Exploring the Untapped: Student Perceptions and Participation in OSS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open Source Software (OSS) projects offer valuable opportunities to train the next generation of software engineers while benefiting projects and society as a whole. While research has extensively explored student participation in OSS and its use in software engineering education, student participation in OSS is still low, and the perspectives of students who have never contributed remain under-explored. This study aims to investigate the relationship between students' interest in contributing to OSS and their perceptions of barriers and motivational factors. We developed a theoretical model to understand the relationship between students' perceptions of OSS and their interest in contributing. We then surveyed students majoring in computer science and related fields (N=241). Using structural equation modeling techniques, we tested the model and found that intrinsic and internalized extrinsic motivations are positively associated with interest in contributing to OSS projects, while the impact of extrinsic motivation varies by gender. Comparatively, we found no significant relationship between barriers and interest in contributing. Students suggested several ways to make projects more attractive, including increasing awareness of the importance of OSS. Our findings can help communities better prepare to integrate students and encourage educators to enhance interest in OSS by linking participation to specific motivational factors.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".