Testing the MUSIC Model of Motivation Theory: Relationships Between Students’ Perceptions, Engagement, and Overall Ratings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".