MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Testing the MUSIC Model of Motivation Theory: Relationships Between Students’ Perceptions, Engagement, and Overall Ratings

2019· article· en· W3003851590 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brett D. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCommunication in Education and Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPerceptionSocial psychologyPoint (geometry)Music educationMathematics educationApplied psychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purposes of this study were to investigate the extent to which students’ course perceptions of the components of the MUSIC Model of Motivation (Jones, 2009, 2018) were related to their engagement in college courses and their instructor and course ratings. Participants included 285 college students who completed questionnaires once or twice during a course. The self-report scales demonstrated high internal reliability. The findings indicate that students’ MUSIC perceptions (i.e., perceptions of empowerment, usefulness, success, interest, and caring) were significantly related to their effort in the course, both when the variables were assessed at the same time point and when their effort was assessed at a later time point. These findings provide empirical evidence for relationships proposed in the MUSIC Model of Motivation theory. Students’ MUSIC perceptions were also related to their instructor and course ratings, both when the variables were assessed at the same time point and when their instructor and course ratings were assessed at a later time point. These findings are important for instructors because students’ MUSIC perceptions can be linked directly to categories of motivational strategies that can be used by instructors as they design instruction.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.136 · 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.

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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicCommunication in Education and HealthcareFrench-language works237,207