Motivation to Learn via Computer Conferencing: Exploring How Task-Specific Motivation and CC Expectations are Related to Student Acceptance of Learning via CC
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
This study investigated the relationship between student motivation and student acceptance of learning via computer conferencing (CC). Student acceptance of CC was operationalized as frequency of contributing messages online, satisfaction with CC, grades, and effort on CC. Student motivation was conceptualized to include students' general motivational characteristics, such as goal orientation, as well as more contextual aspects, such as personal relevance of tasks. Students ( n = 167) in ten courses filled out questionnaires at the beginning and end of each course. Personal relevance of the tasks, task attractiveness, and students' beliefs concerning the relationship of CC to learning (outcome expectations) were the most important predictors of student satisfaction with CC. Learning orientation was correlated with grades ( n = 78) and self-reported effort on CC activities ( n = 167). To provide a sense of the contexts in which CC was used, interviews were conducted with instructors ( n = 8). Suggestions are made concerning the implementation of CC for learning.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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