Alteration of Influencing Factors of Continued Intentions to Use e-Learning for Different Degrees of Adult Online Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The purpose of the present study was to investigate the alteration of influencing factors of continued intention to use e-learning for different degrees of participation of adults. Participants included 670 learners from an adult professional development website. Data was collected based on questionnaires and analyzed by Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The Revised Information System Success Model proposed by DeLone and McLean and Innovation Adoption Theory of Rogers were adopted in the present study. A research model including two constructs (curriculum and system as well as innovation adaptation) and eight influencing factors were proposed in the present study based on features of e-learning. The results revealed that the factors in the construct of curriculum and system could be varied for different degrees of learner participation. Among those factors, system quality and online interaction were the factors for the differences between low and high groups of participation. Furthermore, the factors in the construct of innovation adaptation could be varied for different degrees of participation. Among those factors, compatibility was the factor for the differences between low and high groups of participation. Degree of online participation demonstrated moderating effects on the influences of online interaction, relative advantage and compatibility in continued intention to use.</p>
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 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 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".