Dimensions of Perceived Usefulness: Toward Enhanced Assessment
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
ABSTRACT Students' perceptions about the use of online learning tools have been shown to vary among studies. Their perceptions may have a profound impact on performance in the course and subsequent behavior toward continued use. This article presents a theoretical framework to identify three dimensions of perceived usefulness, namely, performance‐related outcome expectations, personal‐related outcome expectations, and intrinsic motivation. Based on the technology acceptance model (TAM), a new expanded model is proposed to capture more details about students' perceptions of an online learning tool. I also examine the relationships of these three dimensions with perceived ease of use, attitudes, and behavioral intentions to use in the context of online technologies used as an integral component of the course requirements. My findings demonstrate the utility of the expanded TAM to distinguish between the influences of the three proposed dimensions. Results also show that, within the context of this study setup, intrinsic motivation had the most influence on intentions and perceived ease of use of the learning tool had relatively little importance. Limitations and implications are offered.
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 | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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