MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2701553367 · doi:10.1108/ijilt-12-2016-0059

Students’ perceived impact of learning and satisfaction with blogs

2017· article· en· W2701553367 on OpenAlexaff
Princely Ifinedo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Information and Learning Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyOriginalityUsabilityPerceptionStructural equation modelingEmpirical researchApplied psychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Students’ use of blogging tools in learning environments is increasing across the world. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the literature by examining the effects of relevant factors that engender satisfaction and positive impacts of the technology for learning. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional survey was used to collect data from 108 undergraduate students taking a management information systems course. The partial least squares technique of structural equation modelling was used to test the reliability and validity of the data, and the study’s hypothesised relationships or paths. Findings This study revealed that perceived enjoyment, compatibility, usefulness, ease of use, and confirmation have positive influence on students’ satisfaction with blog use. Perceived enjoyment had the greatest influence on students’ satisfaction with blog use for learning. Perceived impact on learning was positively influenced by perceived ease of use, enjoyment, and satisfaction. Originality/value A limited amount of empirical research has focussed on students’ perceptions of satisfaction and perceived impact on learning through blog use in higher educational contexts. This study adds to the growing literature in this area of study.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations34
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Information and Learning TechnologySame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207