Nurturing gerontology students’ intrinsic motivation to cocreate: The design of a powerful learning environment
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
Professionals such as gerontologists play an important role in the design, development and implementation of age-friendly services. and products, by using working methods and principles of co-creation. A Dutch undergraduate applied gerontology programme aims to train students in the why, how and what of co-creation. The degree to which students are intrinsically motivated to develop competencies depends on how their psychological needs are met. These needs are autonomy, an awareness of competence and a sense of relatedness, as described in the self-determination theory. To nurture the intrinsic motivation of the applied gerontology students, a realistic, powerful learning environment called the Living Lab Applied Gerontology was designed and implemented. The aim of this paper is to present the design of this powerful learning environment and to discuss its value for nurturing the students' intrinsic motivation for co-creation. Based on a focus group with eight students, we identify directions for further research and development of living labs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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