MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888439802 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v10n3p53

Classroom Goal Structure and Students’ Achievement Goal: A Study of Intrinsic Motivation of Secondary School Students in Nagaland

2018· article· en· W2888439802 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vinika Chophy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyIntrinsic motivationGoal theoryMediationGoal orientationPerceptionContext (archaeology)Affect (linguistics)Mathematics educationNeed for achievementSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research was to explore the mediating effects of promoting interaction between classroom goal structure and students’ intrinsic motivation. A conceptual model of the three variables was developed and tested using mediation analysis. Participants included 60 students of age group 12-14 of 8th grade of a private Higher Secondary School. The result of this study revealed that classroom environment affects the perception of the students about their achievement related behavior and outcomes. This further influences the intrinsic motivation of the students. However, the effect of classroom context on students’ motivation is not always mediated through promoting interaction. The findings of the present study do not support the results and suggestions of the previous researchers. Finding suggests that there is a need for a rigorous and systematic investigation on the link between classroom goal structure and students’ intrinsic motivation by identifying a mediating variable. Also, it may be mentioned that there is a need for taking into consideration both the teachers’ classroom and personal goal orientations that affect students’ perceptions as this may further influence their learning.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessFrench-language works237,207