Relationship Model among Learning Environment, Learning Motivation, and Self-Regulated Learning
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
This study applies social capital theory, motivation theory, and systems theories to examine the role of the learning environment and motivation in learning to encourage self-regulation in learning especially effort regulation. This study examines the relationship among learning environment (i.e., student cohesiveness, teacher support, involvement, investigation, task orientation, cooperation, and equity), learning motivation (i.e., learning goal orientation, task value, and self-efficacy), and self-regulated learning in effort regulation. This study also examines the mediating role of learning motivation on relation between learning environment and self-regulation in learning effort. Respondents were 307 students of undergraduate program on business, management, and economics in Yogyakarta and Bandung, Indonesia. Self-report questionnaires were administered to respondents during their regular class periods. Results revealed that students’ perception of learning environment on all dimensions were significantly related to learning motivation and self-regulation in effort regulation. Students’ perception of learning environment especially task orientation dimension was significantly influenced on three dimensions of learning motivation. The result of this study also indicated that learning goal orientation and self-efficacy are the mediating variables in the relationship model. These results supported many of the hypothesized relationships. Further explanations are discussed regarding both the expected and unexpected outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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