Effects of Group Awareness and Self-Regulation Level on Online Learning Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group awareness can affect student online learning while self-regulation also can substantially influence student online learning. Although some studies identify that these two variables may partially determine learning behavior, few empirical studies or thorough analyses elucidate the simultaneous impact of these two variables (group awareness and self-regulation) on online learning behavior. This paper compared one online collaboration environments with GA support with one without group awareness (NA) support and further investigated how these two variables, different system types (i.e., GA and NA) and different self-regulation levels (i.e., high and low), influence learning task (i.e., assessment) participation, and peer interaction (i.e., asking for help and willing to help) using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Analytical results first showed that both variables have significant interaction on assessment participation and requesting rate. GA can particularly stimulate students with high-level self-regulation to engage more learning task (assessment) participation and ask for help more, compared with students with low-level self-regulation. Second, both variables have no significant interaction on willingness to help. The GA class can enhance a student’s willingness to help regardless of his/her self-regulation level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".