Structural Relationships of Environments, Individuals, and Learning Outcomes in Korean Online University Settings
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
<p>This study examines relationships of instructional environments, learner traits, and learning outcomes in the context of an online university course in Korea which has an advanced information technology background and rich e-learning experiences. However, the educational heritage of the country adheres to directive instruction with little interaction in the classroom. Based on the literature review, specific research variables are as follows: the environmental variables include learner-learner interaction, learner-instructor interaction, and content/system quality. Regarding learner traits, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and computer/academic self-efficacy were investigated. Academic achievement and class satisfaction were identified as potential determinants of online learning outcomes. A total of 937 valid responses from online university students were used to establish structural relationships among the variables. Most of the structural associations among the factors were significantly positive, although some variables reflected Korean cultural and educational contexts specifically. The findings suggest a need for a synthetic approach towards e-learning and that further research should be conducted concerning context-specific variables.</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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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