MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2283573166 · doi:10.5539/ies.v9n3p62

Teaching Presence Influencing Online Students’ Course Satisfaction at an Institution of Higher Education

2016· article· en· W2283573166 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohd Khalid M. N., Don Quick

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigher educationPsychologyMedical educationOnline courseCourse evaluationOnline teachingClass (philosophy)Scale (ratio)Learning ManagementInstitutionMathematics educationCourse (navigation)Class sizeDistance educationMedicineSociologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the association between online students’ interaction through the Learning Management System (LMS) discussion forum and their reported course satisfaction. The participants in the study reported here were selected from several faculties in one university in Malaysia who were enrolled in at least one hybrid or fully online course. The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, its instrument and satisfaction scale were employed in this study via a Qualtrics online survey. Teaching presence in the CoI was used to find out how strong it correlated with students’ course satisfaction. The results showed that both variables were significantly positively associated with each other; indicating that students who enjoyed a relatively high teaching presence in online discussions were very likely to report higher course satisfaction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.423 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations68
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207