MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409396854 · doi:10.70725/299236xthnry

The Factors That Make an Online Learning Experience Powerful: Their Roles and the Relationships Amongst Them

2021· article· en· W4409396854 on OpenAlexaff
Irameet Kaur, Steve Joordens

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal on e-learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyKnowledge managementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid surge of digitalization in the education sector has redefined the dynamics of the modern classroom. In a world that embraces convenience, online learning has established its own relevance and has been a subject of considerable interest to researchers worldwide. The majority of studies have focused upon factors that make or break the success of an online program. In the current paper we attempt to model these factors by analyzing the relationships and interplay among them. The methodology of Interpretive Structural Modelling was applied to identify the most critical factors and analyze how they interact to determine the quality of the learning experience. A directed graph model representing the interplay of these factors was developed to identify the strongest drivers called strategic variables, the workable factors called operational variables and the dependent factors which subsequently lead to the success of an online program. The results of this research can enable the practitioners to focus on the right variables at the right time for ensuring the success of an online program. For researchers, the findings provide a holistic platform to empirically explore the relationships between variables.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal on e-learningSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207