The Role of Nature Cues and Nature Relatedness in Academic Motivation and Engagement
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
Nature exposure in the form of immersion in natural environments can benefit students in multiple ways. Across four studies, we examined whether nature exposure in the form of visual nature cues on instructional materials might increase academic motivation and engagement among university students. Visual nature cues were presented via PowerPoint backgrounds (Study 1), online Zoom lecture backgrounds (Study 2), and on the background of calendars people used to plan for an upcoming assignment or exam (Studies 3 and 4). In each study and an internal meta-analysis, we found no evidence that nature cues increased academic engagement or motivation compared to other background images. However, participants’ self-reported nature relatedness was linked to greater academic engagement and motivation in each study and the internal meta-analysis. The interaction between nature relatedness and nature exposure was not significant. We conclude that embedding visual nature cues in educational material is not sufficiently impactful to have an effect on academic motivation and that immersion and interaction with nature in a fuller sense may be necessary to reap motivational benefits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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