Predicting the Persuasiveness of Influence Strategies From Student Online Learning Behaviour Using Machine Learning Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a dearth of knowledge on how persuasiveness of influence strategies affects students' behaviours when using online educational systems. Persuasiveness is a term used in describing a system's capability to motivate desired behaviour. Most existing approaches for assessing the persuasiveness of a system are based on subjective measures (questionnaires) which are static and do not allow for automatic measurement of systems persuasiveness at run-time. Being able to automatically predict a system's persuasiveness at run-time is essential for dynamic and continuous adaptation of the system to reflect each individual user's state. In this study, we investigate the links between persuasiveness of influence strategies and students' behaviour in an online educational system for a course. We implemented and tested Machine Learning (ML) classification models to determine whether persuasiveness had a significant impact on students' usage of a learning system. Our findings revealed that students learning data can be applied to predict the persuasiveness of different influence strategies. The implications are that by using machine learning classifiers powered with learning sessions data, online educational systems would be able to automatically adapt their persuasive strategies to improve students' engagement and learning.
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 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".