Modeling the Impact of Motivation Factors on Students’ Study Strategies and Performance Using Machine Learning
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
This research presents a proposed approach that could be applied in modeling students’ study strategies and performance in higher education. The research used key learning attributes, including intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, autonomy, relatedness, competence, and self-esteem in the modeling. Five machine learning models were implemented, trained, evaluated, and tested with data from 924 university students. The comparative analysis reveals that tree-based models, particularly random forest and decision trees, outperform other models, achieving a prediction accuracy of 94.9%. The models built in this research can be used in predicting student study strategies and performance and this can be applied in implementing targeted interventions for improving learning progress. The research findings emphasize the importance of incorporating strategies that address diverse motivation dimensions in online educational systems, as it increases student engagement and promotes continuous learning. The findings also highlight the potential for modeling these attributes collectively to personalize and adapt learning process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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