Discovering the Motivations of Students when Using an Online Learning Tool
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
In an educational setting, the use of online learning tools impacts student performance. Motivation and beliefs play an important role in predicting student decisions to use these learning tools. However, IT-personality entailing playfulness on the web, perceived personal innovativeness, and enjoyment may have an impact on motivations. In this study, we investigate the influence of IT-personality traits on motivation and beliefs. The study includes 95 participants. A survey was conducted after using the learning tool for one semester. Assessment of the psychometric properties of the scales proved acceptable and confirmatory factor analysis supported the proposed hypotheses. With the exception of the impact of enjoyment on motivation, all other hypotheses demonstrate behavior different from other contexts: playfulness on the web and perceived personal innovativeness have little to no impact on motivation; motivation in turn has the opposite strong and significant effect on beliefs. Specifically, we found that motivation has a strong impact on students’ attitudes and consequently attitudes were found to determine intentions where the variance explained is 50% (attitude) and 28% (intentions). These results give way to interesting interpretations as they relate to 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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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