Factor Analysis on E-Learning Implementation in Mongolian Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the survey results on e-learning implementation, which covered 726 lecturers from Mongolian universities and colleges. The authors determined factors that influence e-learning course classification. We applied methods such as regression analysis and factor analysis. It revealed that institutional factors such as ownership, LMS, size, and personal factors such as age, gender, prior training, team, field of science, qualification, and locations influence the tendency to develop e-learning courses. The study is beneficial for policymakers and practitioners by broadening the understanding of institutional and personal factors influencing e-learning course development. Implications for practice and policy: 1) Mongolian higher education institutions primarily practice web-facilitated courses with few blended and online courses. 2) Institutional factors such as ownership, LMS, size, and personal factors such as age, gender, prior training, team, field of science, qualification, and locations influence the tendency to develop e-learning courses. 3) There is a strong need for faculty development as every third lecturer does not know about the learning theories and does not apply them to the e-learning course development. 4) The higher education management should address challenges faced by the faculty members. 72.65% of respondents raised environment and faculty development challenges.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".