Instructional Supports for Motivation Trajectories in Introductory College Engineering
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
Students, instructors, and policy makers are in need of research-based recommendations for supporting students’ motivation to pursue STEM fields. The present study addressed this need by examining relations between perceived motivational supports, year-long trajectories of expectancy for success and three task values, and grades among students ( N = 1,021) in a large, gateway engineering course. Results indicated that students with higher motivation at the beginning of the year tended to perceive their class as more motivationally supportive. Controlling for relations between initial motivation and perceptions, perceived instructional supports for mastery goals, autonomy, and competence predicted more positive trajectories of all three task values. Conversely, higher perceived instructor performance goals negatively predicted grades and the slopes of self-efficacy and interest value. Results contribute key understanding about the interconnectedness of individual motivation and climate perceptions, while indicating the importance students place on certain motivationally supportive practices in promoting students’ STEM motivation trajectories.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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