MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2203427347 · doi:10.5539/ies.v9n1p20

E-Learning and Social Media Motivation Factor Model

2015· article· en· W2203427347 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohd Shafie Rosli, Nor Shela Saleh, Baharuddin Aris, Maizah Hura Ahmad, Abbas Abjoli Sejzi, Nur Amalina Shamsudin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaMinistry of Education, India
KeywordsPsychologySocial mediaStructural equation modelingSocial influenceMathematics educationClass (philosophy)Social psychologyEducational technologyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aims of this study are to probe into the motivational factors toward the usage of e-learning and social media among educational technology postgraduate students in the Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. This study had involved 70 respondents via the means of a questionnaire. Four factors have been studied, named, the factor of technology, exposure, content and social influence. Via Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), this research uncovers that respondents usage of e-learning is being motivated by the factor of technology and content. The respondents use of social media was found to be motivated by the factor of technology and social influence. A strong positive relationship exists between the usage of e-learning and social media suggesting that social media can be manipulated as supporting material for e-learning. Yet, the finding may not be generalized to all Malaysian educational technology postgraduate students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207