Mitigating Information Overload: An Experiential Exercise Using Role-Play to Illustrate and Differentiate Theories of Motivation
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
Work motivation is a core component of many management courses. However, its effective teaching can be hampered by the fragmentation and seeming incoherence of the various theories of work motivation. To address this challenge, we describe an interactive role-play activity that induces students to synthesize, apply, and compare several theories of motivation. In the first part of the exercise, students work in small groups to prepare a role-play skit illustrating a specific theory of motivation. In the second part, groups present their role-play skits in front of the class, and the rest of the students try to determine which theories were performed. Next, the debriefing session encourages students to discuss, compare, and contrast the theories. Though the present exercise focuses on four theories—the hierarchy of needs, the two-factor theory, expectancy theory, and self-determination theory—the activity can be easily adapted to incorporate other models of motivation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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