Modeling students’ intentions to learn data science: Using an extended theory of planned behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic and practitioner interest in data science has increased considerably. Yet scholarly understanding of what motivates students to learn data science is still limited. Drawing on the theory of planned behavior, we propose a research model to examine the determinants of behavioral intentions to learn data science. In the proposed research model, we also included constructs that are closely related to behavioral intentions. We used PLS-SEM to test the research hypotheses. The antecedents to behavioral intentions were found to explain 53% of variance in students’ behavioral intentions to learn data science. Among the constructs in the research model, the findings indicate that only attitude toward learning data science and perceived usefulness are positively related to behavioral intentions. The results also indicate that the influence of core constructs of the theory of planned behavior (e.g., subjective norm and perceived behavioral control) on behavioral intentions may not be as strong under certain circumstances. The findings contribute to an initial understanding of the drivers of students’ intentions to learn data science and open the door to new scholarship.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".