MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378906016 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v24i2.6895

Predicting Online Learning Success Based on Learners’ Perceptions: The Integration of the Information System Success Model and the Security Triangle Framework

2023· article· en· W4378906016 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmed Al-Azawei, Alharith A. Abdullah, Mahmood K. Mohammed, Zaid A. Abod

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOrganizational and Employee Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidentialityInformation securityStructural equation modelingVariety (cybernetics)Knowledge managementPerceptionHigher educationComputer scienceOnline learningSecurity awarenessMathematics educationPsychologyWorld Wide WebComputer securityPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although online learning has become ubiquitous worldwide, earlier research has neglected the relationship between its actual use and security concerns. Learners’ lack of security awareness while using learning technologies remains rarely studied. This paper integrates Delone and McLean’s information system success (D&M-ISS) model with the security triangle framework. Data from 2,451 higher education students at different universities and a wide variety of disciplines in Iraq were collected. In addition to the effectiveness of the D&M-ISS factors, the research findings based on the structural equation model suggest that the three constructs of the security triangle framework—namely, confidentiality, integrity, and availability—were significant predictors of students’ use of online learning. This research can thus help academic organizations understand factors that can lead to the successful implementation of online learning and learners’ security awareness.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicOrganizational and Employee PerformanceFrench-language works237,207