Contextual Factors Influencing University Students’ Choice of Mode of Study in a Multi-Mode Teaching Environment: A Thematic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the landscape of higher education has witnessed a significant shift towards diverse modes of study (Gilakjani, 2017;Munna & Kalam, 2021).Traditional face-to-face instruction is no longer the sole option for undergraduate students, as institutions now offer a range of alternatives such as online courses, and blended and hybrid models (Haleem et al., 2022).This expansion in the modes of study provides students with increased flexibility, access to resources, and opportunities for personalized learning experiences.However, the factors influencing students' choices among these various modes of study remain an area of interest and importance.This study aimed to explore the contextual factors influencing undergraduate students' choice of mode of study in a multi-mode teaching environment.It adopted a qualitative approach, employing semistructured interviews to gather in-depth and nuanced perspectives from a diverse sample of undergraduate students.Through this qualitative exploration, this study uncovered the underlying themes that align with the constructs of Rogers' (1995) Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) model, a well-established framework for understanding the adoption and diffusion of new ideas or technologies.The thematic analysis approach suggested by (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was chosen for this study, which led to the identification and interpretation of recurring patterns and themes within the interview transcripts.The six dominant themes that emerged from the analysis were examined in relation to the constructs of the decision-making unit and perceived characteristics of innovation of the DOI model.Overall, the study provides a nuanced understanding of the different contextual factors that influence students' decision-making process in choosing a particular mode of study in a multi-mode teaching environment.The findings have practical implications for educational institutions aiming to optimize their mode of study offerings and enhance student satisfaction and engagement.By understanding the contextual factors that influence students'
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".