Achievement Goal Orientations and Self-Reported Study Strategies as Predictors of Online Studying Activities
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
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether achievement motivations influence the adoption of learning strategies and learning strategies influence studying behavior in an online learning environment. The Goal Orientation Questionnaire was used to measure achievement motives, and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire was used to assess learning strategies. In addition, data on how learners tagged and annotated the learning materials were collected using software designed to aid studying and to examine studying behavior. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on Goal Orientation Questionnaire data from 170 university students who used the learning software to study a chapter from a textbook. Results showed that task value and effort regulation subscales from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire positively predicted the number of notes created. In addition, mastery and performance goals positively predicted task value, and work-avoidance goals negatively predicted effort regulation and task value.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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