering general of the students, the synchronization or asynchronization of mode of communication and the existence or non-existence of technical support in the prepared environment were not considered important. It was concluded that as the learning styles of students varied, their views about other variables, the interaction preferences in the online learning environment in particular, also differed. Learning styles of students and their preferences concerning the learning materials also showed a parallelism.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".