Learner Behaviour in a MOOC Practice-oriented Course: In Empirical Study Integrating TAM and TPB
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few practice-oriented courses are currently integrated into online learning platforms, such as OpenCourseWare, Khan Academy, and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). It is worthwhile to explore how learners respond to information technology and new teaching methods when practice-oriented course are placed online. Therefore, this study probes learner willingness to participate in a practice-oriented course distributed through a MOOC platform, investigating relationships among perceptions, behavioural intentions, and actual behaviour. The current research framework integrates the Technology Acceptance Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior as its core theoretical basis. Empirical data were collected through a cross-section survey. All participants were students of 2D Animation Production, with a total of 272 respondents. The questionnaire data used Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis. Results show: (a) attitude exerted the greatest influence on learners’ behavioural intention; (b) learners’ perceived behaviour control, subjective norm, and attitude, which directly and positively influence their behavioural intention; (c) behavioural intention exhibited dual mediation effects; (d) behavioural intention positively influenced actual behaviour in the C-TAM-TPB model, with a high level of overall model fit.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".