Impact of Chatbots on Student Learning and Satisfaction in the Entrepreneurship Education Programme in Higher Education Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are many ways to learn how to be entrepreneurs and one of the powerful ways is to learn from successful entrepreneurs. However, it is difficult to reach and interview those entrepreneurs about their best practices in doing business in real lives. Chatbot technology can come into play in mimicking conversation of successful entrepreneurs and providing pre-programmed responses of their best practices drawn from interviews published in newspapers, books and articles. Therefore, this research aimed to examine the impact of chatbots in the form of successful entrepreneurs with 24 first-year graduate students, who enrolled in a master's degree of entrepreneurship education at Kasetsart university. Data analysis involved mean, standard deviation, frequency, percentage, and content analysis. The research findings showed that the developed chatbots were appropriate at a very high level (Mean= 4.75, S.D. = 0.22). The impact of chatbots was positive. Students perceived that their learning was better and their satisfaction was at a very high level (Mean = 4.65, S.D. = 0.44) with thoughts that chatbots were an interesting, innovative, and fun teaching way. This study indicated that chatbot technology positively impacted student learning and satisfaction. It can be implemented as a powerful tool to teach entrepreneurship in entrepreneurship education programmes in higher education context.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".