Exploring college students’ continuance learning intention in data analysis technology courses: the moderating role of self-efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In today's digital economy, data resources have gained strategic recognition. Enterprises view data analytic capabilities as a core organizational competitiveness. This study explored factors influencing college students' continuance learning intention in data analysis technology courses to inform the role of self-efficacy on the relationship between interactivity and continuance learning intention. Methods: The research model underpinning the study was based on the Stimulus-Organism-Response model and flow theory. The model was validated using SmartPLS. A total of 314 valid questionnaires were collected via the standard online survey approach. Results: Among internal factors, study results showed both cognitive interest and self-efficacy had significant positive effects on continuance learning intention. Also, cognitive interest had a significant positive effect on self-efficacy. Among external stimuli, content quality, software quality, and interactivity had significant positive effects on self-efficacy. Software quality did not have a significant effect on cognitive interest. Importantly, self-efficacy registered a significant moderating role on the relationship between interactivity and continuance learning intention.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".