MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401038465 · doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1339815

Instructor enthusiasm in online lectures: how vocal enthusiasm impacts student engagement, learning, and memory

2024· article· en· W4401038465 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Marty-Dugas, Maya Rajasingham, Robert J. McHardy, Joe Kim, Daniel Smilek

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCommunication in Education and Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnthusiasmPsychologyMathematics educationComputer scienceMultimediaPedagogySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Across two studies we investigated the impact of instructor enthusiasm on student attentional engagement during an online undergraduate lecture, as well as their memory for lecture content and their motivation to watch additional lecture videos on the same topic (Study 2 only). In both studies participants were randomly assigned to watch a 22-min lecture, delivered with either high or low vocal enthusiasm by the instructor. Subjective ratings of instructor enthusiasm/energy confirmed that in both studies the manipulation of instructor enthusiasm was effective. More importantly, in both studies we found that students in the high enthusiasm condition were consistently more engaged over the course of the lecture compared to those in the low enthusiasm condition, and that overall, reports of engagement increased together with ratings of instructor enthusiasm. However, we found no evidence that instructor enthusiasm influenced quiz performance in either study. Nevertheless, Study 2 showed that those in the high enthusiasm condition were more motivated to watch the next lecture than those in the low enthusiasm condition. These findings make an important contribution to the study of online learning and indicate that instructor enthusiasm may be a viable strategy to increase student engagement and motivation in online courses.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in EducationSame topicCommunication in Education and HealthcareFrench-language works237,207